We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents...— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2018
June 24, 2018
"Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights."
That's how the NYT puts it, looking at this tweet:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
284 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 284 of 284Matthew 25:35 ESV
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.
For I was hungry and you forced your neighbor to give me food, I was thirsty and told your neighbor to give me a drink, I was stranger and you forced your neighbor to open his home.
--- Liberal Scripture
Chuck said...
No, Khesanh 0802; while it is true that many due process rights are legally not afforded to foreign aliens, there are a couple of things that trigger rights to a hearing.
One is an alien’s presence on U.S. soil.
*********************************
Thought experiment:
The leftist Mexican president arranges for a thousand Mexicans a day to storm our border.
Do we owe those thousands "due process" rights?
"As usual, I am talking about Trump's stupid messaging."
As usual, Trump's not Tweeting to you. He's Tweeting to the average Americans that most politicians, lawyers, and media types think are too stupid to engage in policy discussions for reasons like "they don't understand asylum law".
Trump knows what the people with advanced degrees don't, that the people are the source of power under the Constitution, and they've been undervalued and belittled for far too long.
He's asking them what kind of America they'd like, and reminding them that they get to choose.
"So in theory, every child in Mexico, every single one, could walk to the border crossing and articulate a fear of physical endangerment if they are returned. We would be forced to keep them because 'law.'"
No. If they do not enter American territory or come under US authority, they have no due process rights. If they do enter American territory, due process rights apply. This doesn't mean we have to keep them here forever. After the appropriate legal procedures, if found justified by the facts, we can deport them...as Obama did in great numbers.
And it's not because of the law, it's because of the Constitution.
"Do we owe those thousands "due process" rights?"
Law school answer: under the court rulings of X, Y, and Z..
Truck driver answer: are you bleeping kidding?
That's what's wrong wiht the country, too many lawyers in charge who can't think beyond law school answers.
It took months for my family to be approved for entry as temporary residents in New Zealand despite the fact that we were financially self-sufficient and no threat to NZ workers.
No country has the kind of immigration policies Democrats, their pet judges and their sanctuary cities are trying to force on Americans.
"This doesn't mean we have to keep them here forever."
Entertain us: How long do we have to keep the entire population of Mexico?
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Anyone have a sight to read about Mueller punting on the Russian indictments. That seems to be a huge story if true.
Alas, it's WaPo, so it's paywalled, but: https://outline.com/eMM7Kv
"A handful of new federal prosecutors have joined one of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s cases — an indication that he is preparing to hand off at least one prosecution to others when his office completes its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In a pair of court filings Friday, the special counsel added four assistant U.S. attorneys to the case against Russian entities and people accused of running an online influence operation targeting American voters.
People familiar with the staffing decision said the new prosecutors are not joining Mueller’s team, but rather are being added to the case so that they could someday take responsibility for it when the special counsel ceases operation. The case those prosecutors are joining could drag on for years because the indictment charges a number of Russians who will probably never see the inside of a U.S. courtroom. Russia does not extradite its citizens.
The development suggests Mueller is contemplating the end of his work and farming out any potentially outstanding prosecutions to other parts of the Justice Department.
The case stems from a February indictment against 13 people and three companies accused of a long-running scheme to criminally interfere with the election."
It does seem a bit odd that he's turning over a big chunk of his original mandate back to the DOJ, but then, the DOJ was supposed to be conflicted because they were dealing with their own boss, Trump, and also Sessions. This reads like a confession that Trump had nothing to do with these cases.
That leaves them Flynn, Manafort, Papadop, and some guy who already plead guilty to lying to the FBI who's been sentenced to very little. Except for Manafort, all were accused of process crimes which occurred as a result of the investigation. Carter Page, the original subject of the FISA warrants, remains uncharged.
Both Flynn and Papadop got pretty raw deals, and I wouldn't be shocked to see them get off once it's proven that the FBI has been messing around with their 302s.
Manafort probably is a scumbag, but no worse than the Podesta he was in business in Ukraine with.
Chuck said...
It is a much longer, more nuanced discussion of than what Trump or his supporters seem capable of.
*******************
AS IF every freaking Central American "fleeing" his shithole country to "seek a better life" in this one, IOW to jump on the welfare rolls and live off US, doesn't know that he can say the Magic Words that magically convey upon him Due Process rights.
