Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents...
8:02 AM - 24 Jun 2018
....Our Immigration policy, laughed at all over the world, is very unfair to all of those people who have gone through the system legally and are waiting on line for years! Immigration must be based on merit - we need people who will help to Make America Great Again!
8:08 AM - 24 Jun 2018
@libertybele .... The President continues to fight!
You mean he continues to Tweet. What is actually being done?I disagree with this criticism @dfwgator . The tweet is the modern day equivalent of using the bully pulpit. Ultimately he can only “do†what Congress puts on his desk to sign (and very narrowly focused EOs)...an area they have been woefully inadequate. He has tried to set the agenda but Congress sucks. Everyone here knows I am NO fan of Trump, and I hate when he puts his foot in his mouth via tweet and sets the agenda backwards...but i don’t think criticizing him for what he’s “done†is entirely viable.
You mean he continues to Tweet. What is actually being done?
You mean he continues to Tweet. What is actually being done?
You mean he continues to Tweet. What is actually being done?
In the past decade, twenty thousand US citizens we're wrongly deported.
This is why some sort of due process is necessary, not to protect illegals, but to protect US citizens.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens
In the past decade, twenty thousand US citizens we're wrongly deported.Due process could be done by either constructing a wall, the gentlest way to do it, by just sending them back this way(effectively a wall)or by bullets. All are justifiable when one protects one's home from invaders.
This is why some sort of due process is necessary, not to protect illegals, but to protect US citizens.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens
20,000 in ten years, vs. 12.5 MILLION illegals!!!
Due process could be done by either constructing a wall, the gentlest way to do it, by just sending them back this way(effectively a wall)or by bullets. All are justifiable when one protects one's home from invaders.
One US citizen wrongly deported is one too many. We can't and shouldn't sacrifice the liberty and rights of citizens. I believe a great man said something a while back about sacrificing liberty for security.
In the past decade, twenty thousand US citizens we're wrongly deported.Obama was in charge, most of that decade. Not Trump, who I trust will vow to do a better job of presering the rights and dignity of citizens.
This is why some sort of due process is necessary, not to protect illegals, but to protect US citizens.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens
In the past decade, twenty thousand US citizens we're wrongly deported.
This is why some sort of due process is necessary, not to protect illegals, but to protect US citizens.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deporting-its-own-citizens
Obama was in charge, most of that decade. Not Trump, who I trust will vow to do a better job of presering the rights and dignity of citizens.
That's right. And to determine asylum where warranted. That process affording due process is horribly broken. But Tump is straight out wrong to say it should be eliminated.
Fix it.
Asylum should only be if you come from a Communist country,like Cuba.
But on January 5 of this year, Palma was released after the government acknowledged that he was actually a US citizen. Though he legally entered the country from Mexico at the age of six, Palma is a citizen through his maternal grandfather, who was born in the US and lived there for many years. By law Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot detain or deport American citizens.
Not necessarily. But let's say that's so. How do you determine that without due process?
"Unless you have an unusually thorough immigration judge, which is very rare, or an attorney, you can be a US citizen and not even know you're a US citizen, and abandon claims to be in the United States," said Stevens, who is completing a book about the deportation of citizens. She spoke with Lorenzo while he was in detention, obtained his files from the government and helped his family get documentation to prove his citizenship. She then contacted attorney Andrew Free, who defended Palma in immigration court to have his case terminated on the grounds that he is a citizen.
One enters this country through a US Port of Entry and makes his or her case.
Run the border, get a ticket back home. Period.
One enters this country through a US Port of Entry and makes his or her case.
Run the border, get a ticket back home. Period.
And what of an American citizen caught on the wrong side of the border without papers?
Midnight Express...
Send him to pound me in the ass mexican prison for being a mule or a dumb ass. Doesn't mater.
Midnight Express...
Send him to pound me in the ass mexican prison for being a mule or a dumb ass. Doesn't mater.
Trump should ban all travel to Mexico. Cut off the tourist money. the "waders" dry up
And ban the Mexican soccer team from playing their games in the US.
And ban the Mexican soccer team from playing their games in the US.
In the past decade, twenty thousand US citizens we're wrongly deported.
This is why some sort of due process is necessary, not to protect illegals, but to protect US citizens.
One US citizen wrongly deported is one too many. We can't and shouldn't sacrifice the liberty and rights of citizens. I believe a great man said something a while back about sacrificing liberty for security.Taking that logic, you would never allow policemen to carry arms as one innocent citizen might get shot, or forbid the US from ever to go to war with another country because there may be 'friendly fire'.
Midnight Express...
Send him to pound me in the ass mexican prison for being a mule or a dumb ass. Doesn't mater.
Midnight Express...
Send him to pound me in the ass mexican prison for being a mule or a dumb ass. Doesn't mater.
