REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Trump wants to eliminate Due Process

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Thursday, July 5, 2018 16:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 853
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, June 24, 2018 2:53 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:31 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:35 PM

REAVERFAN


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. Maybe you didn't learn that in Russia.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

Cite?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:38 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:44 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:49 PM

REAVERFAN



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

Are you intentionally misquoting the Supreme Court Opinion?

The Libtards managed to eek out a 5-4 decision. They specified rights for RESIDENT Aliens, those residing within our borders. These 2 cases, Zadvydas and Kim, were resulting from Criminal conduct AS Resident Aliens.
Try something more germane.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:58 PM

REAVERFAN


Yawn. So tired of your fascism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 4:02 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 5:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadvydas_v._Davis




SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 5:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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 ...





SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 5:33 PM

REAVERFAN


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.

Looks like I triggered the troll again! LOL! Poor little bitch.

I proved you a liar, handed you your ass again, and, like a fascist troll, you pretend you won something.

You always lose to me. You always have, and you always will, pussy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 5:34 PM

REAVERFAN


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 ...



This has WHAT to do with the topic at hand?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 6:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 6:39 PM

REAVERFAN


LOL! The "But... but... Obama!" fallacy, again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 6:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 9:11 PM

JJ


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.



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.

T

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 11:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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?




SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 11:07 PM

REAVERFAN


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?


No, you're just deflecting. We're talking about Trump wanting to eliminate due process.

I guess that's okey-dokey with you, which makes your whataboutism all the more pathetic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 11:11 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.



https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)

Detention or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion of Chinese aliens is valid.

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, but when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused.






SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 24, 2018 11:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"No, you're just deflecting. We're talking about Trump wanting to eliminate due process."

I'm discussing the TOPIC, which in part is the right to due process and Constitutional protections. How meaningful is that right in general?

If Obama deprives actual US citizens of due process and Constitutional protections, do you think it's a problem?




SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 3:28 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

What ruling was in 1896?
Other than ruling on punishment beyond deportation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 3:55 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

More lies?
Clark v. Martinez (and Benitez) clarified limited protections for a limited subsection of Immigrants (Immigrants can be Naturalized Citizens, Admitted Aliens, Inadmissible Aliens, Illegal Aliens, etc.). The ruling clearly stated the Court did NOT grant all Constitutional Rights to Inadmissible Aliens.
Clark v. Martinez also clarified that the Zadvydas ruling had not applied Due Process Right to Inadmissible Aliens.


Instead of your nonpertinent Judicial nonsense, try finding a ruling germane to the topic.
Due Process of Criminal Illegal Aliens.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 3:59 AM

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.

It would stand to reason, that if Trump, in his penchant for being right
irregardless of the law, that he would follow suit in other matters. Who
needs a judge when "I alone can fix it." This is the message that he is sending. Remember who we are dealing with here. A wanna-be dictator.


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 4:05 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Thank you RF........Jordon shoots, he scores!

That would be Game, Set and Match! Checkmate! Yahtzee!
As Vincent Gambini would say, "I got no more use for this guy!"


SGG


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 4:06 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


RF, once again.....Icing meet cake.


SGG


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 4:12 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


The answer, my Dear Watson, is elementary. It's in his tweet.
They went before a judge. He wants to bypass that little step.

And the barber says...................Next.


SGG


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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 4:19 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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




SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 4:58 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


Are you even trying to make sense?
What circumstances are you talking about?
If a person has intentionally committed the Federal Crime of Illegally Entering the country, then they are Illegally on American soil. Not a Resident Alien. Not an Admissible Alien. Not any category which is granted Constitutional Right of Due Process.
Or can you not read?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 6:55 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


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!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 7:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

-----------
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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:13 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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!"

You have already proven yourself stupid. Are you also illiterate as well as alliterate?
Your fellow Troll posted the 1896 reference. Kiki was merely edifying us with the details, thus correcting the delusional implication of your Troll buddy.

We do understand reading is hard for you, but try to keep up with the adults in the room, m'kay?


DOWN goes Geebers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:19 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

This is a far too reasonable, logical, and legal process for the Trolls to comprehend. They'll never agree with such a concept.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:39 AM

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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:46 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


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!



2017 recent enough for you?

Now that's a SIGNYM move if I ever saw one!

https://bit.ly/2MWfeDZ

Constitutional Rights of Aliens
While it is clear that United States citizens enjoy all constitutional rights, the question often arises as to whether a non-citizen or alien is entitled to the same constitutional rights. The courts have held that once an alien enters this country the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment protect them from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. These protections extend to an alien “whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory.”