AS IF the conditions in the shithole countries of Central America themselves trigger some sort of a right in this one.
"@Robert Cook, of course they have rights. We wouldn't torture them or shoot them. But their rights don't include staying in the country. If they arrived illegally, there is nothing wrong with removing them."
Their rights include proper legal proceedings to determine what should be done with each of them. This does not mean they have an automatic right to stay in the country.
"Their rights include proper legal proceedings to determine what should be done with each of them. This does not mean they have an automatic right to stay in the country."
That's what you don't understand. If 128 Mexicans show up at the border, you are correct.
If 128 millón show up, you're very, very wrong. We are not building courts and hiring judges and lawyers and building temporary shelters for 128 million people who will live off the taxpayer and be dead long before their case could be heard.
Somewhere between 128 and 128 million the system we have breaks down and is replaced to deal with the new realities.
"'that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage.'
"Illegal immigrants are not being obedient, so they are not entitled to Constitutional protections and advantages."
Why am I surprised I must spell this this out for you?
If they are in the US, they are subject to US laws--a "temporary obedience" while in US territory--and so also entitled to due process of US law under the Constitution.
By your reading, any American who violates the law is "disobedient," and so not entitled to due process.
"Entertain us: How long do we have to keep the entire population of Mexico?"
In the impossible event the entire population of Mexico should somehow appear in the US, that will have to be determined. In other words, we'll never have to worry about it.
Of course, many illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border are from further south, from other countries in South America. So why don't you imagine the entire population of South America crossing our border while you're imagining impossible and ridiculous scenarios?
Jay Elink said...
"Chuck said...
It is a much longer, more nuanced discussion of than what Trump or his supporters seem capable of."
*******************
AS IF every freaking Central American "fleeing" his shithole country to "seek a better life" in this one, IOW to jump on the welfare rolls and live off US, doesn't know that he can say the Magic Words that magically convey upon him Due Process rights.
AS IF the conditions in the shithole countries of Central America themselves trigger some sort of a right in this one.
Not once in these comments pages have I betrayed any of my thinking as to who should stay or who should go or how we should conduct immigration enforcement. In truth, I'd be very much of an immigration hawk in Washington.
But Trump keeps saying stupid things. About Muslim bans. About Mexican judges. About deportations with no more judges or court cases. Those things don't help the cause of conservative immigration hawks who want to advance the cause of immigration reform in congress and in the federal courts.
"What if they get in the plane with proper documentation, then whoops! Somehow 30,000 feet above in an enclosed tin can they can’t find them?"
If they land at an international airport, I believe there is the legal fiction that they are not actually on US soil until they are admitted past customs. There have been cases of persons without visas held for weeks or months in airports while the legal determination of what to do with them was worked out. This has happened with foreign visitors in American airports, and it happened with Edward Snowden in Russia. Before being admitted by Russia, Snowden spent weeks in the Russian airport.
"In the impossible event the entire population of Mexico should somehow appear in the US, that will have to be determined."
No, it wouldn't. Should that event happen, we're not keeping them and they're not staying.
If you can't admit at some point the ability of the US to give asylum hearings to everyone is overwhelmed and that right is revoked, there is really no reason to continue the discussion.
If you really think, say, 1 million Mexicans could cross over, demand asylum, and get it, you're living in a theoretical world, not the real one.
"Those things don't help the cause of conservative immigration hawks who want to advance the cause of immigration reform in congress and in the federal courts."
Actually it's exactly what they do. They change the thinking of people who believe Trump's has no options other than to play by the rules of the present system until his terms expire.
He's letting them know he's willing to act outside their Overton Window and they might want to think about what kinds of deals might be acceptable before he does.
If they cross the border at other than an approved crossing point we should just shoot them as they cross. That is an accepted and appropriate way to deal with Invaders. And the leading presidential candidate for Mexico has made it quite clear that is exactly what they are.
"Entertain us: How long do we have to keep the entire population of Mexico?"
Given the traffic jam, we'd have plenty of time to hold court.
Not citizens.
Leftists want to deny any college male of due process.
Leftists want to grant every legal privilege to people who are not citizens of the US, and who enter the US illegally.
