Federal Judge blocks Trump from deporting illegal alien gang members

212,332 Views | 2534 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Assassin
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Funny when Sam resorts to straight-up lying.
I simply dont understand his point. ACLU says that Obama did not give Due Process to 75% of the folks he deported. Why cant Trump give the criminal illegal aliens, members of terrorist groups, swift boot out the door?
That is what's so perverse about Trump's policy. There are plenty of ways to give them a swift boot out the door without violating the law or the rights of innocent people. Trump seems determined to act in the cruelest way possible and with the utmost disregard for the judiciary.
The cruelest ways? Is there a pleasant way to deport someone?

I mean, he's offering them a plane ticket and $1,000. That's pretty darn nice
More pleasant than CECOT? Most definitely.
Thats for the scumbags.
CECOT itself is an affront to human rights and should not be for anyone.

If you mean imprisonment is only for the scumbags, that's what due process is meant to ensure.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Funny when Sam resorts to straight-up lying.
I simply dont understand his point. ACLU says that Obama did not give Due Process to 75% of the folks he deported. Why cant Trump give the criminal illegal aliens, members of terrorist groups, swift boot out the door?
That is what's so perverse about Trump's policy. There are plenty of ways to give them a swift boot out the door without violating the law or the rights of innocent people. Trump seems determined to act in the cruelest way possible and with the utmost disregard for the judiciary.
The cruelest ways? Is there a pleasant way to deport someone?

I mean, he's offering them a plane ticket and $1,000. That's pretty darn nice
More pleasant than CECOT? Most definitely.
Thats for the scumbags.
CECOT itself is an affront to human rights and should not be for anyone.

If you mean imprisonment is only for the scumbags, that's what due process is meant to ensure.
CECOT is perfect for MS13 , Trenda and all the other terrorist gangs. As a matter of fact, make it nastier than it is. These are animals that can never be "domesticated" and returned to their own country. Make it soooo bad that NOBODY wants to go there. Hold it over the heads of young criminals everywhere
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're too soft Sam. Part of the reason that our judicial is so bad here. We coddle our criminals. We let them go on little to no bond despite having horrible records and crimes.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Funny when Sam resorts to straight-up lying.
I simply dont understand his point. ACLU says that Obama did not give Due Process to 75% of the folks he deported. Why cant Trump give the criminal illegal aliens, members of terrorist groups, swift boot out the door?
That is what's so perverse about Trump's policy. There are plenty of ways to give them a swift boot out the door without violating the law or the rights of innocent people. Trump seems determined to act in the cruelest way possible and with the utmost disregard for the judiciary.
The cruelest ways? Is there a pleasant way to deport someone?

I mean, he's offering them a plane ticket and $1,000. That's pretty darn nice
More pleasant than CECOT? Most definitely.
Thats for the scumbags.
CECOT itself is an affront to human rights and should not be for anyone.

If you mean imprisonment is only for the scumbags, that's what due process is meant to ensure.
CECOT is perfect for MS13 , Trenda and all the other terrorist gangs. As a matter of fact, make it nastier than it is. These are animals that can never be "domesticated" and returned to their own country. Make it soooo bad that NOBODY wants to go there. Hold it over the heads of young criminals everywhere
This isn't right, but if it were, it would be all the more reason to make sure innocent people don't go there. That means due process.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

You're too soft Sam. Part of the reason that our judicial is so bad here. We coddle our criminals. We let them go on little to no bond despite having horrible records and crimes.
There's a million miles of difference between denying bail and sending someone to a concentration camp.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Funny when Sam resorts to straight-up lying.
I simply dont understand his point. ACLU says that Obama did not give Due Process to 75% of the folks he deported. Why cant Trump give the criminal illegal aliens, members of terrorist groups, swift boot out the door?
That is what's so perverse about Trump's policy. There are plenty of ways to give them a swift boot out the door without violating the law or the rights of innocent people. Trump seems determined to act in the cruelest way possible and with the utmost disregard for the judiciary.
The cruelest ways? Is there a pleasant way to deport someone?