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.



Yes, I'm paying attention to another one of your obvious and weak attempts at deflection.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/29/florida-immig
rant-coalition/do-undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig
/

Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?

As the Florida Legislature considers legislation to increase penalties for undocumented immigrants who have committed certain crimes, legislators and activists have pondered this question: What are the constitutional rights of these immigrants?

HB 83 would increase penalties for certain violent offenses -- including sexual battery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, murder, and the use of a destructive device such as a bomb -- if the defendant was in the country illegally. The bill still has several hurdles before it reaches Gov. Rick Scott’s desk.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dane Eagle, R-Cape Coral, argued at a March 27 House subcommittee hearing that the courts will ultimately have to rule on whether the legislation is constitutional.

Based on some court decisions, Eagle said it is "unclear if non-citizens can enjoy the same constitutional rights as citizens" although he said that everyone is entitled to constitutional protections for due process.

Francesca Menes, director of policy and advocacy for the Florida Immigrant Coalition, disagreed with Eagle.

"As an undocumented immigrant, you do have constitutional rights here in the United States," she said, "and that has been said over and over in the courts, that they do have constitutional rights."

We found that undocumented immigrants do have constitutional rights -- but not all of the rights of citizens. (We have previously fact-checked a claim about whether unlawful presence in the United States is not a crime, a claim we ruled Mostly True.)

Some rights, but not all

A spokeswoman for the Florida Immigrant Coalition pointed to an article by an author of immigration books about constitutional protections for undocumented immigrants.

We interviewed several legal scholars who agreed that undocumented immigrants have many constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, and if arrested, a right to a Miranda warning.

"There is no question that all persons in the United States including unauthorized migrants enjoy the protections of the Constitution," said Gabriel (Jack) Chin, law professor at University of California-Davis. "There is no debate about that among legal scholars."

The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment protects everyone from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law, Chin said.

There have been several court decisions dating back more than a century that outline the rights of undocumented immigrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas vs. Davis (2001) that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."

In a Texas case, Plyler vs. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that non-citizen children must get a free K-12 education.

But undocumented immigrants don’t share all of the rights held by citizens -- for example, they can’t vote in state and national elections.

And Fordham law professor Jennifer Gordon said that some undocumented immigrants get almost no due process in removal proceedings.

In 1996, Congress created expedited removal for undocumented immigrants without a hearing. Initially it only applied at the U.S. border. Then it was expanded to within 100 miles of a border for undocumented immigrants who had been in the country less than 14 days.

President Donald Trump announced in January that his administration will apply the program anywhere in the United States to undocumented immigrants present less than two years.

"In the past, the government has largely prevailed when such programs have been challenged," Gordon said. "However, the Trump administration is proposing to expand some of these programs to include many more undocumented immigrants; it remains to be seen if the expansion will be upheld."

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by June on whether undocumented immigrants in custody for deportation proceedings have a bond right to a hearing if their cases haven’t been dealt with in a timely manner. The ACLU filed the case on behalf of immigrants detained for more than six months.

While defendants in criminal proceedings have a Sixth Amendment right to a government-appointed attorney if they are poor, that right doesn’t extend to immigration court, where the violations are considered civil and not criminal, said Cornell law professor Stephen W. Yale-Loehr.

"Yes, immigrants do have constitutional rights, but those rights are not equal to U.S. citizens," he said. "They have due process rights, but when it comes to immigration court proceedings, those rights are often watered down by courts."

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, said that although undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights, the question with the Florida law is whether it "intrudes into the federal regulatory scheme."

When ruling on a case involving Arizona’s immigration law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can't enhance penalties for immigration violations but can ask for immigration status or ask the federal government to verify a suspect's status.

"Now, if the bill punishes criminal felonies, not immigration infractions, giving harsher punishments to illegal aliens, then I think it would be vulnerable to an equal protection challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment," Shapiro said.

Our ruling

Menes, speaking on behalf of the Florida Immigrant Coalition said, "As an undocumented immigrant, you do have constitutional rights here in the United States."

Undocumented immigrants have many constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and religion. But they don’t share all the constitutional rights of citizens.

For example, some undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings have not gotten due process in court, and they don’t have a right to a government-paid lawyer in immigration court.

We rate this claim Mostly True."

