Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
And now for something really different, no courts, no DUE PROCESS for immigrants.

Oh, I can't wait for the responses to this. Bring it!

SGG


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-deport-illegal-immigrants-
no-judges-court-cases-2018-6

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
And now for something really different, no courts, no DUE PROCESS for immigrants.

Oh, I can't wait for the responses to this. Bring it!

SGG


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-deport-illegal-immigrants-
no-judges-court-cases-2018-6

---

I wonder where "Due Process" is derived from.
In the original Constitution? Nope.
How about Amendments? There we go. Once in the Fifth Amendment, and then copied in the Fourteenth Amendment - which applies protections from State Governments as duplicates of the protections from Federal Government. Which is the protection afforded under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment is one of The Bill of Rights, which are afforded to CITIZENS of these United States.

Mexico is not one of the States mentioned.
Honduras is not one of the States.
Criminal interlopers are not U.S. Citizens.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
And now for something really different, no courts, no DUE PROCESS for immigrants.

Oh, I can't wait for the responses to this. Bring it!

SGG


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-deport-illegal-immigrants-
no-judges-court-cases-2018-6

---

I wonder where "Due Process" is derived from.
In the original Constitution? Nope.
How about Amendments? There we go. Once in the Fifth Amendment, and then copied in the Fourteenth Amendment - which applies protections from State Governments as duplicates of the protections from Federal Government. Which is the protection afforded under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment is one of The Bill of Rights, which are afforded to CITIZENS of these United States.

Mexico is not one of the States mentioned.
Honduras is not one of the States.
Criminal interlopers are not U.S. Citizens.

---

SCOTUS long ago decided that due process applies to non-citizens, too.

---

Quote:

---

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001):

"Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Quote:

---

Yawn. So tired of your fascism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Yawn. So tired of your fascism.

---

Got whooped again, pussy?
Must get tiresome to get your ass whooped every hour of every day, since you got out of prison. Pity your painful bung, unable to pucker.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
speaking of the constitution

Killing of Americans Deepens Debate Over Use of Drone Strikes - The ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../killing-of-americans-deepens-debate-over-p
roper-use-of-...
Apr 23, 2015 - WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Thursday that two American Qaeda operatives killed in Pakistan in January had not been ...

From torture to drone strikes: the disturbing legal legacy Obama is ...
https://www.vox.com/.../obama-farewell-speech-torture-drones-nsa-surve
illance-trum...
Jan 10, 2017 - Using drones to kill American citizens without trial, collecting the email and phone records of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and ...

Is the Government's Mass Surveillance of Americans Justified?
www.newsweek.com/governments-mass-surveillance-americans-justified-730
288
Dec 4, 2017 - As the New Year's deadline for reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) approaches, current and former ...

---

Quote:

---

The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the refugee) is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, you got me: Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens are entitled to "due process"? If you think they're entitled to some sort of "due process", WHAT process are they entitled to?

I would say that if they are prisoners they're entitled to having their basic human needs met: Food, water, shelter, sleep, sanitation, medical care, protection from harm. I suppose we look to the Geneva Convention on how they recommend treating prisoners of war for guidance on how to treat prisoners in general. There's nothing that says that they should have air conditioning or televisions or psychotherapy.

As far as "asylum" is concerned, I personally think that this is a concept that was stretched FAR beyond its original intent, and DOES NOT include victims of gang violence or domestic violence.

Quote:

---

The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the refugee) is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum

However, each nation crafts its own policy on asylum-seekers.

Personally, I think we should keep recognizing and accepting asylum seekers, but stop being cynical and manipulative (like Obama was) and restrict asylum to people who meet the original definition. This would probably exclude 95+% of people currently asking for asylum today.

I return, once again, to FIRST, DO NO HARM. If we stop making other nations such hellholes (by violating a lot MORE rights than those due migrants, starting with right to life) then we won't have such a migrant problem to begin with.


A number of years ago, on this board, I committed to listing every single American "intervention" in foreign nations since about 1900. The list, as I recall, was 70+ long. It was quite an education for me, and disheartening in the extreme. I'll see if I can find those posts, I think it would be an eye-opener.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001):

"Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
speaking of the constitution

Killing of Americans Deepens Debate Over Use of Drone Strikes - The ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../killing-of-americans-deepens-debate-over-p
roper-use-of-...
Apr 23, 2015 - WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Thursday that two American Qaeda operatives killed in Pakistan in January had not been ...

From torture to drone strikes: the disturbing legal legacy Obama is ...
https://www.vox.com/.../obama-farewell-speech-torture-drones-nsa-surve
illance-trum...
Jan 10, 2017 - Using drones to kill American citizens without trial, collecting the email and phone records of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and ...

Is the Government's Mass Surveillance of Americans Justified?
www.newsweek.com/governments-mass-surveillance-americans-justified-730
288
Dec 4, 2017 - As the New Year's deadline for reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) approaches, current and former ...

Quote:

---

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
This has WHAT to do with the topic at hand?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
speaking of the constitution

Killing of Americans Deepens Debate Over Use of Drone Strikes - The ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../killing-of-americans-deepens-debate-over-p
roper-use-of-...
Apr 23, 2015 - WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Thursday that two American Qaeda operatives killed in Pakistan in January had not been ...

From torture to drone strikes: the disturbing legal legacy Obama is ...
https://www.vox.com/.../obama-farewell-speech-torture-drones-nsa-surve
illance-trum...
Jan 10, 2017 - Using drones to kill American citizens without trial, collecting the email and phone records of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and ...

Is the Government's Mass Surveillance of Americans Justified?
www.newsweek.com/governments-mass-surveillance-americans-justified-730
288
Dec 4, 2017 - As the New Year's deadline for reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) approaches, current and former ...

Quote:

---

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
This has WHAT to do with the topic at hand?

---

You mean the topic about how terrible it is when a president shreds the Constitution?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights.

---

Quote:

---

As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights.

---

Quote:

---

Don’t forget Clark v. Martinez (2005), where Scalia, of all justices, wrote the opinion and reiterated the right to immigrant due process in a 7-2 decision.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
And now for something really different, no courts, no DUE PROCESS for immigrants.

Oh, I can't wait for the responses to this. Bring it!

SGG


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-deport-illegal-immigrants-
no-judges-court-cases-2018-6

---

I wonder where "Due Process" is derived from.
In the original Constitution? Nope.
How about Amendments? There we go. Once in the Fifth Amendment, and then copied in the Fourteenth Amendment - which applies protections from State Governments as duplicates of the protections from Federal Government. Which is the protection afforded under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment is one of The Bill of Rights, which are afforded to CITIZENS of these United States.

Mexico is not one of the States mentioned.
Honduras is not one of the States.
Criminal interlopers are not U.S. Citizens.


SGG has been on quite the rant lately. Except every post he has in his delusional rant he makes a new thread. Some people really should stay on their meds.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001):

"Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Don’t forget Clark v. Martinez (2005), where Scalia, of all justices, wrote the opinion and reiterated the right to immigrant due process in a 7-2 decision.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, you got me: Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens are entitled to "due process"? If you think they're entitled to some sort of "due process", WHAT process are they entitled to?

I would say that if they are prisoners they're entitled to having their basic human needs met: Food, water, shelter, sleep, sanitation, medical care, protection from harm. I suppose we look to the Geneva Convention on how they recommend treating prisoners of war for guidance on how to treat prisoners in general. There's nothing that says that they should have air conditioning or televisions or psychotherapy.

As far as "asylum" is concerned, I personally think that this is a concept that was stretched FAR beyond its original intent, and DOES NOT include victims of gang violence or domestic violence.

Quote:

---

The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the refugee) is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum

However, each nation crafts its own policy on asylum-seekers.

Personally, I think we should keep recognizing and accepting asylum seekers, but stop being cynical and manipulative (like Obama was) and restrict asylum to people who meet the original definition. This would probably exclude 95+% of people currently asking for asylum today.

I return, once again, to FIRST, DO NO HARM. If we stop making other nations such hellholes (by violating a lot MORE rights than those due migrants, starting with right to life) then we won't have such a migrant problem to begin with.


A number of years ago, on this board, I committed to listing every single American "intervention" in foreign nations since about 1900. The list, as I recall, was 70+ long. It was quite an education for me, and disheartening in the extreme. I'll see if I can find those posts, I think it would be an eye-opener.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Good well thought out points. No meds for me thank you very much.

Back to the topic at hand. Here's the thing, just like the Asylum thing:
which requires the subject to be on American soil for it to take affect;
so too is the Due Process aspect of the Constitution.

Were I to be arguing the case, I would bring that very thing up. We are on American soil, 2. We are applying American law (hence the misdemeanor: illegal entry into the US), ergo the above applications would also trigger due process.

SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
And now for something really different, no courts, no DUE PROCESS for immigrants.

Oh, I can't wait for the responses to this. Bring it!

SGG


http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-deport-illegal-immigrants-
no-judges-court-cases-2018-6

---

I wonder where "Due Process" is derived from.
In the original Constitution? Nope.
How about Amendments? There we go. Once in the Fifth Amendment, and then copied in the Fourteenth Amendment - which applies protections from State Governments as duplicates of the protections from Federal Government. Which is the protection afforded under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment is one of The Bill of Rights, which are afforded to CITIZENS of these United States.

Mexico is not one of the States mentioned.
Honduras is not one of the States.
Criminal interlopers are not U.S. Citizens.


SGG has been on quite the rant lately. Except every post he has in his delusional rant he makes a new thread. Some people really should stay on their meds.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html

Wong Wing v. United States

The United States can forbid aliens from coming within their borders, and expel them from their territory, and can devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting such persons upon executive or subordinate officials

---

Quote:

---

Good god, Kiki has to go back to 1896 to find anything remotely relevant

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html

Wong Wing v. United States

The United States can forbid aliens from coming within their borders, and expel them from their territory, and can devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting such persons upon executive or subordinate officials

---

Good god, Kiki has to go back to 1896 to find anything remotely relevant, and then it's about Chinese immigrants in a totally different situation. Hoping no one will check? Just like Trump, these foot soldiers will stoop to anything - gore porn, obvious lying, misdirection, deflection, Obama/Clinton. The panic they must feel - how embarrassing.

Argued April 1-2, 1896
Decided May 18, 1896

"Down goes Frazier!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Good god, Kiki has to go back to 1896 to find anything remotely relevant

---

Good god, GSTRING can't seem to find up any later relevant rulings and resorts to ... what is that again? ... oh yes ... trolling. Now THAT'S a desperation move if I ever saw one!

As far as I can tell (GSTRING's lies by insinuation notwithstanding) there is no CONSTITUTIONAL "process" that is "due" illegal aliens. So let's just move past that point (GSTRING, are you paying attention?) and on to international law.

The only "due process" that I can tell that refers to illegal aliens is international law. Now, I ASSUME .... but I need to look this up .... that the USA has signed on to the two relevant international (UN) laws regarding asylum.

But I guess here's the thing: Don't we have a process for people requesting asylum? Does it involve illegal entry? If not, then legally-speaking, I presume that the USA would be well within its rights to deport illegal entrants, and THEN make them get in line for an asylum request.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Good god, Kiki has to go back to 1896 to find anything remotely relevant

---

Good god, GSTRING can't seem to find up any later relevant rulings and resorts to ... what is that again? ... oh yes ... trolling. Now THAT'S a desperation move if I ever saw one!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as I can tell (GSTRING's lies by insinuation notwithstanding) there is no CONSTITUTIONAL "process" that is "due" illegal aliens. So let's just move past that point (GSTRING, are you paying attention?) and on to international law.

---

Quote:

---

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried.

The problem is that these people are uneducated and don't know the process for filing. So, they come to see if they can and are treated as though they are criminals. Lets remember, the coyotes lie to them where they come from to get them go and then get their money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried.

The problem is that these people are uneducated and don't know the process for filing. So, when they come they are treated as though they are criminals. Lets remember, the coyotes lie to them where they come from to get them go and then get their money.

What sig, jsf, jack and kiki support are taking their children, kicking them out, and then eventually kicking out the children who may never see their families again. That is despicable.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
We already proved the trolls wrong, chapter and verse, early on in the first few posts.

I guess they get paid by the post. Or maybe by the hour, because they keep posting long after they've been proven wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:
If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried.

The problem is that these people are uneducated and don't know the process for filing. So, when they come they are treated as though they are criminals. Lets remember, the coyotes lie to them where they come from to get them go and then get their money.

What sig, jsf, jack and kiki support are taking their children, kicking them out, and then eventually kicking out the children who may never see their families again. That is despicable.

T

---

In a nutshell, yes. Trying to understand from an immigrant pov - legal or otherwise - is impossible for these people.
I would appreciate it if a study/studies could be done as bipartisan as possible (if that's possible) to estimate the number of immigrants this country wants and can handle. I'd like to find out why filing for legal immigration is so hard or ignored by so many. I know the Trumpians will have a simple opinion, "cuz they're lazy scum!" I'm betting there are deeper, better answers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:

The studies are out there G. Polls as well.

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:

The studies are out there G. Polls as well.

T

---

I will look them up when I get time, thanks T!

Math can be manipulated of course, but it also can be a better, less emotional judge, a better guide than trying to be rational in the hyper political landscape we're in. We're just flailing about arguing over pieces without a comprehensive overall strategy. I think we'd all prefer Legal Immigration to be the rule, but we're divided on what exactly that means, and how to roll that out and respect it. As well as the basic concept of: who do we want to be, based on those choices? If we don't want "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" to be true, then we need to put a blanket over the statue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JJ:The studies are out there G. Polls as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THUGGER:
Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEBERS:
Good god, Kiki THUGGER has to go back to 1896 to find anything remotely relevant, and then it's about Chinese immigrants in a totally different situation. Hoping no one will check? Just like Trump, these foot soldiers will stoop to anything - gore porn, obvious lying, misdirection, deflection, Obama/Clinton. The panic they must feel - how embarrassing.

---

Quote:

---

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival

---

Quote:

---

The problem is that these people are uneducated and don't know the process for filing.

---

Quote:

---

These people are asylum seekers.[No, they are not. They would never meet the definition of political asylees. But, be that as it may ...SIGNY] Their only crime is not knowing how the process works. For that Sig and others think they should lose their children.

What sig, jsf, jack and kiki support are taking their children, kicking them out, and then eventually kicking out the children who may never see their families again.-

---