I live in a 2/3 Hispanic majority county. The landscapers, crop pickers, handymen and independent contractors here do not want illegals coming in to undercut their businesses and increase crime. Crop pickers, when more are needed, are bused in with temporary work permits. But most crop pickers live here and are well paid, have insurance, own homes and cars and have families. Agricultural work is not unskilled labor. It demands a lot of experience and knowledge as well as a willingness to work in adverse conditions.
"Those things don't help the cause of conservative immigration hawks who want to advance the cause of immigration reform in congress and in the federal courts."
Which conservative immigration hawks do you have in mind, Chuck?
As usual, I am talking about Trump's stupid messaging. And the Althouse Trumpkins can think of nothing better than to claim that I am for open borders, when in fact I am to the right of most Congressional Republicans on most immigration issues.
Awww, chuck. It's hard to understand how you can be misunderstood so much.
We all enjoy those little zingers at the end of every one of your comments.
Like "Trumpkins."
Kevin said...
If you can't admit at some point the ability of the US to give asylum hearings to everyone is overwhelmed and that right is revoked, there is really no reason to continue the discussion.
Right now, the Trump zero-tolerance policy has been overwhelmed by 50,000 apprehensions per month.
Data here.
What is on the Trump administration is their total failure to prepare for a normal seasonal event. This is not the highest level in the last decade and yet it overwhelmed them.
These hypotheticals about "what if everyone in Mexico decided to emigrate" are make-believe. If Mexico decided to emigrate, the Trump administration could declare emergency measures.
But the current extreme is not extreme. It is pretty normal. Which means the Trump administration can't claim any special dispensation to dispose with the law.
“Anyone have a sight to read about Mueller punting on the Russian indictments. That seems to be a huge story if true.”
Mueller has a big problem on his hands. He indicated those Russians, Russian corporation, and non-existent Russian corporation, figuring that they would never show up here, and we couldn’t extradite them from Russia. Whoops. One of the Russian corporations did show up by and through their attorneys. Expensive and very good attorneys. Mueller’s team has been playing defense ever since. Maybe they weren’t properly served? Showing up in court waives lack of valid service (which is why you don’t show up in court to protest photo radar tickets on the grounds of improper service). Fine, then the defendant requested his federal Speedy Trial Rights. 70 days to go to trial? Mueller said that they wouldn’t be ready by then. As pointed out by former AUSA Andy McCarthy, you don’t indict until and unless you are ready to go to trial. Of course, the Ruskies also requested a lot of discovery. Mueller said “no way, all classified”. Which, of course, is a Due Process violation (which is why this sort of case is hard to prosecute). Due Process means that you get to see the evidence against you. The clock is running, and the judge has shown no interest in Mueller’s excuses or requests for extensions. Which is proper, because, as McCarthy pointed out, you aren’t supposed to incite until ready to go to trial. Which means that Mueller and his team of highly partisan prosecutors were showboating and wasting court resources. Expect a dismissal, likely with prejudice, in the near future.
But what does that mean? Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian interference with our election. This was their key case, the only one directly related to Russian interference with our 2016 election. What is left? Process crimes (I.e. lying to the FBI) that were a direct result of the investigation, and old cases (e.g. Manafort) that the DoJ had passed on prosecuting years earlier, and have no connection to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Millions and millions of tax dollars spent funding this witch hunt, all to discredit a duly elected President, and this is all they have. Waste of time and money, and with the dismissal of these charges, it will be obvious.
Mr. Cook is correct that the due process right of persons within the United States to a hearing is a constitutional right rather than a statutory one. But the Constitution does not specifically address our current border situation, much less some of the more drastic ones that have been described above. The Constitution merely says that “persons” (not citizens) are entitled to “due process.” The particulars of what “process” is “due” under any specific set of circumstances is worked out by the courts (and ultimately by the Supreme Court), and it is perfectly appropriate for them to take practicalities such as overwhelmed process-providing institutions into account in making their determinations, especially if there is evidence that the overwhelming is strategic.
Cookie fails to note that, for all the illegals supposedly rejected by Obama, thousands more, hundreds of thousands, stayed and vanished while court appearances were pending.
I'm sure you accidentally omitted that fact, Cookie.