I mean, he's offering them a plane ticket and $1,000. That's pretty darn nice
More pleasant than CECOT? Most definitely.
Thats for the scumbags.
CECOT itself is an affront to human rights and should not be for anyone.

If you mean imprisonment is only for the scumbags, that's what due process is meant to ensure.
CECOT is perfect for MS13 , Trenda and all the other terrorist gangs. As a matter of fact, make it nastier than it is. These are animals that can never be "domesticated" and returned to their own country. Make it soooo bad that NOBODY wants to go there. Hold it over the heads of young criminals everywhere
This isn't right, but if it were, it would be all the more reason to make sure innocent people don't go there. That means due process.
1 person innocent may or may not have gone there, the Venezuelan. Certainly Garcia did, that guy was a total gangbanging scumbag. However 198 other scumbags deserved every bit of it. You would have stopped those 198, giving liberal judges all sorts of chances to put them back on the street, murdering, raping and maiming
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

You're too soft Sam. Part of the reason that our judicial is so bad here. We coddle our criminals. We let them go on little to no bond despite having horrible records and crimes.
There's a million miles of difference between denying bail and sending someone to a concentration camp.
Again, you're waaaay to soft. I think you have a very convoluted and twisted sense of the current judicial system protecting American citizens
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It sounds like your real problem is with the judiciary itself. I work with it and have a decent sense of it, certainly better than the apocalyptic scenario that Trump paints. It's not perfect, but it's not the enemy that he depicts. Whether you love him or hate him (and I do like many of his policies), you cannot fail to see that Trump is a classic demagogue. He's made his political career by playing up emotions and exaggerating fears. When even some of the most respected conservative judges and the most conservative jurisdictions go against him, it should tell you something.

But let's assume you're right and the judiciary really is as corrupt as Trump would have you believe. In that case his first order of business is to reform it. That's one of his unique powers and duties as president. Instead he'd rather you hand over unlimited power to the executive. That's the way of laziness, nihilism, and ultimately tyranny. "But but the foreigners" is the oldest excuse in the world.

By the way, I know you're worried that many of Trump's accomplishments will be undone by the next Democratic administration. Rest assured, they will be. What will never go away is the dangerous power that Trump will have vested in the executive. No president will ever want to give that up. You'll be stuck with Kamala or some other genius who has as much sympathy for conservatives and Christians as you have for Kilmar Garcia. Let's hope the courts are still there to help you.
gtownbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

They lied about Russia connections to impeach him once. The second time was for engaging in insurrection, so that one is on him. Ditto the election racketeering and theft of classified documents.

I sympathize with the plight of the middle class and worry about the national debt. I just question whether this degenerate is the right man to fix it.
If you are referring to the January 6th trouble at the Capital as the insurrection, that is complete nonsense and I could go on for an hour as to why. FBI contractors stoking the crowd, pictures of Capital Police waving folks into the Capital, an officer caning Ms. Boyland while she was motionless on the ground, Officer Byrd unbelievably shooting into a crowd and killing Ashli Babbitt and then hidden to answer ZERO questions about his actions, Pelosi refusing the offer by President Trump of thousands of National Guard troops BEFORE the event began and then never having to answer one question about her decisions that day. And President Trump clearly stating in his speech go peacefully to the Capital. Should I go on Sam? So many questions about that day and what did the public get? A January 6 Committee that was a staged production and kangaroo court to present a narrative Pelosi and the democrats wanted to convince the public was the truth. They did not allow any proper cross examinations as the panel was put in place by Pelosi including the Republicans. And their final act of treachery was to destroy all the tapes and evidence so they could not be prosecuted for their illegal behavior after the fact.

Sorry for the length but I will answer your charges. As to the election racketeering I am guessing you are referring to the Georgia charges which were totally bogus. I would have to refresh my memory unless you choose to remind me.