Try as you might you 're not going to win this by lying - you just aren't. Just like Trump's Muslim Ban, the Courts and the Rule of Law (look it up) will ferret out your BS and shut you and Trump down like Whack a mole. If you want better immigration, put the work in, work with both parties and come up with a Better Solution. Isn't that what your signature once said? What happened to that? Meaningless fluffery? Another Lie?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:51 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

So none of these Illegal Invaders are aware that it is Illegal to Illegally cross the Border?
Funny how not a single one of them on the TV clips seems to be unaware of this fact.
Why do we need more idiots in our country when there are valid and deserving Asylees in many overseas locations, suffering atrocities which make Mexican caravans look like a picnic?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:52 AM

JJ


These people are asylum seekers. Their only crime is not knowing how the process works. For that Sig and others think they should lose their children.

ignorantly quoting Legal stature you obviously don't even understand doesn't make that right. What it does is make you trolls.

T


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:53 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 10:08 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 10:26 AM

JJ


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.



And posting and posting and posting. It's a disease they have in common. When ignored they start fighting among themselves.

T


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 10:27 AM

JJ


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.



The studies are out there G. Polls as well.

T


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 11:02 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 11:13 AM

JJ


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.



I just heard 70% of Americans don't want to cut back on immigration, but do want laws and a system in place to stem the flow of those who cross into this country illegally. I too worry about what will happen with this when climate change really starts to have an effect on migrant flows. I too care about how our wishes on stemming the flow went ignored for decades. How our concerns were dismissed out of hand as our wages and job security suffered.

However, I don't want decisions made concerning this country made by bigots and racists.

T


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 11:18 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


Quote:

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



A good primer:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don’t-they-jus
t-get-line


Many Americans wonder why all immigrants do not just come to the United States legally or simply “get in line” if they are unauthorized. These suggestions miss the point: There is no line available for unauthorized immigrants and the “regular channels” do not include them.

No “line” is available for the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants.
Immigration to the United States on a temporary or permanent basis is generally limited to three different routes: employment, family reunification, or humanitarian protection. While the U.S. immigration system is generous, each of these possibilities is highly regulated and subject to numerical limitations and eligibility requirements. Most unauthorized immigrants do not have the necessary family or employment relationships and often cannot access humanitarian protection, such as refugee or asylum status.

Employment-based immigration requires a U.S. employer to request specific foreign workers.
To come to the United States for employment purposes—either temporarily or permanently—foreign workers must generally have a job lined up with an eligible employer who will sponsor them. An employer can request permission to bring in specific qualified foreign workers, but only if they meet the requirements, such as job skills and education level, and if the employer cannot find a qualified U.S. worker to take the job first. Most of the qualifying professions for permanent immigration require high levels of education and professional experience, such as scientists, professors, and multinational executives. There is a limited number of temporary visas for highly skilled or internationally recognized workers. There are also temporary, seasonal opportunities for agricultural workers and certain other “less skilled” workers. In most of these cases, an employer must petition for the worker.

Family-based immigration is limited to certain close family relationships and is numerically restricted.
Qualified family members in the United States can seek permission to bring in certain eligible foreign-born family members. U.S. citizens can petition for their spouses, parents, children, and siblings. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs, or “green card” holders) can petition for their spouses and unmarried children. There are always visas available for the spouses, parents, and minor children of U.S. citizens, but for all other family categories there are annual numerical limits. In all cases, the petitioning family member in the United States must demonstrate an income level above the poverty line and must commit to support the family member they are seeking to bring to the United States. The foreign-born persons wishing to immigrate must meet eligibility requirements as well.

Most people fleeing their home countries cannot access humanitarian protection.
Each year the United States sets a numerical limit on how many refugees will be admitted for humanitarian reasons. To be admitted as refugees, individuals must be screened by multiple international and U.S. agencies and prove that they have a “well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or national origin.” Asylum seekers are individuals already in the United States who fear returning to their home countries, and they must prove they meet the definition of a refugee. An immigrant does not qualify as a refugee or an asylee because of poverty or difficult economic conditions in their home country. There are limited forms of temporary humanitarian protection available, but these are rare.

Even those who can get in line are subject to long backlogs and waits.
The demand from both family members and workers who want to immigrate to the United States is typically higher than the number of slots available each year. In addition, there is a maximum number of employment-based and family-sponsored preference visas that can be issued to citizens of any one country in a single fiscal year. No country can receive more than seven percent of the visas available for the year. This results in significant backlogs for most family members and some workers hoping to enter the United States legally, with some immigrants from certain countries waiting decades.