Stop them all on the border, or within 100 mlles as the 1996 ruling holds, and put them on C 17s and fly them home.
They can then apply at US embassies.
Millions and millions of tax dollars spent funding this witch hunt, all to discredit a duly elected President, and this is all they have. Waste of time and money, and with the dismissal of these charges, it will be obvious.
Send the bill to the DNC ? Oh, I forgot they are insolvent.
How about the Clinton Foundation ?
Have they dissolved yet >?
130 politicians in Mexico have been murdered by the drug cartels. Coming soon to American. The left might not want what they think they want.
My wife works with a man from Columbia. His neighbor is a crime statistician for the Albuquerque PD. A year ago, they were talking about crime patterns, and my wife's coworker told the guy that kidnappings will be increasing soon. The guy asked him how did he know. "Because what is going on now here is what happened in Columbia. And it is getting worse. The next step is kidnappings. It is only logical." The stat guy poo pooed him. Fast forward to last week - the guy told my wife's coworker that he was correct - kidnappings are increasing. It is not good.
Seeing Red,
If an arriving passenger does not have the right passport visa etc, the airline is responsible for all costs which can be tens of thousands of dollars.
A stowaway on a ship is the ship's and captains problem. There have been numerous documented cases of stowaways being put over the side to avoid port de, ays costs and problems
Not a lot of charges brought because of jurisdictional issues at sea. It is a serious problem above and beyond the border jumping issues
John Henry
Michael K: "We all enjoy those little zingers at the end of every one of your comments.
Like "Trumpkins."
That's a cute little LLR Chuck tactic which Chuckie never, ever, for any reason, at any time, employs against the left/dems.
Feel free to draw obvious and inescapable conclusions.
I'm sure LLR Chuck is fully on board with the George Will strategy of ensuring Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and any Democrat presidential candidate are returned to power to, you know, "save" the republican party.
LOL
LLR Chuck's continuing obvious decline is being driven primarily by the democrats decreasing electoral prospects for November. As those democrat prospects decline I fully expect LLR Chuck to offer up even more spittle-flecked rage-filled diatribes against the republican base voters as well as any and all republican leaders who are not willing to go along with the LLR strategy of "elect more democrats".
Blogger Kevin said...
"... no one is saying someone asking for asylum while standing in the embassy of their own country should not be granted a fair hearing."
Well, then, let me be the first. I see no reason that the question of whether we want someone in the United States should turn upon how badly his government may or may not treat him. There should be no formal process of applying for asylum. If there are good reasons for the US to grant asylum to individuals, the Congress can specifically authorize it.
France gave asylum to the Ayatollah because he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran. Look how that turned out.
Blogger Michael K said...
"Stop them all on the border, or within 100 mlles as the 1996 ruling holds, and put them on C 17s and fly them home."
Just build the fucking wall, already.
Does anyone remember what Ronnie did to get Kiki Camerena’s body back?
Blogger Kevin said...
"... no one is saying someone asking for asylum while standing in the embassy of their own country should not be granted a fair hearing."
You cannot apply for asylum unless you are on U.S. soil. That is the law.
LLR and #StrongDurbinDefender Chuck: "In truth, I'd be very much of an immigration hawk in Washington."
LOL
You owe alot of people new keyboards after that spit take worthy comment!
Chuck's operational dem allies have no intention of delivering anything other than completely open borders and replacing the current American electorate to achieve a permanent dem majority.
Which is needed to, er, uh, "save" the republican party!
Too transparently amusing.
There should be no formal process of applying for asylum.
But there is. Good grief. Between the apocalypse hypotheticals and the wishing-away of law, there is nothing to discuss. Just make-believe your own civilization.
Angle-Dyne,
Don’t know if you’re just looking for novels/books but Isaac Meyer’s History of Japan podcast is a nascent Japanophile’s prayer answered. Great stuff, especially the multi-parters.
Someone on Twitter was just sneering at a Trumpster and said "you obviously haven't read the Constitution" if you don't know that "due process" requires that all illegals be given hearings. I immediately searched the text of the Constitution for "due process" and found that it is only required (5th and 14th amendments) before someone is deprived of "life, liberty, or property". It is easy enough to deport illegals without trial without violating that rule. We can't kill them, as someone suggested above, we can't lock them up (not for long, anyway) without a hearing, and we can't confiscate their money, their clothes, or even any border-crossing tools they may have on them (ladders, wirecutters, water-wings for the Rio Grande, whatever). We also can't push them across the border in some hot, treeless area far from any Mexican town where they would die of thirst - that would deprive them of life. But taking them to a border crossing, shoving them across without a hearing, and slamming the gate: obviously not unconstitutional. Offering a free ride home to Guatemala or wherever, if they'd rather not be stuck on the border: also obviously not unconstitutional, as long as they agree they'd rather fly home than stay at the border. (Flying them home in shackles would presumably require a hearing.)
Trump shies away from prosecutorial discretion; launches decoys for the journolists to chase; and defends the Constitution and the civil rights of the People and our Posterity. Next step: emigration reform in second and third-world nations with "shitshows".
Maxine Waters says God is on the side of "the Resistance".
I believe her. It's engraved on their belt buckles.
Correct, Drago -- Chuck is an immigration hawk who has repeatedly advocated not wanting one penny for Trump's wall. Lulz
Mexico doesn't want immigration reform. Canada doesn't want immigration reform. Europe is progressively shying away from the devil's deal. The separation of children from parents. The inclusion of predators and children. The rape-rape, abortion, and human trafficking. The trail of tears. There needs to be emigration reform and confrontation of a virulent and progressive anti-nativism in left-wing factions.
Trump will hold a trial by press. Or, perhaps, appoint a special counsel.
That said, summary judgments are also legal under the Supreme Court's Twilight Amendment. However, illegal aliens are in contempt of the law, thus undermining civil rights and stability (the Left's moral principle) of Americans, which under twilight precedents establishes them as exempt from summary judgment and fast-tracked sentencing.
Read the 2002 and 2008 laws and then the flores settlement, they have nothing to do with each other, the 2016 omnibus language 're the seven countries and the 9th circus decisions same, the Hamdan Hamdi and boumedienne decision no relation to nearly 20 years of precedent on military tribunals or unlawful combatants.
Perhaps we can send them to Planned Parenthood, where their "processing" will not under the Twilight Amendment be monitored by the press, and they can be deported or whatever under a layer of privacy.
Fabi said...
Correct, Drago -- Chuck is an immigration hawk who has repeatedly advocated not wanting one penny for Trump's wall. Lulz
What is "Trump's wall"? Does anybody know? Has the White House drafted any proposed legislation on that?
Congress did have border wall funding in the last omnibus spending bill. More than a billion dollars, for border walls in a couple of places where a wall may be of some utility. Congress has passed several spending bills to provide funding for walls and fences and other security measures in various places on our southern border.
Trump could have acknowledged that; but of course he won't, and he wants to make as much of a pr splash as he can with the notion of a massive and impenetrable wall the full length of the border. Which is nuts; it was always nuts. A stupid idea, concocted for stupid voters.
And of course, we are all paying for it right now to the tune of more than a billion dollars. Mexico isn't paying for it.
Fabi: "Correct, Drago -- Chuck is an immigration hawk who has repeatedly advocated not wanting one penny for Trump's wall. Lulz"
Yep, LLR Chuck is the mostest totalist immigration hawky hawk hawk who knows that only by republicans losing to send a message to those darn Trumpists can we restore the republican party.
Our "Brian Stelter republican" Chuck also considers himself a very, very, very serious person!
LOL
Hey, don't you stupid Trumpists know all the conservative publications to which he claims he subscribes?!! If that doesn't convince that you he is a very, very, very serious thinker than I don't know what will....
Nothing you said refutes my referenced comment, Chuckles. Deflect harderer.
LLR Chuck: "And of course, we are all paying for it right now to the tune of more than a billion dollars. Mexico isn't paying for it"
I will wait until all details of the Trade Agreements are concluded, direct NAFTA with Canada and Mexico as well as shutting down the NAFTA loopholes that allow all other global trading partners to abuse the NAFTA agreements before any final decision about who is paying what is determined conclusively.
"Univision republican" Chuck will continue advancing the lefts position.
Unexpectedly.
LOL
I wonder what Maddow/ODonnell and the rest of the MSNBC gang will be harping about tomorrow and, inevitably, what LLR Chuck will be vomiting up in pitch perfect unison after that?