One US citizen wrongly deported is one too many. We can't and shouldn't sacrifice the liberty and rights of citizens. I believe a great man said something a while back about sacrificing liberty for security.
And what of an American citizen caught on the wrong side of the border without papers?
Taking that logic, you would never allow policemen to carry arms as one innocent citizen might get shot, or forbid the US from ever to go to war with another country because there may be 'friendly fire'.
That logic will kill you.
And what of an American citizen caught on the wrong side of the border without papers?
Asylum should only be if you come from a Communist country,like Cuba.
They do what they do now: Go to a US Port of Entry, explain your circumstances and you'll be helped. Or, if you prefer visit the US Embassy in the country you're stuck in.
I don't understand why you're still pushing this nonsense. The answer remains the same. :shrug:
But the problem is we are taking it to the other extreme with removing due process.
[...]
That no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is one of the rights 'granted by our creator' for a reason.
The President is doing everything he can, including campaigning across the country. If memory serves, he's not a king. ^-^
The reason I ask is that unbeknownst to me, I have drifted over the border into Alberta more than once with no ID or papers of any sort... Didn't know any better... No notice, no sign... So you'd have the US Patrol kick me back to the Mounties, who will arrest me, haul me to their detention, and spend a week on court dates and bullshit... get my papers transferred up who knows how...
Seems like a whole bunch of bullcrap over nothing.
@Right_in_Virginia, has he provided a proposal, a bill that he is suggesting?
Not necessarily. But let's say that's so. How do you determine that without due process? A Cuban, showing up at the Texas border... How do you know him from any other without some means of due process?Well first of all they should know absolutely everything about 1950's cars.
Well first of all they should know absolutely everything about 1950's cars.
We are a nation of laws. If entering the country illegally is against the law then the Sixth Amendment guarantees them a public trial. If the President doesn't want a trial then remove the criminal aspect of illegal entry and then you're left with what are they being deported for?The US Constitution protects the citizens of this country.
No ... because this comes from our lazy ass Congress. The President has met several times with the Republican caucus but it's not up to a president to write the laws.
Or are you demanding an exception for this President? Or are you suggesting the President just use his pen? Which avenue would you like this President to take to satisfy you?
The President can propose a bill, and even send Congress a Presidential message urging its enactment into law, but he cannot introduce it. The President usually sends draft legislation to Congress with a letter or other explanatory material discussing his reasons for submitting the legislation. Sometimes the House will order a Presidential bill and its explanatory material to be printed as an official House Document.
I see.
I see that you see no other path. No wonder. Yet another false dichotomy.
LexisNexis, "The Legislative Process" (https://www.lexisnexis.com/help/cu/The_Legislative_Process/Stage_1.htm):
I know, I know...this President is different, and we can't expect him to do his job...all he has to do is tweet and everything's fine...
But the problem is we are taking it to the other extreme with removing due process. In your analogy, this would be like letting the cops fire on anyone no matter if they are deemed a threat.No one takes it to the other extreme other than you.
That no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is one of the rights 'granted by our creator' for a reason.
Plus, weren't we told that this President was a master negotiator and 'deal maker' who would be the only one to be able to negotiate with congress the bills we need?
Plus, weren't we told that this President was a master negotiator and 'deal maker' who would be the only one to be able to negotiate with congress the bills we need?
LOL! Point taken... But then, so do I... :shrug:Then you are an honorary Cuban, congratulations! You will now have all your wealth confiscated by the Cuban government for the good of all!
Repelling an invasion is not the same as dealing with someone who unknowingly and unintentionally happens to cross the border.
ISailed wrote:
"The US Constitution protects the citizens of this country.
We did not write it for Mexican citizens."
Absolutely correct.
I'm going to repeat the proposed Constitutional Amendment I posted earlier:
===================
This Constitution is intended to protect those who are citizens of the United States.
Those who are not citizens of the United States shall be accorded such protections only as assigned and determined by the Congress of The United States.
===================
This would limit the protections of the Constitution to citizens only.
Non-citizens would receive whatever portions of such protections and procedures as the Congress would specify.
This would work for me.
The US Constitution protects the citizens of this country.
We did not write it for Mexican citizens.
Explain how you interpret it otherwise.
Show me where the Constitution says it applies only to U.S. citizens.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
We did not write it for Mexican citizens.
Explain how you interpret it otherwise.
Ok.
Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads:
Now...your turn to answer the question @IsailedawayfromFR posed to you.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- - - - - - - - -
Note the specific language that goes beyond citizen to apply to any person within its jurisdiction.
All the more reason to enforce our border.
We are a nation of laws. If entering the country illegally is against the law then the Sixth Amendment guarantees them a public trial.
You missed the penultimate clause, regarding due process, which isn’t as limited as you state.
Only if they are being prosecuted criminally. If they're simply being returned from whence they came, the Constitution has nothing to do with whether or not they are entitled to a hearing or trial. They can simply be turned around and sent packing. Due process doesn't apply. In fact, we've done that pretty consistently for decades for illegals who are observed crossing the border illegally -- they don't get a hearing.
To put it differently, if you trespass onto restricted federal property, you can be removed from that property by force without a trial or hearing of any kind. It's only if they choose to prosecute you criminally that you get get a trial. But the right to remove you from that property is not contingent on a criminal prosecution, or even the existence of a criminal statute at all.
One thing to recognize is that if they have no legal right to be in this country, then they aren't being deprived of anything if they're being kicked out. So the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply at all.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- - - - - - - - -
Note the specific language that goes beyond citizen to apply to any person within its jurisdiction.
All the more reason to enforce our border.
Ok.
Section 1, Clause 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment, reads:
Now...your turn to answer the question @IsailedawayfromFR posed to you.
We did not write it for Mexican citizens.
Explain how you interpret it otherwise.
Exactly. And thank you for fleshing out my answer for me.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- - - - - - - - -
Note the specific language that goes beyond citizen to apply to any person within its jurisdiction.
All the more reason to enforce our border.
We're not talking about making them citizens. We're talking about whether the rule of law applies to foreigners as well as citizens. It does.
We wrote the Constitution for the United States. To provide, among other things, the framework for the rule of law and the administration of justice in this country. Citizen or foreigner, here legally or illegally, people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States all have rights protected by the Constitution.
But let's take your position. If the Constitution does not apply to illegal aliens then why arrest them and deport them? Why not just grab them and sell them into slavery on the nearest farm or slaughterhouse? The company gets cheap labor. That would certainly serve as a discouragement for future illegal crossings. Win/win, right?
Heck, I thought I was disagreeing with you.
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
If you throw someone out of the country, are you denying them liberty? Are they entitled to due process? Are they within our jurisdiction?
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Maybe we're missing what "due process" means in this case. If the law is that people crossing the border illegally are immediately turned around and sent back across the border, that may be defined as "due process".
@Sanguine
Liberals and open borders folks are using due process to delay the deportation process. They know that the large majority of illegals in this country won't reappear for a hearing if they are taken before the local judge in whatever municipality they are arrested in and given a notice to appear.
The Liberals want to use due process to bypass the long established immigration laws of our country in order to effect open borders.
They are abusing select sections of the Constitution in ways it was never intended to be used.
I understand, but how is "due process" defined? By laws, right?
No we're talking about people who enter this country illegally.
let's be truthful here. And they do NOT have due process rights.....
@Sanguine
Liberals and open borders folks are using due process to delay the deportation process. They know that the large majority of illegals in this country won't reappear for a hearing if they are taken before the local judge in whatever municipality they are arrested in and given a notice to appear.
The Liberals want to use due process to bypass the long established immigration laws of our country in order to effect open borders.
They are abusing select sections of the Constitution in ways it was never intended to be used.(http://i65.tinypic.com/2nbvyb9.jpg)
Is there is any significance in the fact the writers used the word and instead of the word or in the first sentence, which sets the context for the rest of the paragraph?
I hate to disagree with you, but in this case they do. For two reasons (outside the fact that this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court in Rasul vs. Bush (No. 03-334) & Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343))
Is that a liberty you are willing to sacrifice for what you believe is a bit of security?
I'm not willing to trade the Liberty or the Security of American citizens for those that purposely violate our borders and flout our immigration laws.
What you put in italics applies if the person isQuoteborn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
It doesn't apply to those that enter the country illegally...which is a violation of the long standing immigration laws of our country.
We're not talking about grabbing a citizen off the street and kicking them out. We're talking about people who in one form or fashion bypass legal ports of entry in to the U.S> and live work and operate within our borders illegally.
The ONLY jurisdiction they fall under is that of CBP and that means they are detained and deported.
Yes. Those are both requirements to be citizens. But the whole paragraph talks about more than just citizens. That is why they first used the word citizen for parts then switched to "any person" for other parts.
Yes it's in the Constitution. I posted the relevant Section and Clause a few posts back.
So with no due process, how do you know that who you are tossing are US citizens or not? Who makes that determination? Even with due process, 20 thousand US Citizens in the past decade have been incorrectly deported. How will you protect US citizens even more with fewer protections in place.
This isn't about 'bleeding heart liberals' (emotional term to manipulate discussion). This is about ensuring a Constitutional check on the power of the federal government. Civil Libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives would be in the same camp you describe as 'bleeding heart liberals'.
Yes, but it never made sense (to me) that they would start the paragraph by referring to clearly defined 'citizens', then restate the same idea in the same sentence but conscientiously expanding the term to refer to anyone who happened to by with our borders.