And I cannot believe you think President Trump did one thing wrong about the classified documents. He took documents he thought he was entitled to take as all President's do. Some radical overblown librarian at the National Archives decides on a whim that he must have taken something wrongly and gets the bureaucratic police wired up and then that bastion of decency and honor, the FBI, raids Mar-a-Lago with guns drawn while President Trump and his team are negotiating with appropriate individuals over the documents in question. Merrick Garland was such a loser and scumbag. Not one ounce of decency in the man. So the FBI takes pictures like there are many classified documents and the pictures were staged items that were not of real classified material. They set him up as they had done previously. Later we find out all the previous Presidents had gone through this type of discussions over documents and it was not a life or death situation. Bush had them, Pence had them. Oh, Sam lets don't leave out Joe Biden as he had classified documents from his days as Vice President, which is a crime by the way, and they were in three or four different locations including some in a tattered box in his messy garage along with his Corvette. Don't forget the Corvette as that is such a big deal to him. No Sam, Trump is innocent compared to all the others in your so called documents case! Nice try though.

As to the National Debt and middle class. When NAFTA was signed and other trade agreements, we transferred our manufacturing oversees and became a service economy. When that happened we decimated our towns and cities with factories that made things and the middle class along with it to a great degree. If you don't believe me go look at middle America towns in the rust belt before and after. What we did to our own people is nothing short of a sin in my book. So now after three or four decades we have a President with the courage to look past next week and attempt to reset our trade agreements so that we can once again make things in this country and re-establish our manufacturing base. He is using the available tools in his arsenal to do that, which happens to be tariffs. While he is catching hell from many quarters, he is actually accomplishing his goals as money is coming into the treasury and many trillions are being invested by companies to set up factories here in the United States. This of course employs Americans with good paying jobs, earning them income which they pay taxes on to increase money coming to the government in tax receipts. And inflation is going down, not up. This will lead I predict to an economic boom for years when he renegotiates all of these trade deals, which is our only way out of the national debt problem these politicians of both parties have put the country in.

Finally the left should stop lambasting Elon Musk and Trump for reorganizing government, for looking for all waste in every department of government because this is a good thing. Why should anyone want money wasted? You would not at home, so we should not in government either.

That, Sam, is my answer to your statement.
gtownbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this how the left cares for illegal immigrant children?

Biden Admin Sent DHS, HSI Fake Addresses for 300,000 Missing Migrant Children - RPWMedia
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

It sounds like your real problem is with the judiciary itself. I work with it and have a decent sense of it, certainly better than the apocalyptic scenario that Trump paints. It's not perfect, but it's not the enemy that he depicts. Whether you love him or hate him (and I do like many of his policies), you cannot fail to see that Trump is a classic demagogue. He's made his political career by playing up emotions and exaggerating fears. When even some of the most respected conservative judges and the most conservative jurisdictions go against him, it should tell you something.

But let's assume you're right and the judiciary really is as corrupt as Trump would have you believe. In that case his first order of business is to reform it. That's one of his unique powers and duties as president. Instead he'd rather you hand over unlimited power to the executive. That's the way of laziness, nihilism, and ultimately tyranny. "But but the foreigners" is the oldest excuse in the world.

By the way, I know you're worried that many of Trump's accomplishments will be undone by the next Democratic administration. Rest assured, they will be. What will never go away is the dangerous power that Trump will have vested in the executive. No president will ever want to give that up. You'll be stuck with Kamala or some other genius who has as much sympathy for conservatives and Christians as you have for Kilmar Garcia. Let's hope the courts are still there to help you.
This has been going on loooong before Trump, before Trump1 also. At least to Obama. Pretty hard to blame Obama for what George Soros has done worldwide. Unless we overthrow the globalists, the Open Society takes over and the world is screwed. Just look at the EU...
gtownbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like the Supreme Court is about to take up three consolidated cases surrounding birth right citizenship in a few days. Below is a legal argument against birth right citizenship for any interested.

https://thenewamerican.com/us/politics/constitution/the-myth-of-birthright-citizenship-a-constitutional-and-historical-refutation/

By the way all of you, friend and foe, be kind to your Mother's today if they are still with you. They are a blessing and you only have one. I lost mine fifteen years ago but carry the fond memories of her with me always. God Bless.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gtownbear said:

Looks like the Supreme Court is about to take up three consolidated cases surrounding birth right citizenship in a few days. Below is a legal argument against birth right citizenship for any interested.

https://thenewamerican.com/us/politics/constitution/the-myth-of-birthright-citizenship-a-constitutional-and-historical-refutation/

By the way all of you, friend and foe, be kind to your Mother's today if they are still with you. They are a blessing and you only have one. I lost mine fifteen years ago but carry the fond memories of her with me always. God Bless.