Fabi I am not on board with "Trump's Wall." You've got that right.
I'd be very happy, as a hypothetical Michigan congressman to vote for some funding for some sections of border wall if I could explain it to my Michigan constituents as a good use of taxpayer money. I'd never propose a grand Pacific-to-Gulf wall and try to tell anybody that Mexico would pay for it when they won't. That, as far as I can tell, is Trump's "wall" promise. He'll never fulfil it.
So I think "Trump's wall" is just idiocy. Some sections of wall, or fence, or electronic monitoring, like the sections we've already built, are worthwhile.
The wall is a tangible presence, we know because the Congress has been unwilling to fund it for the last 12 years.
It took you a lot of fucking words and comments to finally admit that you're not -- as I initially noted -- an immigration hawk, Chuck! Lulz
The notion that any "person" stepping across the border in violation of American law by that very act becomes entitled to "constitutional" protections is a political, moral, and legal absurdity.
The process due is their exclusion from American society, as Congress and the executive branch see fit--as it once was.
Perhaps we can send them to Planned Parenthood, where their "processing" will not under the Twilight Amendment be monitored by the press, and they can be deported or whatever under a layer of privacy.
Very good, n.n.! It's amazing how transparency is all of a sudden a big priority.
Lets hope that traitor dies soon Jon.
He is holding out to get his wife named Senator. Like the scumbag he always was.
Now Chuck's hero is refusing to approve Trumps conservative judges to protect the Swamps economic interest in stopping tariffs. Just when the President is being proved right as German Auto makers are calling for the end of all tariffs. That means ending the German tariff on American cars for morons like Inga.
What is it about Arizona that breeds traitors and malcontents?
what about the roving, raving band of dumbfuck non-lawyers illegally entering the US?
I am starting to like Chuck's way of thinking. From now only lawyers get to comment. That will leave us happy few, and then we can prosecute anyone reported commenting here with out a license. No more Religious Test. The Bar Exam will do the trick.
"... no one is saying someone asking for asylum while standing in the embassy of their own country should not be granted a fair hearing."
You cannot apply for asylum unless you are on U.S. soil. That is the law.
If you are in a U.S. embassy you are standing on U.S. soil.
If they are in the US, they are subject to US laws--a "temporary obedience" while in US territory--and so also entitled to due process of US law under the Constitution.
By your reading, any American who violates the law is "disobedient," and so not entitled to due process.
American citizens are not aliens, they get their right to due process from being a citizen. What Madison supposes is a social contract: the alien agrees to obey our laws and we agree to extend him the right of due process. Illegal aliens by definition have either rejected or violated this bargain, and thus we have no obligation to honor it.
Langford Peel asks: What is it about Arizona that breeds traitors and malcontents?
Interesting question. As a recent Arizonan I am intrigued by the number of maverick statespersons we have spawned. While at the time I didn't, I think Goldwater was actually a pretty sensible guy. McCain, not so much. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did a pretty fair job on the bench. On the positive side, Arizona doesn't observer either daylight savings time or Martin Luther King's birthday [nothing against MLK, he was a fine and important spokesman for civil rights but he doesn't warrant a holiday. That's just pandering]. Flake is thankfully going to be out and I hope replaced by Keli Ward. Congresswoman Martha-come-lately McSally is posing as a wall-favoring immigration hawk only because Trump won [she did not support or endorse Trump] in AZ and she's trying to catch up. We do have the Grand Canyon!!!
"It is difficult for me to understand why the left feels so strongly about supporting illegal immigrants."
The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.
As of now, given the existing voting base, the revolution has lost control of the Senate, the House, the White House, and state trifectas. They need to import people to do the distasteful work that Americans are decreasingly willing to do, and that is vote Democrat.
the distasteful work that Americans are decreasingly willing to do, and that is vote Democrat
Americans are hardworking, industrious people. Oh, yeah, that would be a bridge too far. On the Republican side, we should probably vote against the so-called "mavericks", who demonstrate a keen ability to be inclusive in counterproductive bipartisan affairs.
MLK, he was a fine and important spokesman for civil rights but he doesn't warrant a holiday. That's just pandering
It's unfortunate that his insight has been deprecated with the progress of diversity: judge people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character (e.g. principles).
I had to drive out with a bag of Lactated Ringers for a dog that passed out from the heat.
I just got back and am glad to see that you all have more or less resisted the dark side.
[Robert Cook:] If they are in the US, they are subject to US laws--a "temporary obedience" while in US territory--and so also entitled to due process of US law under the Constitution.
You engage in question begging just as the NYT did in its headline:
Trump Calls for Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights
By KATIE ROGERS and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
When a duly sworn LEO apprehends an illegal immigrant, what, exactly constitutes due process, considering the LEO will deprive the illegal immigrant of neither liberty nor property?
You cannot apply for asylum unless you are on U.S. soil. That is the law.
So US Embassies are no longer considered US soil?
We seem to have no problem accepting people's applications at ports of entry. If people can walk 1,000 miles in the desert, they should be able to align their arrival at a point along the border where they can cross legally.
But the current extreme is not extreme. It is pretty normal. Which means the Trump administration can't claim any special dispensation to dispose with the law.
It's not Trump who's trying to dispense with the law. He's trying to comply and enforce it -- for the first time in the country's history, perhaps -- and has found the system unable to do so.
You can't compare this year with prior years when criminal illegal immigrants were not charged and released into the country to await the outcomes of their asylum hearings. That is a different system with different capacities and constraints.
But it was not a system in compliance with US law.
When crime overwhelms the ability of the system to prosecute it, new measures are introduced to deal with the problem -- in all countries, as a matter of survival.
@Mock
I did like Goldwater, but not his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think, looking back, we either needed these Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws, or the Democrats in the south were going to continue their 100 years of Jim Crow, KKK, etc. after having lost the Civil War a century earlier to the Republicans. I like federalism, but I don't really see a choice there - federalism and States Rights meant that Blacks would continue to be second class citizens for the foreseeable future, at least in the Old Confederacy.
I really do wish that Justice O'Connor had been more of a rock ribbed conservative. Her vote and opinion is why "diversity" is a legal bypass of Equal Rights, esp for colleges, which ch has resulted in de facto racial quotas and the like. Maybe the Supreme Court will say enough is enough after her 25 years is through. But, right now, the overt racial discrimination in college admissions is getting worse, not better, as she thought it would.
As for Flake, according to my partner, who has been a part time Arizonan for over 30 years now, before he went into politics, he engaged in about as close to prostitution as you can legally do in AZ. He apparently owned and ran a newspaper that made its money with classified ads for the sport services. I think that he inherited the money for that newspaper. Thank goodness he is retiring. He was dec not as a Congressman, but, I think, saw how McCain could lie through his teeth ever six years about being conservative, and then swerve sharply into the middle lane, and occasionally over into the left lane for the next five years, with impunity.
My partner, after better than 30 years as a half time Arizonan and half time Montanan is happy that she finally switched her voter registration from AZ to MT. I switched from CO to MT, and am even happier. Right now it looks like Gov Hickendooper, who was almost decent as a Dem, may be replaced by my old Congressman, the first Member of Congress in a same sex marriage.
Fabi said...
It took you a lot of fucking words and comments to finally admit that you're not -- as I initially noted -- an immigration hawk, Chuck! Lulz
Because -- what? -- the definition of "immigration hawk" begins and ends with Trump's Wall? You didn't ask about anything other than the wall. Maybe that's how it works in TrumpWorld. All that they care about is some "wall."
"When a duly sworn LEO apprehends an illegal immigrant, what, exactly constitutes due process, considering the LEO will deprive the illegal immigrant of neither liberty nor property?"
When illegal immigrants are apprehended by law enforcement, they certainly have been deprived of their liberty, no less than you or I would be. And those with children are being deprived of their children, which is something greater and more dear than mere property.
"American citizens are not aliens, they get their right to due process from being a citizen."
Nope. Our rights are "inlienable" and "endowed by our Creator" upon all human beings, who are all "created equal," as the Declaration says. The Constitution does not assign special privileges to Americans; it places prohibitions on government power in recognition of and in accordance with these rights of all men. The Constitutional limits on government power pertain to any persons under US authority, not just to citizens.
The Constitution cannot extend to other countries, but the "inalienable rights" the founders spoke of exist for all human beings, and all under our authority must be accorded the same Constitutional protections against arbitrary government power.
