Trump says illegal immigrants should be deported with 'no judges or court cases'

[Voodoochile]

Makes sense to me since they are "illegal immigrants" to begin with.

 

yes boot them out!! no court no judge no legal procedure what so ever if not you will regret it 

[captspectre]

9 minutes ago, JestSetter said:

 

Well! Okay! Let's not talk about the illegal immigrants who are exploited --or nearly so (1)-- at the helm of those who are outraged at their transgressions. It is not as if the US does not know about exploiting people (African or not). Why would such a smart man like you forget to account for this little problem? Perseverance bias. Let's ignore all the inconvenient evidence. I cannot wait to see Americans cleaning streets and working in farms. A lot more will and for very little money, but probably more than the illegal Mexican.

 

Btw, if you want fewer illegals, tone down your propaganda (Hollywood) and show real houses with real people living in them (not mansions).

 

Btw, Trump is an egomaniacal entitled kid who got 1 million dollars when he was in his 20's from his dad. And he has the nerve to bemoan European countries for being "socialists", giving handouts. What did he get? How many times has he declare bankruptcy? Last time I checked he does not live under a bridge. What a hypocrite!

 

By all accounts, many countries have or are using these as a way to get richer or pay less for services.

 

(1) Doctors who are taxi drivers to programmers from India who don't get paid the same as the white boys.

 

 

there it is! after all the pious writing and wringing of hands you turn out to be just another "racist" the term "white boys" gives you away!

 

[Voodoochile]

2 minutes ago, captspectre said:

there it is! after all the pious writing and wringing of hands you turn out to be just another "racist" the term "white boys" gives you away!

 

The term "white boy" is not racist.

[Redline]

9 hours ago, captspectre said:

what's that supposed to mean? explain yourself!

 

Jeez,  figure it out.  Other people did ?

[captspectre]

On 6/25/2018 at 8:25 AM, Expatthailover said:

Nothing this man utters should surprise anyone.

Total and utter flagrant disregard for anyone but himself and trusted family members. 

Don the draft dodger strikes again.

Spending too much time with despots like Kim and Putin and now he wants their type of control.

those "despots" would be glad to put your ass under the ground in a tic tock if they could get away with it.

 

[captspectre]

On 6/27/2018 at 6:54 PM, Voodoochile said:

The term "white boy" is not racist.

don't say it around a "white" boy who takes offense, you will get your clock cleaned!

 

[mtls2005]

On 6/27/2018 at 6:47 PM, Voodoochile said:

Makes sense to me since they are "illegal immigrants" to begin with.

 

You do realize we have a Constitution, and Amendments, like the Fourteenth...I hope you're not some crazy nut-job suggesting that we just toss out Amendments we don't like? Gosh, someone even mentions a waiting period to purchase a firearm and some folks go nuts.

 

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.

 

 

I've bolded the relevant phrase.

[bushdoctor]

I just looked theough this thread. It looks like the main argument against Trump’s statement has been that it’s unconstitutional,...that there are due process laws. That surprises me, since this very article states pretty clearly that it is actually not unconstitutional. Here are a couple of clips. from the article that we are all commenting on....

 

“Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.”

 

“President Donald Trump said on Sunday that people who ENTER the United States illegally should be sent back immediately to where they came from without any judicial process, likening them to invaders who are trying to "break into" the country.”

 

 

 

He did not use the past tense of the word enter. He also made no mention of anything to do with asylum seekers. They do not need to enter illegally to apply for asylum so there would be no crime committed if they apply legally. 

 

The border area is a different animal due to national security issues, even for US citizens, they are also stopped, need to provide proof that they can legally enter, and can be searched without reasonable cause. Their computers and cell phones can be searched, or even taken away. Again this holds true for an area 100 miles from all borders. That includes the Mexico and Canada borders, and the coasts, in other words the entire perimeter of the US for 100 miles. That zone includes about two thirds of the US population. The number climbs to around 75% of the immigrant population. In this border zone agents can enter private property, set up highway checkpoints, have wide discretion to stop, question, and detain individuals they suspect to have committed immigration violations...and even use race and ethnicity as factors to do so. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by bushdoctor

[mtls2005]

18 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

“Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.”

 

Yes, if...

 

Procedure

Order of expedited removal

After an immigration enforcement official (working for U.S. Customs and Border Protection) comes in contact with the person believed to be eligible for expedited removal, the official asks the person if he or she wants to apply for asylum or fears persecution or torture if returned to his/her home country.

 

If the person answers affirmatively, he or she is issued a Form M-444 Information About Credible Fear Interview and referred for a credible fear interview with a United States Citizenship and Immigration Service official.

 

If the person answers negatively, or after the person answers positively but receives an unfavorable determination in the credible fear interview, the person is issued Form I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal.
The person may now be physically removed from the United States.

 

Contesting an expedited removal order
An expedited removal order cannot be appealed. However, it is possible to submit a challenge to the order to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reconsider an expedited removal order.[1] The challenge should be filed within 30 days of the decision. Based on the information and evidence provided, the CBP may exercise its discretion and overturn its prior expedited removal order.[8] If an expedited removal order was issued at a designated port of entry such as an airport, the affected party may also file a complaint with the DHS's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program.

 

 

Constitutional Concerns with the Enforcement and Expansion of Expedited Removal

 

Sharon McKnight, a New York resident who is a United
States citizen of Jamaican descent, was taken into custody and
handcuffed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
("INS") upon her arrival at New York's John F. Kennedy International
Airport on June 10, 2000.1 The INS officials at the airport
took McKnight into custody because they incorrectly believed
she was attempting to commit fraud by presenting an allegedly
fake passport.2 McKnight had been returning from a trip
to Jamaica to visit her sick grandfather, and because the 35 year
old woman had the mental capacity of a young child, her concerned
family was awaiting her arrival at the airport.3 Despite
McKnight's family presenting the INS with a copy of her birth
certificate, INS officials proceeded to detain her overnight at the
airport, shackled her legs to a chair, and neither fed her nor
permitted her to use the restroom. 4 The next morning,
McKnight, a United States citizen, was deemed inadmissible and
forced to return to Jamaica.

 

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1419&context=uclf

[BigC]

They are illegal hence illegal migrants. So there is not court they are on the wrong soil. Send them back

[wabothai]

On 6/25/2018 at 3:57 AM, mokwit said:

Does that include immigration laws and illegal immigrants or do they get a free pass in your book?

Illegal immigrants are and should be dealt with according to what the law prescribes, certainly not by barks of some two bit real estate saleman.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, BigC said:

They are illegal hence illegal migrants. So there is not court they are on the wrong soil. Send them back

Another Constitutional scholar contributes to the discussion.

[bristolboy]

On 6/26/2018 at 2:46 PM, sirineou said:

 So much nonsense disseminated for the consumption of the feeble minded on both sides of the issue.

Before the economic collapse  of 2008 there were hundreds of illegal workers in my area of Florida,  if one needed cheap labor, it was easy to find.  Once the jobs dried up so did the illegal labor pool. No one had to go looking for them, no busses had to be hired to ship the out, they simply seft on their own.

You want to eliminate or decrease illegal immigration?

GO AFTER THE EMPLOYERS!!!!  very simple.

 

Western Growers, California Farm Bureau oppose ag workforce bill

Coalitions of farm groups were at odds over whether the House should vote on a bill introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., to replace the H-2A visa program with an agricultural guestworker program, known as the H-2C program.

A coalition of more than 200 agriculture groups including the American Farm Bureau Federation has endorsed the bill, but Western Growers, the largest representative of fruit and vegetable growers in the country, and the California Farm Bureau Federation have come out in strong opposition.

The H-2C program would be available to both seasonal and year-round agricultural employers and provide a visa allocation, but would would also require employers to use the E-Verify system to make sure workers are legally in the United States.

https://www.thefencepost.com/news/western-growers-california-farm-bureau-oppose-ag-workforce-bill/

[candide]

Those pesky immigrants who engage in illegal activities....as shown by the history of his grandfather....

 

"...Bavarian authorities determined that Trump had emigrated from Germany to avoid his military-service obligations, and he was classified as a draft dodger"

"He made his fortune by operating restaurants and boarding houses in Seattle and the mining town Monte Cristo, and brothels in the Klondike Gold Rush"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump

 

[Voodoochile]

11 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

You do realize we have a Constitution, and Amendments, like the Fourteenth...I hope you're not some crazy nut-job suggesting that we just toss out Amendments we don't like? Gosh, someone even mentions a waiting period to purchase a firearm and some folks go nuts.

 

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.

 

 

I've bolded the relevant phrase

Society and people are in constant evolution so laws are, and yes even amendments should be "changeable" 

"a nut job" why because I think we should adapt. Adaptation is part of survival for  almost every living species, those who don't adapt and evolve don't survive and get replaced, a replacement which I may add has already started in Western Europe and is now threatening the U.S. 

 

Anybody who who enters a country illegally should be sent back without a court hearing it is in part why borders exist in the first place and is completely logic and necessary.

 

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

Society and people are in constant evolution so laws are, and yes even amendments should be "changeable" 

"a nut job" why because I think we should adapt. Adaptation is part of survival for  almost every living species, those who don't adapt and evolve don't survive and get replaced, a replacement which I may add has already started in Western Europe and is now threatening the U.S. 

 

Anybody who who enters a country illegally should be sent back without a court hearing it is in part why borders exist in the first place and is completely logic and necessary.

 

And for the Constitution those adaptations are called Amendments. Now do you understand?

[smotherb]

On 6/27/2018 at 6:03 PM, captspectre said:

what's that supposed to mean? explain yourself!

 

Snowflake liberals, you know, the ones who saw freedom and liberty for all and rebelled against the authoritarian dictates of King George III. All the contard colonists supported the King and his authoritarian rule and the thought that some were above the law.

[bushdoctor]

It is not unconstitutional to deport illegal immigrants with no judge and no court cases in the border zone.

If a US citizen tries to enter at a port of entry without proper documentation, he can also be refused entry without a court or a judge. Fortunately border agents make great efforts to help, and for a legal citizen or person with a valid visa or other legal permissions to enter, his name would probably show up in the data base verifying his status, and he would eventually be allowed to enter. 

If however, he decided to enter in an area other than a legal port of entry, ie; sneak in, that act is in itself illegal....even for a valid US citizen. Everyone needs to enter at designated areas unless given specific exceptions. 

Trump said he wants to turn back those who enter illegally. Not those who already entered (past tense) and have established themselves, those folks can be deported but they would get their day in court. 

 

We can all relax, because Trump has not done that, and has not violated the constitution, he only stated his opinion. 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by bushdoctor

[Voodoochile]

22 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

It is not unconstitutional to deport illegal immigrants with no judge and no court cases in the border zone.

If a US citizen tries to enter at a port of entry without proper documentation, he can also be refused entry without a court or a judge. Fortunately border agents make great efforts to help, and for a legal citizen or person with a valid visa or other legal permissions to enter, his name would probably show up in the data base verifying his status, and he would eventually be allowed to enter. 

If however, he decided to enter in an area other than a legal port of entry, ie; sneak in, that act is in itself illegal....even for a valid US citizen. Everyone needs to enter at designated areas unless given specific exceptions. 

Trump said he wants to turn back those who enter illegally. Not those who already entered (past tense) and have established themselves, those folks can be deported but they would get their day in court. 

 

We can all relax, because Trump has not done that, and has not violated the constitution, he only stated his opinion. 

 

Yes let's "all relax" while others are invading us. 

 

"Don't worry be happy" right?

 

(Omg are we in trouble)

[bristolboy]

59 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

Yes let's "all relax" while others are invading us. 

 

"Don't worry be happy" right?

 

(Omg are we in trouble)

These are dangerous invaders with a lower rate of crimes against person and property than the natives.

[mtls2005]

On 7/27/2018 at 9:32 PM, bushdoctor said:

It is not unconstitutional to deport illegal immigrants with no judge and no court cases in the border zone.

 

I'm not sure if this has been adjudicated, at the Federal or SCOTUS level(s), yet? While POTUS has suggested this, I haven't heard the DoJ voice an opinion?

 

I would think that, even with Brett Kavanaugh, the SCOTUS would rule against the denial of due process, regardless of proximity to a border, or body of water? Congress passes unconstitutional laws often. But I am not a Constitutional Law expert.

[Number 6]

I don't see the issue. If the individual has entered the country illegally then they should be deported immediately. They should be allowed a hearing to demonstrate they are in fact native born or have emigrated legally. Why should this even be an issue?

 

I realize this is somewhat controversial but I also do not support constitutional protections for anyone other than American citizens, green card holders and those on proper visas.

 

Anti Trumpists once again howling at the moon.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Number 6

[bristolboy]

31 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

I don't see the issue. If the individual has entered the country illegally then they should be deported immediately. They should be allowed a hearing to demonstrate they are in fact native born or have emigrated legally. Why should this even be an issue?

 

I realize this is somewhat controversial but I also do not support constitutional protections for anyone other than American citizens, green card holders and those on proper visas.

 

Anti Trumpists once again howling at the moon.

Glad to see another person who disbelieves in the existence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

 

[mtls2005]

3 hours ago, Number 6 said:

but I also do not support constitutional protections for anyone other than American citizens, green card holders and those on proper visas

 

I'm not sure your "support" matters much? Cherry-picking classes of people always leads to bone-headed actions, like interring Japanese-American citizens. Or denying Native Americans, or Americans of African descent their Five Fifths.

 

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), where the Court held that aliens illegally present in a state are within its jurisdiction and may thus raise equal protection claims[125][126] the Court explicated the meaning of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" as follows: "use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."[126] The Court reached this understanding among other things from Senator Howard, a member of the Joint Committee of Fifteen, and the floor manager of the amendment in the Senate. Senator Howard was explicit about the broad objectives of the Fourteenth Amendment and the intention to make its provisions applicable to all who "may happen to be" within the jurisdiction of a state:

 

 

The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. ... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. [emphasis added by the U.S. Supreme Court]

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by mtls2005

[Voodoochile]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Glad to see another person who disbelieves in the existence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

 

Not "glad" to see a person uncapable to evolve with his time and the present situations.

 

(square as a box)

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Voodoochile said:

Not "glad" to see a person uncapable to evolve with his time and the present situations.

 

(square as a box)

We're talking about amendments not the 10 commandments. The very name should tell you that they can be changed. But what you can't do is violate those that haven't been superseded by other amendments. 

[FritsSikkink]

Maybe start with his wife.

[taipan1949]

On 7/27/2018 at 1:35 PM, bushdoctor said:

I just looked theough this thread. It looks like the main argument against Trump’s statement has been that it’s unconstitutional,...that there are due process laws. That surprises me, since this very article states pretty clearly that it is actually not unconstitutional. Here are a couple of clips. from the article that we are all commenting on....

 

“Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.”

 

“President Donald Trump said on Sunday that people who ENTER the United States illegally should be sent back immediately to where they came from without any judicial process, likening them to invaders who are trying to "break into" the country.”

 

 

 

He did not use the past tense of the word enter. He also made no mention of anything to do with asylum seekers. They do not need to enter illegally to apply for asylum so there would be no crime committed if they apply legally. 

 

The border area is a different animal due to national security issues, even for US citizens, they are also stopped, need to provide proof that they can legally enter, and can be searched without reasonable cause. Their computers and cell phones can be searched, or even taken away. Again this holds true for an area 100 miles from all borders. That includes the Mexico and Canada borders, and the coasts, in other words the entire perimeter of the US for 100 miles. That zone includes about two thirds of the US population. The number climbs to around 75% of the immigrant population. In this border zone agents can enter private property, set up highway checkpoints, have wide discretion to stop, question, and detain individuals they suspect to have committed immigration violations...and even use race and ethnicity as factors to do so. 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that the bas.....d NGO's in Mexico tutor them all on how to lie their asses off and ask for asylum. If they are illegal then deport them all and let them come through legal border crossings but even then the Americans have a tough time dealing with the liars who have been coached.

[taipan1949]

On 7/29/2018 at 10:42 AM, bristolboy said:

Glad to see another person who disbelieves in the existence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

 

I agree with all illegals not having any constitutional rights. They are illegal and non citizens therefore why the hell should they have rights???

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, taipan1949 said:

I agree with all illegals not having any constitutional rights. They are illegal and non citizens therefore why the hell should they have rights???

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution disagrees with you is more ways than one.