Sorry for your loss. May she rest in peace

My mom is still with us at 102. Sent her tulips earlier in the week. Still pretty sharp but her body is failing her
gtownbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good for you and your mom. And may God's Blessings be with you both always.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
He was denied entry, and deported. That's the way the system is supposed to work. We should applaud when they system works as intended.
Wrong again.
I agree. You are indeed wrong again.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know this is slightly off topic:



Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

Good post and thanks for posting.

A hypothetical: A policeman in NYC suspects an individual is illegally in the USA. There is no passport or other documentation. What does 'due process' look like for this individual?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gtownbear said:

Looks like the Supreme Court is about to take up three consolidated cases surrounding birth right citizenship in a few days. Below is a legal argument against birth right citizenship for any interested.

https://thenewamerican.com/us/politics/constitution/the-myth-of-birthright-citizenship-a-constitutional-and-historical-refutation/

Good discussion of birth right citizenship
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

Good post and thanks for posting.

A hypothetical: A policeman in NYC suspects an individual is illegally in the USA. There is no passport or other documentation. What does 'due process' look like for this individual?
I think it depends. Is he trying to sell you fentanyl or just cocaine?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

Good post and thanks for posting.

A hypothetical: A policeman in NYC suspects an individual is illegally in the USA. There is no passport or other documentation. What does 'due process' look like for this individual?
I think it depends. Is he trying to sell you fentanyl or just cocaine?
I am seriously concerned about what I think is a lack of due process for individuals taken into custody by LEO. IOW, I can be convinced by a serious argument.
You seem interested in quips, not serious discussion.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Oldbear83 said:

Funny when Sam resorts to straight-up lying.
I simply dont understand his point. ACLU says that Obama did not give Due Process to 75% of the folks he deported. Why cant Trump give the criminal illegal aliens, members of terrorist groups, swift boot out the door?
That is what's so perverse about Trump's policy. There are plenty of ways to give them a swift boot out the door without violating the law or the rights of innocent people. Trump seems determined to act in the cruelest way possible and with the utmost disregard for the judiciary.
The cruelest ways? Is there a pleasant way to deport someone?

I mean, he's offering them a plane ticket and $1,000. That's pretty darn nice
More pleasant than CECOT? Most definitely.
Thats for the scumbags. You know, the really illegal aliens. The rest should get a smooth-moving sidewalk back to their home countries, a plane ticket and a grand. What could be nicer? Certainly not cruel
Sam sees no distinctions between murderous gang bangers and common illegal aliens. Shewt, Sam likes those murderers better than the Americans they rape and murder.

gtownbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It makes logical sense that the President would be granted certain authorities as the one official elected by all of the people for situations that require speedy action. So some were granted to the President by Article II of our Constitution and others were given to the Executive Branch by Congress for certain specified situations. So by making certain declarations or decisions out of this authority does not make him a dictator who wishes to take over the entire country, but rather a responsible President trying to solve the problems of the country.

Think about the country having to make a quick decision about something; the Judiciary or Congress would not be the places for that type of quick action to occur for the most part.

So the argument boils down to this on deportation. President campaigned wholeheartedly on removing illegals from our country beginning with gang members and criminals. Surely we can all agree on that. Therefore, President Trump believes he is taking action according to the mandate of his past election to remove the gangbangers and criminal illegals through deportation.

But the lower courts are issuing injunctions to stop him from carrying out the deportations without hearings for all of those who request them being deported. So far the Supreme Court passed a ruling stating that President Trump cannot deport more criminal illegals until further instruction from the court.