I understand, but how is "due process" defined? By laws, right?
If you throw someone out of the country, are you denying them liberty? Are they entitled to due process?
It doesn't apply to those that enter the country illegally...which is a violation of the long standing immigration laws of our country.
We're not talking about grabbing a citizen off the street and kicking them out. We're talking about people who in one form or fashion bypass legal ports of entry in to the U.S> and live work and operate within our borders illegally.
The ONLY jurisdiction they fall under is that of CBP and that means they are detained and deported.
No. The language is clear.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The separate use of "citizen" in one phrase and "any person" in another is not one and the same thing.
Citizens have more rights, privileges and immunities. But any person within our jurisdiction has the right to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the laws. Due process must be followed for any person. What that process is can be debated.
Your entire post is BS! All anyone has to do is get to a Port of Entry and they will get their due process IF they are entitled to any.
No. The language is clear.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Paragraphs are not limited to a single noun. They clearly use "citizen" for specific requirements and "any person" for others.
The first sentence defines who a "citizen" is. The following separates requirements for "citizens" and others for "any person". It distinguishes "any person" within the jurisdiction is not automatically a "citizen"".
Not if you toss them out at/near the border. Once they are in the interior of the country, they have due process rights not to be removed without some kind of hearing. Exactly what that hearing must be, though, is largely up to Congress.
@thackney show me how and where that applies to people who break our laws to get here.
As @Bigun pointed out all they have to do to get all of what you claim they have...is to enter via a legal port of entry.
But they don't. They come here illegally and violate our long standing immigration laws in order to gain access.
@txradioguy
And, although I am not a lawyer, I beleive that a sound legal argument can be made that anyone who does not enter the country via a Port of Entry is not in any legal sense in the country.
Or the writers, being highly educated men, were just at loath to compose sentences that were awkwardly redundant.
I'm half kidding. I'm not a scholar or attorney, so what do I know.
I'm going to agree they were highly educated men. I also believe they wrote "citizen" when they meant "citizen". And they wrote "any person" when they meant "any person".
As that amendment continues beyond the first paragraph, they continue to use both words for different requirements. Representation is based upon the number of persons. To be an elected federal official, you have to be a citizen.
@thackney show me how and where that applies to people who break our laws to get here.
As @Bigun pointed out all they have to do to get all of what you claim they have...is to enter via a legal port of entry.
But they don't. They come here illegally and violate our long standing immigration laws in order to gain access.
As I mentioned above with the Madison reference, at the time, many people in this country were not considered citizens and the laws for how one becomes a citizen and who were very arbitrary. Slaves weren't, Native Americans weren't. In some States, being of German descent or Spanish descent you weren't. In some States, Women weren't citizens. The State governments were not consistent who they considered citizens. If Constitutional protections applied only to Citizens, it would have been willy nilly chaos as to application of the law. They didn't have formal 'ports of entry' to know if you were a legal citizen. Hell, the people who were here for centuries before our nation was established weren't even considered citizens (they were the 'illegals' of the time) even though it was their land we were on.
I would hate to see a future where the government decides to just declare large swaths of the population 'non citizens' and strip them of Constitutional protections. You don't say a loyalty oath- bam, you aren't a citizen. You don't pay the proper tribute, bam, you aren't a citizen. You own a firearm and believe in the 2nd Amendment, bam, you aren't a citizen. You speak out against the government, bam, you aren't a citizen. Now, all you non-citizens have no Constitutional protections..
Don't say it won't happen because it has happened before.
Back at ya. Show me how and where criminals are not subject to due process. I believe when they wrote "any person" they meant "any person".
What I also believe this means, we really need to control our borders and not let free passage across them.
Agreed. I'm not in any way suggesting they get a free pass. Send them to the back of the line at the port of entry if they want in.
How do we handle actual citizens at the border? What happens if they don't have documentation? There has to be some process.
hate to be the one to break this to you but James Madison was LONG in his grave when the 14th amendment was written
I'm referencing the 5th Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
OK. So what the hell doe that have to do with stopping an illegal invader at the border and sending him back?
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
OK. So what the hell doe that have to do with stopping an illegal invader at the border and sending him back?
Actually as Andy McCarthy pointed out the other day...we're looking at all of this through the wrong lens. This isn't a legal crisis. The law always seems to be a step behind the next crisis on the horizon.
What we're dealing with here is a National Security crisis.
So instead of looking at this form a legal stand point...lets turn again to the Constitution
Right now we're dealing with a at times violent invasion of our Southern Border. And it needs to be handled swiftly and quickly and without all the legal back and forth about "due process".
Shut the border down...now
Worry about the legal wrangling AFTER we have the crisis under control.
Right now we're trying to assemble a jet plane while it's in flight.
Illegal invaders do not get due process since they are not here legally. And therefore are "not under the jurisdiction of".
So if we do consider this, by legal definition, an actual invasion, go to congress and have war declared.
Then all of this is moot. Civil liberties can be stripped and a 'shoot on sight' policy as some seem to want can be enacted.
Right now 'invasion' is a term we use in the civilian/internet sphere but is not legally recognized as such. Legally recognize it as such and declare war, then we won't be having this discussion.
The Constitution is not a suicide
pack.
Doesn't need to. Just put the military on the border. The Army Reserve is largely Combat Service and Support...MP's fall under that. Call up units like the 200th MP Command or the 333rd MP Brigade. They are still federally controlled and won't get pulled home at the political whim of a Liberal governor like we're seeing with the National Guard units.
Saturate the border with enough soldiers...CBP agents and state police units to prevent the current human wave invasion we have going on right now.
This isn't the Civil War.
That's because the left and the media are controlling the narrative. We have to reject their definition of what's going on. We have to quit dealing with this on the Liberals emotional level and deal with the cold hard facts of the situation.
We can have humanitarian sympathy for the plight of migrants fleeing dystopian societies while still recognizing that the United States government exists to protect the American people.
Call this what it is...an invasion of our Southern Border and secure the border and American Citizens accordingly.
No. You only have two means by which government has the right to act: Just Cause or Due Process. War or Law.
Which do you prefer?
NO. Military do not operate under law.
What you suggest is a war footing. That is suspension of law, and operations under ROE, and military tribunals. Not the same thing.
Neither. Because it's not an armed conflict war...
What we have is a security issue. Specifically the security of our Southern Border. The Federal Government has an obligation to secure the borders and protect the American Citizens before any consideration for any other person is made.
The problem for our side is we've bought into the Liberals emotional argument...and it's not allowing people to see this issue clearly and for what it really is.
If we don't have borders...if we don't enforce the laws on the books...the rest of this debate is meaningless.
No it's not. And what you're suggesting is moving into the silly. Especially since the Army Reserve has no actual combat troops...those got moved th the National Guard thanks to Billy Jeff.
And the call up authority of the Reserves isn't exclusive to times of war. They can also be called up in times of national emergency.
Wouldn't you agree that what's happening at the border is a national emergency?
They can also be called up to aid in counter drug operations. Hell the amount of drugs coming in during this flood of illegals is staggering...call what the MP's would be doing a counter drug op and be done with it.
But at the end of the day...the President can call up the Army Reserve without a declaration of war to aid in domestic situations.
And this is a situation where they are desperately needed.
There is no such condition. It is either/or. Either you operate under the law of the land, or it becomes a military corridor, under ROE, and Military Courts. One or the other.
I have bought into no such thing, and I largely agree with you (as I nearly always do), at least in spirit. But you cannot remove due process as a technical matter, without removing habeas corpus, which is by definition operating under the color of law.
The only other option is in fact military law. WAR.
I am fine with using reserves as reinforcements. but then they are operating within the law, and there must therefore be due process - That is the very basis of law. Their (military) jurisdiction is adjunct - operating under the authority of governor or county sheriff... both requiring due process.
Arguing with a Trump hater is a waste of time. They are fine with turning the USA into a third world
s**t hole as long as they can say "I told you so". Illegal invaders do not get due process since they
are not here legally. And therefore are "not under the jurisdiction of". Border patrol agents are
well train to tell the difference between a citizen and an illegal. The Constitution is not a suicide
pack.
Actually at the border they'd fall under the command and control of the CBP. Reserve soldiers...as opposed to the National Guard aren't under the Governor's authority. They are still federally controlled.
They can do everything but apprehend and not violate any restrictions on troops operating inside our borders.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I have disagreement with extending that border 100 miles inland. I can agree with that concept at the actual boarder, say the 60 foot Roosevelt Reservation, maybe something larger. Repelling invaders who try to cross away from official ports of entry is appropriate.
How do we then handle an actual US citizen that doesn't have documentation at that border?
1) Tell them not to lose their passport or I.D.
2) Question them, asked them submit information that would verify they're a U.S. citizen, etc..
I'm a ranch hand [...] hiking.
So, let's say I'm a ranch hand on some bordering land in Texas. I am 5 miles inland just hiking. I do not have my ID on me as I'm not doing any activity that requires an ID, such as driving. I am on private property, not on the Roosevelt Reservation line. I am stopped by a border patrol agent who sees me walking. I have no ID to give and as a civil libertarian, I choose to assert my 5th Amendment rights and not answer any questions (I don't lie, I simply don't answer).
Am I assume to be an illegal > detained and deported on the spot with no due process?
Yup. Buh-bye!
I have zero problem with that, too. Anyone who is enough of a dumbass to refuse to identify themselves and say "I'm a U.S. citizen" deserves deportation. Strengthen the gene pool in the Good 'Ol USA!
Alright. But then the argument is moot wrt due process - the apprehension is the point. the apprehension requires due process.
Military not having powers of arrest puts them in a strictly support mode. The arrest is the part we are discussing.
Yup. Buh-bye!
I have zero problem with that, too. Anyone who is enough of a dumbass to refuse to identify themselves and say "I'm a U.S. citizen" deserves deportation. Strengthen the gene pool in the Good 'Ol USA!
I would point out that under your logic, any illegal immigrant could refuse to say their name or identify themselves throughout the entire immigration process, and could not be deported because we couldn't prove they weren't a citizen. It would be creating the largest legal loophole in history.
Yup. Buh-bye!Agreed, see ya, bye.
What I also believe this means, we really need to control our borders and not let free passage across them.
And there we have it folks. With thunderous applause too I suspect.
Right but they can do everything up to that point to assist in securing the border. They have a lot of cool toys that can aid CBP in addition to air support and GSR capabilities.
And there we have it folks. With thunderous applause too I suspect.
1) Tell them not to lose their passport or I.D.
2) Question them, asked them submit information that would verify they're a U.S. citizen, etc..
Not if you toss them out at/near the border. Once they are in the interior of the country, they have due process rights not to be removed without some kind of hearing. Exactly what that hearing must be, though, is largely up to Congress.
I'm good with all that. Hell I am even good with a strict military corridor (well marked and well defined). It is the suspension of due process under the law that I am chewing on.
So, let's say I'm a ranch hand on some bordering land in Texas. I am 5 miles inland just hiking. I do not have my ID on me as I'm not doing any activity that requires an ID, such as driving. I am on private property, not on the Roosevelt Reservation line. I am stopped by a border patrol agent who sees me walking. I have no ID to give and as a civil libertarian, I choose to assert my 5th Amendment rights and not answer any questions (I don't lie, I simply don't answer).
Am I assume to be an illegal > detained and deported on the spot with no due process?
Great idea. I think it is a bad idea to wander near the border without a passport, but it is not illegal.
I see that and I'm trying to reassure you that you're chewing on it unnecessarily at this point.
Speaking from the other border, it is not unusual to be without papers in the deep woods.
my wallet and keys are hid near the truck when I walk off... Don't want to be losing that stuff days into the bush.
How do you address the second paragraph in his answer?
If the border was actually controlled, this gentleman wouldn't be a suspected illegal any more than someone in Kansas acting the same way.
Sure they will. Even in areas where we have some of the best security, illegals have already found ways around it and under it. An entire rail system was found bringing in illegals in San Diego- much deeper than the proposed wall. Even the famed 'Gaza wall' that we use as an example, is now plagued with tunnels under it.
Not to mention, only a fraction of illegals come across the border like that. Most arrive through standard channels- air, bus, car, and simply let visas expire or disappear into the system. Almost 70% of illegals who come here are visa over-stays and only a fraction of the rest physically 'walked' across the border.
If a wall popped up tomorrow, it would barely make a dent in the problem.
Sure they will. Even in areas where we have some of the best security, illegals have already found ways around it and under it. An entire rail system was found bringing in illegals in San Diego- much deeper than the proposed wall. Even the famed 'Gaza wall' that we use as an example, is now plagued with tunnels under it.
Not to mention, only a fraction of illegals come across the border like that. Most arrive through standard channels- air, bus, car, and simply let visas expire or disappear into the system. Almost 70% of illegals who come here are visa over-stays and only a fraction of the rest physically 'walked' across the border.
If a wall popped up tomorrow, it would barely make a dent in the problem.
Because that's already the case, not a 'could have'. You can't force someone to speak. You can't beat an answer out of them. They already can simply choose not to answer and yes, it is up to the government to prove they aren't a citizen before deporting them (although they constantly fail at that, even with the bureaucratic nightmare we have now).
The answer is not either extreme. We don't need months or years of courts and paperwork but we also don't need to just strip out rights and become exactly what we became a nation to get away from.
I don't think that's correct, @AbaraXas. I laid out the argument here: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,321602.msg1722572.html#msg1722572 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,321602.msg1722572.html#msg1722572)
There's also the issue of the number of illegal aliens in federal prison. I'll make that point when I have time to do so.
Sure they will. Even in areas where we have some of the best security, illegals have already found ways around it and under it. An entire rail system was found bringing in illegals in San Diego- much deeper than the proposed wall. Even the famed 'Gaza wall' that we use as an example, is now plagued with tunnels under it.
Not to mention, only a fraction of illegals come across the border like that. Most arrive through standard channels- air, bus, car, and simply let visas expire or disappear into the system. Almost 70% of illegals who come here are visa over-stays and only a fraction of the rest physically 'walked' across the border.
If a wall popped up tomorrow, it would barely make a dent in the problem.
The entire federal prison issue is probably a big topic for another thread. What do you do with an Illegal MS13 member, for example, in prison for murder? Depending on where you deport him, that may be akin to setting him free. He may also not be accepted back by the host country. That's going to be a complicated issue to address.
I guess the idea is that you might have to adapt to a busy border where people who shouldn't be are trying to cross all the time.
FYI - Big Bend is one of the most beautiful wilderness places in the world. It has been a fact for many years that there are areas you don't want to go, because they are drug and other smuggling corridors. Sad but true.
It seems your examples give reason the citizen on private property 5 miles from the border should not be treated differently than the one in Kansas.
QuoteI'm a ranch hand ... just hiking.That's funny, right there...
Funny indeed.
:beer:
In a similar line of thought, I recently was talking with a rodeo friend who was considering a gym membership. Not a lot of farmers and ranchers with gym memberships, even us part-time wanna-be's.
Here is a take by Johathan Adler who used to be (I would hope still is) extremely revered in Conservative and Constitutionalist circles (you will probably recognize his blog the Volokh Conspiracy blog). He is an extremely Conservative law professor who has led the charge against Obamacare (he argued King v. Burwell before SCOTUS).
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/25/a-quick-due-process-lesson-for-the-presi
I guess the question for me is 'what is due process?' It's always intimated as meaning 'in court' with hearings, trials and such, not just an ID check, proof of citizenship, etc.
I can go along with giving an opportunity to prove your citizenship to a Border Patrol officer, but a full blown court hearing for every person who comes across illegally and not at a port of entry, not so much.
I guess the question for me is 'what is due process?' It's always intimated as meaning 'in court' with hearings, trials and such, not just an ID check, proof of citizenship, etc.
I can go along with giving an opportunity to prove your citizenship to a Border Patrol officer, but a full blown court hearing for every person who comes across illegally and not at a port of entry, not so much.
And when he insulted Congress and made enemies, that it was just brilliant negotiating tactics.@Suppressed
@Suppressed
When Dictator Trump insulted McCain over and over, McCain used his vote to defeat legislation ending Obamacare. The McCain vote killed it. Moral of story: Don't insult people over and over and expect them to "love" you.
@Suppressed
When Dictator Trump insulted McCain over and over, McCain used his vote to defeat legislation ending Obamacare. The McCain vote killed it. Moral of story: Don't insult people over and over and expect them to "love" you.
I guess the question for me is 'what is due process?' It's always intimated as meaning 'in court' with hearings, trials and such, not just an ID check, proof of citizenship, etc.
I can go along with giving an opportunity to prove your citizenship to a Border Patrol officer, but a full blown court hearing for every person who comes across illegally and not at a port of entry, not so much.
I'd imagine Miranda and representation, as a minimum.
Now, that being said, perhaps an administrative immigration court could be formed, to take the weight off the civil courts... perhaps with reduced reach... something more along the lines for speedy processing...
Why Miranda?
And if they're entering illegally, They have the option of proving their citizenship or agree to turn around and go back across the border from whence they came.
You assume illegality. What if the detainee is indeed an American citizen? Or an undocumented natural born citizen? What if there is a legitimate claim for asylum?
If they are an American citizen then this is a non starter. There is no such thing in America these days as an "undocumented natural born citizen" unless you're raised by a pack of wolves in remote Alaska.
A legitimate claim for asylum need to go through the proper channels. The ones that have legitimate asylum claims DO go through the legal ports of entry.
Illegals coached by an attorney to automatically say "I need asylum" no matter what no matter when they are finally discovered do not have any interest in doing things the proper way.
Here is another reason: Suppose the perpetrator is a wanted felon? If you want prosecution to stick, you'd better damn well Miranda his ass and let him at a lawyer, right from the get-go...
That is a good point I didn't think of. What if it is a child sex trafficker bringing kids into the US? Do we just bounce him back to keep the cycle going or do we lock his ass up through the maximum legal authority we have, and stop the cycle? We may not know immediately what he is. That ever so tiny amount of due process would help ensure his case isn't tossed and he just gets a free bus ride home.
The moral of that story as presented: Don't put your GD petting ego above the welfare of the American family.@DCPatriot
@DCPatriot
After getting vile statements said about you over and over, broadcast across the whole nation, said defamed person is going to take the opportunity when presented, to take that person down and it be known across the whole nation just as terrible words about said person were heard across the nation. I believe the term is, "Payback is a bitch."
Those aren't what if's they are reality already and we can play that "what if" stuff all day long.
@DCPatriot
After getting vile statements said about you over and over, broadcast across the whole nation, said defamed person is going to take the opportunity when presented, to take that person down and it be known across the whole nation just as terrible words about said person were heard across the nation. I believe the term is, "Payback is a bitch."
No it's not. And what you're suggesting is moving into the silly. Especially since the Army Reserve has no actual combat troops...those got moved th the National Guard thanks to Billy Jeff. And the call up authority of the Reserves isn't exclusive to times of war. They can also be called up in times of national emergency. Wouldn't you agree that what's happening at the border is a national emergency? They can also be called up to aid in counter drug operations. Hell the amount of drugs coming in during this flood of illegals is staggering...call what the MP's would be doing a counter drug op and be done with it. But at the end of the day...the President can call up the Army Reserve without a declaration of war to aid in domestic situations.@txradioguy
And this is a situation where they are desperately needed.
But he didn't "take that person down....."@DCPatriot
He allied with the Democrats to maintain socialized medicine, 'bankrupting' countless households across the country.
You assume illegality. What if the detainee is indeed an American citizen? Or an undocumented natural born citizen? What if there is a legitimate claim for asylum?
All of these may well require representation, and as a matter of course, Miranda rights observe that eventuality.
@txradioguy
I think this is the only answer. These illegals are coming across the Rio Grand River which must be low now since even women and children have no difficulty crossing it. Line that river with National Guard units and don't let the illegals set foot on Texas soil. Don't let them out of the river. They will have to turn around and get back on Mexico soil. Others will see that happening and not get in the river. A wall at those easy places to cross, would help stop that behavior.
But he didn't "take that person down....."
He allied with the Democrats to maintain socialized medicine, 'bankrupting' countless households across the country.
If they're entering legally, then they have gone through a legitimate port of entry and are obligated to carry documentation of said entry and their identity with them at all times while in the States.
If they are an American citizen, they entered through the port, and showed proper documentation in order to be able to enter.
If they are an American citizen and didn't go through the port, then they entered illegally and they get arrested and go to jail.
If they don't have documentation, that is a sign that they entered illegally, citizen or not.
How exactly does that work for a Panamanian waif on the streets, whose mother and grandmother died together in an accident, and whose only other means is her father up in Oregon?
Sure she entered illegally, but that was all she could do. No one contested her natural born citizenship once her father was formally determined... But she had to be in Oregon and meet him directly for that to happen.
I only ask because it is a case I am familiar with.
And all that you've said does little for me when I step over an imaginary line somewhere in the northern Rockies... Then technically, I must go find a port of entry rather than merely stepping back over that imaginary line, or I too have entered illegally... Without papers.
But...
If President Trump is such a brilliant negotiator, he must have known that was coming if he'd behave the way he did (i.e., insult Senator McCain).
And despite knowing McCain would sink us, Trump behaved the way he did.
So Trump's need to insult someone is stronger than any care he feels for this country and the American people.
Unless Trump really isn't as good as he claimed.
Also, these people aren't being caught physically crossing the border, they just happen to be in the country and suspected of being here illegally. If they are a mile in, how do you know they are illegal, a hiker, or a vagrant?
How exactly does that work for a Panamanian waif on the streets, whose mother and grandmother died together in an accident, and whose only other means is her father up in Oregon?
Sure she entered illegally, but that was all she could do. No one contested her natural born citizenship once her father was formally determined... But she had to be in Oregon and meet him directly for that to happen.
I only ask because it is a case I am familiar with.
And all that you've said does little for me when I step over an imaginary line somewhere in the northern Rockies... Then technically, I must go find a port of entry rather than merely stepping back over that imaginary line, or I too have entered illegally... Without papers.
What do you mean that's all she can do? How about going to the American embassy in Panama and going through the process legally? Seriously, you think it makes more sense to travel to Mexico, enter illegally and hope all the legal issues sort of work out magically?
Going through the embassy means nothing until she actually can prove her sire. And she had no money to buy advocacy with. So, she had to do it the hard way.
My BIL's niece (hence my niece) is going through the same sort of thing. Her daddy made sure she was dual citizen (down in Costa Rica) so she could claim her rightful American heritage through him before he died... It has been a terrible and winding four-year slog for her regardless... One she could not even attempt without my BIL's sponsorship.
She is here, and when her citizenship is finally through, she will bring up her son (who she hasn't seen in those four long years), who is also by right, an American.
You make it sound like a piece of cake, but even if you have a legitimate claim, it is a hard row to hoe. For someone without income, the cost prohibits any movement forward.
No, I don't make it sound like a piece of cake; I hate dealing with the bureaucracy. Sorry, she should have done it legally. Her parents should have taken care of it so she wouldn't have had to.
If they're entering legally, then they have gone through a legitimate port of entry and are obligated to carry documentation of said entry and their identity with them at all times while in the States.
If they are an American citizen, they entered through the port, and showed proper documentation in order to be able to enter.
If they are an American citizen and didn't go through the port, then they entered illegally and they get arrested and go to jail.
If they don't have documentation, that is a sign that they entered illegally, citizen or not.