“looking back, we either needed these Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws, or the Democrats in the south were going to continue their 100 years of Jim Crow, KKK, etc. after having lost the Civil War a century earlier to the Republicans.”
I believe Goldwater’s objection was to making discrimination illegal in the private sector. To the extent Jim Crow was imposes by state and local governments, Goldwater would have been ok with ending it.
From a UK perspective I can't help thinking that running on a pro immigrant platform will be a catastrophe for the Democrats.
Being pro-Immigration is great to enthuse your supporters, disastrous in trying to win elections. Ask Chancellor Merkel how well her policy is working out for the CDU. Or you could ask the leaders of the AfD
[Robert Cook:] When illegal immigrants are apprehended by law enforcement, they certainly have been deprived of their liberty, no less than you or I would be.
No, they haven't -- turning back illegal aliens does not deprive them of their liberty.
So, once again, if LEOs are not depriving illegal immigrants of liberty or property, what does due process entail?
"Apprehended" is not the same as "turn back."
If they are within US territory, and they are intercepted by US authorities, they have been apprehended and they fall under US law and due process.
Due process entails legal proceedings to adjudicate what will be done with the apprehended persons.
I assume if they are barred from entering US territory, they are not under US authority and are not entitled to due process. In other words, they can't get in, so there's nothing for the US to do.
I think the usual situation is a little more complicated than “illegal immigrant is met just after crossing border by ICE agent and forced back across border,” though even there it would not surprise me if some additional process were found by courts to be due. It’s more like, “illegal immigrant is met just after crossing border by ICE agent, and while on US soil the immigrant says words that are legally sufficient to constitute a request for asylum.” May the ICE agent in the field summarily deny the asylum request and force the immigrant back across the border? That’s the principal due process question, as I understand it.
[Robert Cook:] If they are within US territory, and they are intercepted by US authorities, they have been apprehended and they fall under US law and due process.
Nonsense. Returning them to the other side of the border deprives them of neither liberty nor property, any more than gate crashers getting apprehended and escorted out of a stadium, or turnstile jumpers out of the subway.
So the question remains before you: when neither liberty nor property is involved, what constitutes due process?
It’s more like, “illegal immigrant is met just after crossing border by ICE agent, and while on US soil the immigrant says words that are legally sufficient to constitute a request for asylum.” May the ICE agent in the field summarily deny the asylum request and force the immigrant back across the border?
Yes, because there is a specific process for asylum requests, and it excludes being caught by an ICE agent in the act of illegal immigration.
Hey Skipper makes the definitive argument: Nonsense. Returning them to the other side of the border deprives them of neither liberty nor property, any more than gate crashers getting apprehended and escorted out of a stadium, or turnstile jumpers out of the subway.
"Hey Skipper makes the definitive argument: Nonsense. Returning them to the other side of the border deprives them of neither liberty nor property, any more than gate crashers getting apprehended and escorted out of a stadium, or turnstile jumpers out of the subway."
Is this what they're doing? Just walking them right back across the border?
No. They're detaining them. Once detained, they are entitled to due process, per the Constitution. Hey Skipper can declare "Nonsense!" all he wants, but this is not controversial or disputable. This is the reality.
(Why are they detaining them rather than just walking them back across the border? I don't know; perhaps they are required by law to detain them.)
(Why are they detaining them rather than just walking them back across the border? I don't know; perhaps they are required by law to detain them.)
Good question, Cookie. This seems to be the big problem. They should be turned away at the border [not allowed to cross] and there would be no legal issue.
Just as Italy refused to let the boats dock.
[Robert Cook:] No. They're detaining them. Once detained, they are entitled to due process, per the Constitution.
In what way is that different from detaining a gate crasher long enough to escort them from the stadium?
Or a traffic stop where you are detained from leaving until the police officer says there will be no ticket this time, but please slow it down a bit?
What due process does the Constitution require in each instance, and how is detaining an illegal immigrant long enough to escort them back across the border materially different?
See this article at Powerline: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/196946.php
Looks like the President has plenary power to do exactly what he is thinking about regarding shipping illegals out immediately.
Most of America will applaud that. I hope he does it and ends the bs happening now.
Post a Comment