So the question is who is right? I personally believe the Supreme Court made the wrong decision by not allowing President Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act to remove the gangbangers and criminal illegals as fast as possible. Will the question of deportation come before them again in one form or another. Most certainly. Others of course say the courts have acted properly.

The will of the people has to be considered in this somewhere and it is decidedly on the side to deport them quickly. Glad I am not on the side of defending the illegal criminals staying in this country. We'll see how it plays out.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.

Good post and thanks for posting.

A hypothetical: A policeman in NYC suspects an individual is illegally in the USA. There is no passport or other documentation. What does 'due process' look like for this individual?
only option for a municipal police officer would be to alert his/her suspicions to ICE. It taking the individual into custody for an offense, they can notify ICE of the arrest. It is that latter scenario where "sanctuary city" laws are an issue.....many urban PDs are prohibited from notifying or any other cooperation with ICE.

For the random illegal alien taken into custody, the scenario would normally be to be held until a deportation hearing before an immigration judge can occur. Most illegals in such a situation will choose voluntary departure, since a deportation is a permanent bar to reentry in the future for any reasons.

For members of TDA and other transnational organizations covered by the Alien Enemies Act declaration by Trump, there is no recourse other than to contest the XO itself, which can occur but cannot be a defense against deportation.

"defense against deportation" is the fulcrum which launched +20m illegal aliens seeking asylum. Illegal aliens apprehended were well coached to claim asylum if caught by ICE, as that would put deportation proceedings on hold while a designated refugee officer reviewed the claim. That is per se not the problem. Where the system broke down was that the number of illegals arriving to claim asylum swamped the processing capacity of a limited number of refugee officers. Asylum has a statutory cap of 125K per year. Not surprisingly, ICE budgeted enough asylum officers to process that number - 125K. Problem is, there were nearly 2x that number of people walking across the border per MONTH. So an asylum claim by a an illegal alien was a get out of jail card pending a hearing that could take up to 20 years to hear. (and since none of those claiming asylum were remotely qualified for it, most just never showed up for a hearing. They were already present in the USA with no real prospect of ever being found & deported, so why bother for a hearing they knew they would lose?)

Deportation is an adversarial legal proceeding, but deportees are not afforded a public defender if they cannot afford their own attorney. In reality, there is really little for them to litigate. If they crossed our border illegally and do not qualify for POLITICAL asylum, they are going home. Economic refugees are disbarred. Just being poor & hungry is no basis. Similarly, being poor & hungry in a crime ridden neighborhood is not a legal basis for asylum. And, of course, any non-citizen is subject to deportation via executive branch immigration courts, even on what can appear to be frivolous grounds, to include being old & sick. Law has a "public charge" prohibition. Someone with a valid visa can be refused entry or deported if they are deemed to be a burden on Medicare or Medicaid.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.


Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.
Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.
Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA
That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.
Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA
That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.
If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.
Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA
That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.
If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger
You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.
Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA
That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.
If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger
You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.
If slavery was legal, would you follow the law or be totally against it?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

KaiBear said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

gtownbear said:

They had to know they would be denied asylum in all probability and so they did not bother to show. Who wants individuals in this country who disregard laws from the moment they enter the country.
He literally bothered to show, was arrested on the spot, and was sent to a foreign prison camp. Remember, he's one of those immigrants who followed the rules...you know, the ones you were pretending to care about. You don't have anything to say?
Do you have anything to say about hundreds of thousands of children being sexually trafficked through our border?
Apparently I'm the only one who does.

If you actually care about punishing the wrongdoers and protecting the vulnerable, due process is the key. It's how you sort the guilty from the innocent.

Trump issues quotas and holds no one accountable for mistakes and abuses. That only encourages ICE to round up easy targets, people living with nothing to hide, not the real criminals. All while he seizes unprecedented "wartime" powers that would make you piss your pants if a Democrat did it.

It's all about emotion. Nothing else. Trump pushes your button, and you melt just like every quivering statist.
You obviously don't care or you'd support zero tolerance for coming into our border illegally.

All of them are criminals as defined by our own laws. They trespassed which is a crime. It doesn't matter for what reason, they are criminals because they illegally came into our country. If you disagree, then you disagree with the law.


Then a hearing would be a slam dunk for the State
Except for the part where they don't show up and we have no idea where they are.


So you "conservatives" trust the government to snatch up criminals and ship them overseas without a hearing? Not conservative

Millions were brought into the country without due process.......yet now you magically demand due process, one by one, in order to get rid of them.

How enlightened.


So, your trust in government surprises me. Isn't that different from your past posts?
As usual, your response has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Just forget it.


You trust big government to identify & deport whomever they arrest.
Why not a hearing before a magistrate?
the INA largely removes federal courts from the process of adjudicating status. Immigration judges are executive branch officials working under in the DOJ chain of command.

An applicant abroad seeking a visa does not get a hearing from a magistrate. He/she gets a determination from a executive branch official, a consular officer, who is given a "commission" by the POTUS. My was signed by Reagan. There is no review available for denial of an NIV request. Same is true for the immigration officer at a US Port of Entry. If they deny you entry, you are done. No appeal available. You are placed on the next flight back to whence you came. Immigration judges (who are executive branch officials) do not appear onto the scene until deportation occurs.

The reason an applicant standing on US soil at the visa window in a US POE can be returned home without review is because until the immigration officer at the POE puts an arrival stamp in the applicant's passport, that applicant is not within the jurisdiction of US courts.

That uncontested legal structure offers an easy remedy for illegal aliens apprehended anywhere. If they cannot produce documentation of their legal status, they can be taken to the nearest POE to present their case for entry to the immigration officials on duty, who upon determining they are clearly not eligible for entry into the USA will simply send them back across the border. Easy Peasy. Same for the AEA removals. If executive branch concludes an illegal alien is subject to the AEA, they can be removed directly.

Don't by the false dilemma being presented about Due process. Sure, anyone within the jurisdiction of the USA has due process rights for criminal prosecution. But deportation is not a criminal prosecution. It is an executive branch removal process for which originating statute sharply limits judiciary involvement. Indeed, it is far preferable to remove a criminal alien than to prosecute him. Prosecutions involve time and money, and if successful, years of time and money for incarceration. Far wiser to simply remove the illegal from the country. You have removed the problem at far, far less expense for the taxpayer. Nothing new there. Was taught such in the 1980s. and at that time such was uncontested common sense with millennia of precedence. Only in the social justice age has the lionization of illegal migration as both an economic necessity and a morally expiating act become a fad for elite society which bears none of the social costs of the ensuing policies.
Let's be clear about what's happening to these people. They haven't simply been shown the door. They are indefinitely imprisoned, in the constructive custody of the United States, in violation of the AEA's notice requirements, the INA's protections against political persecution and torture, and the unanimous ruling of multiple US courts, including the Supreme Court, that they are entitled to habeas review at the very least. This is not how the system is supposed to work.
Sam, the system is broken. Just think if you applied your law degree to fixing the system instead of supporting the broken and skewed one.
Just think if you applied your energy to fixing the system instead of breaking it further. Abandoning the rule of law isn't going to change the economic realities behind this issue. You're just going to have an immigration problem and a police state to go along with it.
Right now we have a police state that is determined to keep foreign criminals IN the USA
That is NOT what these judges are doing. They are following the law and seeing that the executive does the same.
If you applied your legal skills to fix the broken judicial system instead of teaching us how unjust the laws are today, maybe America would be that much stronger
You are the one telling us the laws are inadequate. I'm just saying we should follow them.
Dont you agree that we should be able to get rid of 10-15 million criminal illegal aliens?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gtownbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:


What the heck is wrong with these people? Don't know how we keep the country together with views this far apart. Isn't citizenship totally devalued when you allow anyone into the country and give them most of the rights afforded legal citizens. At that point we have no country; we only have a land mass where anyone can come and go as they please from anywhere. Someone needs to explain to me how this could work out over time.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.