As of May 2016, for most countries, unmarried children of U.S. citizens must wait more than five years and siblings of U.S. citizens must wait more than 10 years. People from countries with high levels of immigration to the United States—Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines—generally have longer waiting times. For example, married children of U.S. citizens from Mexico must wait more than 20 years for a visa to become available, and Filipino siblings of U.S. citizens currently wait about 25 years.

There is a limited lottery for certain countries.
If a person who wishes to immigrate to the United States does not qualify under the family, employment, or humanitarian systems, there may be one more legal path. The annual Diversity Visa program makes 55,000 green cards available to persons from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. People from Mexico, China, the Philippines, India, and other countries with higher levels of immigration to the United States are not eligible. To qualify, applicants must have a high school education and two years of job experience. Since millions of people around the world apply each year, the chances of obtaining a visa through the lottery are extremely low.

Conclusion
Unauthorized immigrants who want to regularize their status in this country cannot just “get in line.” There are lines, but a large number of aspiring immigrants are not eligible to be in any of them. Even if a prospective immigrant does meet the formal requirements to immigrate, the wait can be very long if she or he is applying from countries that are currently oversubscribed."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 12:34 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.

Fixed that for you.




SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 12:36 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Unauthorized immigrants who want to regularize their status in this country cannot just “get in line.” There are lines, but a large number of aspiring immigrants are not eligible to be in any of them."

So?

The US doesn't 'owe' immigration to anyone. No country does.




SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 12:37 PM

JJ


I would add to what you've posted G that the lines exist because we have rules. Rules we are entitled as a nation to establish.

T


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 3:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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
HOWEVER, You must be in the USA LEGALLY. These rules do NOT apply to illegal aliens.

Quote:

The problem is that these people are uneducated and don't know the process for filing.
The problem is that these people are desperate to get into the USA and don't want to pay attention to the rules for "immigrant visa". And the reason why they don't want to pay attention to those rules is because they know they probably wouldn't meet the restrictions.

However, they CAN apply for a "visitor visa" which allows them to stay 90 days in the USA, surely enough time to file for asylum or refugee status.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visi
tor.html

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/PDF-other/VisaFlyer_B1B2_Ma
rch_2015.pdf


*****

THUGR, you posted

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.-

I have specifically and repeatedly posted that I think that families should be kept together, and have also repeatedly posted how I think this could be done, legally, without tripping over any "illegal detention of minors" ruling. everybody here has probably read and understood at least ONE of those posts (except, apparently, you!) so THEY all know that you're posting a serious untruth.

It would be helpful if you responded to what people have actually posted instead of your opinion. That might avoid a lot of misunderstandings.


*****

What GSTRINg is implying is that we are - for some unfathomable reason - obligated to allow any number of entrants into the USA without any sort of limitations or even screening for criminal background.

I agree with KIKI- NO nation is obligated to take in migrants without restriction.

Now, IMHO, we have a MORAL obligation to take in migrants because we've interfered with/ fucked over so many nations south of our border that we can be reasonably thought of as having created or at least perpetuated SOME of the problems to our south. So my solution is to remove the moral obligation by simply LEAVING OTHER NATIONS THE FUCK ALONE. Let them sort our their problems themselves without us constantly propping up their juntas and oligarchies. That removes any moral obligation on our part.

Do you suppose we could get that that agreement, perhaps? that we should stop interfering with other nations' internal politics, and let them sort it for themselves?


-----------
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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 25, 2018 3:18 PM

REAVERFAN


Wow, no matter how egregious or outright evil Blumpy gets, he's got his trolls here to try to excuse his every blunder.


President Trump Regrets Order Ending Family Separations, Report Says
https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/president-trump-regrets-order-endi
ng-family-separations-report-says
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A thread for Democrats Only
Thu, July 19, 2018 14:41 - 1542 posts
The Corporation of the City of London
Thu, July 19, 2018 14:40 - 1 posts
This is Why Trump is a SCUMBAG!
Thu, July 19, 2018 14:07 - 483 posts
Something to feel good about
Thu, July 19, 2018 12:55 - 70 posts
Trump Is Destroying Everything He Touches
Thu, July 19, 2018 11:45 - 52 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Thu, July 19, 2018 11:43 - 696 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Thu, July 19, 2018 10:39 - 1182 posts
The Unemployment Rate Facts
Thu, July 19, 2018 09:13 - 175 posts
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Wed, July 18, 2018 18:02 - 545 posts
The Evidens
Wed, July 18, 2018 11:14 - 992 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Wed, July 18, 2018 09:30 - 185 posts
Trump-Putin summit July 14
Tue, July 17, 2018 20:32 - 24 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL