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

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Isn't he really referring to anyone trying to or did enter the country across non authorized crossing points?

Article 14, section 1, US Constitution, " . . . 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."

 

If the US has captured them, they are under US jurisdiction and according to the Constitution, are given, " . . . equal protection of the laws."

[smotherb]

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

lol - well, it didn't take long for Hitler to get a mention.

 

http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/

 

There's a backlog of over 700,000 immigration court cases waiting to be heard. If you consider the cost to the taxpayer of hearing all these cases - it's billions of dollars. The backlog is growing.

 

It's pretty obvious there needs to be a solution - that it can't go on and shortcutting the process is quite reasonable. 

 

If that is not an acceptable solution to the issue, then perhaps people can offer theirs... taking down the borders and letting everyone in is one option.  I am not a big fan of that. 

 

so - if there's to be some degree of control over who lives in the country, then the rules need to be laid out. As it is, the rules are made ineffective by catch and release.  So there seems to be a game being played to make it look like there is control but at the same time it's been made 100% ineffective. So if you get in, you can stay. If that's what one side wants, why not simply campaign on that platform?

 

If people want some degree of control and to really discourage people coming in illegally, then there needs to be an efficient, cost effective way to discourage people from trying.

 

Nobody is Hitler, this isn't a race issue. It's a massive problem with few people giving solutions and LOTs of people acting irrationally.

 

 

There is some degree of control over who enters the country. How do you think those immigration cases arose? However, going against the Constitution is not the way; unless you want a dictator who says who, where, and when people are entitled to due process.

 

I do not want Trump, or any other person, deciding our Constitutional rights.

 

There are other ways to decrease illegal entries. Most illegal aliens are simply looking for a better life for themselves and their families; they are looking for work. We have laws regulating the temporary entry and departure of seasonal workers; yet few of our companies bother with the process and many are willing to accept dodgy green cards, social security numbers, and other arguments of right to work without double-checking. 

 

Try closing the businesses which hire illegal aliens and jailing their owners. Decreasing the numbers of businesses willing to hire illegal aliens will decrease the numbers trying to enter the US for work. Having a decent immigration check for legal workers will help honest businesses double-check.

 

Even then, you are still going to have illegal aliens trying to enter the US--for crime, circumventing the system, or just to visit family. The major reasons are our economy and our proximity to millions of lower economic classes. Helping Mexico and effectively using its low-wage workers may be an idea. 

 

[Tchooptip]

2 hours ago, blazes said:

How many of us here on ThaiVisa go through all the hoops of remaining "legal" residents of Thailand.

We acknowledge (most of us) the laws of the land and freely admit that Thailand has every right to restrict immigration.  

Isn't this, basically, what the US is doing?

So in your mind, if the laws in the US are comparable to the laws in Thailand for you it's OK?  After all why not everyone has the right to have a personal vision

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

What about sanctuary states turning a blind eye to illegal immigration (AKA subversion of democracy through voter importation)

How about States' rights? Sanctuary entities-cities, counties, and states--have voted to provide the sanctuary. The voters have apparently decided it is best for their areas. Just because others do not like it, does not mean you can force those who believe it is best to comply; unless you want to negate our federal system. So, it seems enlightening the electorate in these sanctuary jurisdictions and changing their vote is the American way; unless you want some dictator to decree what is allowed as a States' Right.

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

He's right and I am not a Trump supporter. No passport or visa?  try that in Thailand. People should obey the law just as 99% of us do here.

Let me get this straight, you are pointing to Thailand as a place which has no problem with illegal aliens, people overstaying their visas, foreign criminals, or people routinely crossing their borders without permission?  

[pedro01]

23 minutes ago, smotherb said:

There is some degree of control over who enters the country. How do you think those immigration cases arose? However, going against the Constitution is not the way; unless you want a dictator who says who, where, and when people are entitled to due process.

 

I do not want Trump, or any other person, deciding our Constitutional rights.

 

There are other ways to decrease illegal entries. Most illegal aliens are simply looking for a better life for themselves and their families; they are looking for work. We have laws regulating the temporary entry and departure of seasonal workers; yet few of our companies bother with the process and many are willing to accept dodgy green cards, social security numbers, and other arguments of right to work without double-checking. 

 

Try closing the businesses which hire illegal aliens and jailing their owners. Decreasing the numbers of businesses willing to hire illegal aliens will decrease the numbers trying to enter the US for work. Having a decent immigration check for legal workers will help honest businesses double-check.

 

Even then, you are still going to have illegal aliens trying to enter the US--for crime, circumventing the system, or just to visit family. The major reasons are our economy and our proximity to millions of lower economic classes. Helping Mexico and effectively using its low-wage workers may be an idea. 

 

 

A lot of immigration cases arose because illegals got caught. That's lack of control.

 

I would agree you don't want Trump deciding constitutional rights - as you know he'll open his mouth first but generally speaking you can only take what he says a broad ideas where the details have not been figured out.

 

It doesn't matter who is looking for a better life - you can't let them all in as they will collapse the country. But if you do want to make that a criteria for entering legally, then the immigration laws need to change so that it becomes legal to enter and live in the US on the basis of wanting a better life. Thus far, I have not heard either side suggest this but it makes no sense to criminalize people for entering on a criteria you believe to be valid. So the entry criteria need to change.

 

I agree that those hiring illegals need to be punished. But again - if the major reasons for WANTING immigrants are economic - then parties should be pushing to allow people based on those factors.

 

[Scott]

Posts removed.   Stop feeding the troll.

 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, mokwit said:

What about sanctuary states turning a blind eye to illegal immigration (AKA subversion of democracy through voter importation)

First off, it's not the role of states to enforce Federal Law. 

 

And if you're referring to the refusal to hold suspects at the request of the Feds, you'll be unhappy to learn that the USA has a federal system and the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government cannot compel individual states to provide services to the Federal Government. That decision was made by the conservative majority of justices.

[smotherb]

10 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

A lot of immigration cases arose because illegals got caught. That's lack of control. 

 

I would agree you don't want Trump deciding constitutional rights - as you know he'll open his mouth first but generally speaking you can only take what he says a broad ideas where the details have not been figured out.

 

It doesn't matter who is looking for a better life - you can't let them all in as they will collapse the country. But if you do want to make that a criteria for entering legally, then the immigration laws need to change so that it becomes legal to enter and live in the US on the basis of wanting a better life. Thus far, I have not heard either side suggest this but it makes no sense to criminalize people for entering on a criteria you believe to be valid. So the entry criteria need to change.

 

I agree that those hiring illegals need to be punished. But again - if the major reasons for WANTING immigrants are economic - then parties should be pushing to allow people based on those factors.

 

" A lot of immigration cases arose because illegals got caught. That's lack of control. " 

 

I think you missed the boat pedro; it is not lack of control when they get caught.

 

"It doesn't matter who is looking for a better life - you can't let them all in as they will collapse the country."

 

Again, you need to pay better attention; who said,   " . . . let them all in . . . "?

 

There is a legal immigration process which will allow entry to those looking for a better life.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, darksidedog said:

 

I believe there is your answer. Laws are there for a reason and should not be circumvented by anyone, for any reason.

The  law in intent  when it  says "citizens and non citizen " is more  likely to give  the protection  of law  for people  with  legitimate presence inside  the  USA. As others  have  mentioned  many  countries refuse  entry  at  arrival ports for whatever presumed good  reason with expedited  exit..

Border  jumpers know full well the risks.

Unfortunately the totalitarian  application of such Law would  fail  the humanitarian consideration of those escaping the  risk of persecution and  death for reasons  other  than poverty.

So  while Trump may ,for once, have  some legitimacy in this suggestion it will be sure to be seen as yet  another contradiction  of  his  "concern" for  people given it comes  on the heels of his previous fumbling  failures.

[pedro01]

55 minutes ago, smotherb said:

" A lot of immigration cases arose because illegals got caught. That's lack of control. " 

 

I think you missed the boat pedro; it is not lack of control when they get caught.

 

"It doesn't matter who is looking for a better life - you can't let them all in as they will collapse the country."

 

Again, you need to pay better attention; who said,   " . . . let them all in . . . "?

 

There is a legal immigration process which will allow entry to those looking for a better life.

 

 

I disagree - catching illegal immigrants that are already here is a lack of control of who comes into the country. Hence over 700,000 immigrant cases in court.

 

As to your other question, some Democrats quite clearly want to let them all in. They just want to do it by stealth and not policy. Hence any attempts to improve border security, pass known illegals to ice, expedite the extradition process, keep them in custody while being processed - these are all being thwarted. This is not a secret and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed. 

 

Libby Schaaf recently tipped off illegals about an immigration raid. One would presume she has some opinions on who should be staying here and why. 'Her' city is a sanctuary city. Is it really a stretch to presume she has some opinions on who should be allowed into the USA? 

 

Which is absolutely fine.  We don't need sanctuary cities. We don't need local authorities trying to ensure illegals know when ice are coming.

 

We just need the people doing this to stand by their policy and be honest about it.

 

Let's have an open discussion on who should be let in and who is 'legal'.

 

Perhaps you can share your opinion on how should be allowed in and what should be done about those who get in illegally. 

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

I disagree - catching illegal immigrants that are already here is a lack of control of who comes into the country. Hence over 700,000 immigrant cases in court.

 

As to your other question, some Democrats quite clearly want to let them all in. They just want to do it by stealth and not policy. Hence any attempts to improve border security, pass known illegals to ice, expedite the extradition process, keep them in custody while being processed - these are all being thwarted. This is not a secret and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed. 

 

Libby Schaaf recently tipped off illegals about an immigration raid. One would presume she has some opinions on who should be staying here and why. 'Her' city is a sanctuary city. Is it really a stretch to presume she has some opinions on who should be allowed into the USA? 

 

Which is absolutely fine.  We don't need sanctuary cities. We don't need local authorities trying to ensure illegals know when ice are coming.

 

We just need the people doing this to stand by their policy and be honest about it.

 

Let's have an open discussion on who should be let in and who is 'legal'.

 

Perhaps you can share your opinion on how should be allowed in and what should be done about those who get in illegally. 

Perhaps we should first have a discussion of how serious a threat illegal immigration has been. If in fact there is a crisis. Illegal immigration has mostly been decreasing since 2000. Why devote so many resources and so many dollars to something that is not a crisis?

In fact, this is a campaign gaslit by Trump.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, mokwit said:

What about when illegal immigrants disrespect our laws and their first act in the country is to break the law?

 

Countries, including the US, have laws to deal with illegal immigrants. They also have constitutions which include rights conferred on citizens and non citizens.  Governments, and their leaders, whatever their title, must respect and operate within the legal framework and in accordance with their constitution.

 

Leaders and governments that try to act outside their own laws and constitutions are usually banana republics with tin pot wannabee dictators who have scant regard for the law.

 

Civilized countries appreciate that public servants and governments sometimes get it wrong and therefore ensure that human beings have the right to appeal to the independent justice system.

[mtls2005]

On the plus side, he hasn't shot and killed anyone on Fifth Avenue, yet.

 

Often it is best to ignore Trump when he tweets about Constitutional and Legal issues, especially when he's on his way to play golf.

 

I mean he was still clamoring for the Central Park Five to located up again after they had been cleared.

 

He has brilliant legal minds like Rudy "Stop and Frisk" Guiliani, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to advise him on how to legally handle immigrants.

 

 

 

 

[pedro01]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Perhaps we should first have a discussion of how serious a threat illegal immigration has been. If in fact there is a crisis. Illegal immigration has mostly been decreasing since 2000. Why devote so many resources and so many dollars to something that is not a crisis?

In fact, this is a campaign gaslit by Trump.

 

In dollar terms, on a low ball estimate of $20k per case, the 700,000 cases in the pipeline right now are going to cost US taxpayers 14 billion dollars. The backlog is rising.

 

There is quite obviously a problem. It does not have to be a crisis to warrant action or a discussion. You have mayors informing people that federal agents are in town. That's hardly things going well is it? Sanctuary cities exist because policy makers at one level are working against policy at another. 

 

There is absolutely a need to discuss this. So why not just state your opinion on who should be allowed in and why. Why avoid it? Is it because you have no better answers than Trump?

 

If you think there should be no law fine - allow everyone in. If you think it's "desire for a better life" - then let all with that desire in. 

 

Why are you so scared to voice your opinion?

 

 

[ravip]

3 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

On the plus side, he hasn't shot and killed anyone on Fifth Avenue, yet.

 

Often it is best to ignore Trump when he tweets about Constitutional and Legal issues, especially when he's on his way to play golf.

 

I mean he was still clamoring for the Central Park Five to located up again after they had been cleared.

 

He has brilliant legal minds like Rudy "Stop and Frisk" Guiliani, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III to advise him on how to legally handle immigrants.

 

 

 

 

A sign of a successful American as one can be!

?

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

In dollar terms, on a low ball estimate of $20k per case, the 700,000 cases in the pipeline right now are going to cost US taxpayers 14 billion dollars. The backlog is rising.

 

There is quite obviously a problem. It does not have to be a crisis to warrant action or a discussion. You have mayors informing people that federal agents are in town. That's hardly things going well is it? Sanctuary cities exist because policy makers at one level are working against policy at another. 

 

There is absolutely a need to discuss this. So why not just state your opinion on who should be allowed in and why. Why avoid it? Is it because you have no better answers than Trump?

 

If you think there should be no law fine - allow everyone in. If you think it's "desire for a better life" - then let all with that desire in. 

 

Why are you so scared to voice your opinion?

 

 

All these objections relate to trying to catch the immigrants, hold them and get them to court.

 

The question though was ' Perhaps we should first have a discussion of how serious a threat illegal immigration has been. If in fact there is a crisis. Illegal immigration has mostly been decreasing since 2000. Why devote so many resources and so many dollars to something that is not a crisis? ', a question you have avoided.

 

So how serious a threat is illegal immigration?

[Chomper Higgot]

39 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

I disagree - catching illegal immigrants that are already here is a lack of control of who comes into the country. Hence over 700,000 immigrant cases in court.

 

As to your other question, some Democrats quite clearly want to let them all in. They just want to do it by stealth and not policy. Hence any attempts to improve border security, pass known illegals to ice, expedite the extradition process, keep them in custody while being processed - these are all being thwarted. This is not a secret and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed. 

 

Libby Schaaf recently tipped off illegals about an immigration raid. One would presume she has some opinions on who should be staying here and why. 'Her' city is a sanctuary city. Is it really a stretch to presume she has some opinions on who should be allowed into the USA? 

 

Which is absolutely fine.  We don't need sanctuary cities. We don't need local authorities trying to ensure illegals know when ice are coming.

 

We just need the people doing this to stand by their policy and be honest about it.

 

Let's have an open discussion on who should be let in and who is 'legal'.

 

Perhaps you can share your opinion on how should be allowed in and what should be done about those who get in illegally. 

If we are going to demand some honesty, let’s start by demanding honesty from the President and his administration.

 

He has consistently lied with respect to immigration and immigrants, scapegoated immigrants and resorted to dehumanizing language wrt immigrants.

 

Now he’s suggesting suspension of the law!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 hours ago, The Renegade said:

A genuine question. 

 

The OP says

 

Are illegal immigrants actually covered by the Constitution ?

 

Read the OP article, it provides your answer:

 

Quote

His proposal drew immediate criticism from legal analysts and immigrant rights advocates who said it would violate the U.S. Constitution's due process provision, which applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.

 

The U.S. is still a country of thoughtful laws that try to balance out issues of human rights and equity, despite Trump's wishes that it were not so.

 

[BobBKK]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

All these objections relate to trying to catch the immigrants, hold them and get them to court.

 

The question though was ' Perhaps we should first have a discussion of how serious a threat illegal immigration has been. If in fact there is a crisis. Illegal immigration has mostly been decreasing since 2000. Why devote so many resources and so many dollars to something that is not a crisis? ', a question you have avoided.

 

So how serious a threat is illegal immigration?

 

That's not what the topic is about and you continue to deflect. Should people be allowed into any country illegally?  the obvious answer is NO.  It is not about all of the obvious defections you pose.

[LawrenceN]

6 hours ago, captspectre said:

is that not what the Thai's do now? the Japanese? the koreans? the cambodians? the Lao? even the mexicans? all the trump haters forget that the rest of the world are not snowflakes and liberals! 

Then let's see him do the work of working with Congress to craft the law to his liking. He lacks the leadership ability to do that, and even his lapdogs in Congress are reluctant to expand his power. I assume you voted for him. He always struck me as no more qualified than the loudmouth on the next bar stool. Has no idea what it takes to govern, or even what it means.

[smotherb]

41 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

I disagree - catching illegal immigrants that are already here is a lack of control of who comes into the country. Hence over 700,000 immigrant cases in court.

 

As to your other question, some Democrats quite clearly want to let them all in. They just want to do it by stealth and not policy. Hence any attempts to improve border security, pass known illegals to ice, expedite the extradition process, keep them in custody while being processed - these are all being thwarted. This is not a secret and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed. 

 

Libby Schaaf recently tipped off illegals about an immigration raid. One would presume she has some opinions on who should be staying here and why. 'Her' city is a sanctuary city. Is it really a stretch to presume she has some opinions on who should be allowed into the USA? 

 

Which is absolutely fine.  We don't need sanctuary cities. We don't need local authorities trying to ensure illegals know when ice are coming.

 

We just need the people doing this to stand by their policy and be honest about it.

 

Let's have an open discussion on who should be let in and who is 'legal'.

 

Perhaps you can share your opinion on how should be allowed in and what should be done about those who get in illegally. 

Once again, you make statements which have little basis in fact.

 

Catching is a form of control; whether it is before or after entry.

 

I am afraid I do not see anyone seriously saying let them all in; except for Trump's misleading accusations.

 

Fortunately, no one person, including Libby Schaaf or Donald Trump, has the say on who comes to the US.

 

Like all laws, immigration law is not an open discussion, except perhaps in the halls of congress; it requires legislation and due process. 

 

I thought I had made it clear--but here it goes.

 

" . . . how should be allowed in . . ."  I'll consider you meant, WHO should be let in?

 

Easy, those who have gone through legal immigration processes.

 

" . . . what should be done about those who get in illegally."

 

Easy again, they should be caught and their cases judicially disposed.

 

Of course, as in all cases, a bit of judicial temperament needs to be applied.

[vinegarbase]

Sharing the advice I seem to get often when I complain about Thailand's maddening immigration regulations. "You are a guest in Thailand, they can do want they want and the law is what they say it is and if you don't like it then you can always leave" Such wonderful advice to the rest of the world trying to take advantage of the USA.

 

MAGA Trump! Don't worry about what any of your enemies say, you have the power and real Americans have your back! Put the smack down on anyone who has been gaming us and taking our kindness for weakness. 

[mikebike]

5 hours ago, Trouble said:

I ask all liberals:  How many immigrants should be allowed into the USA? Should they be admitted through a legal process or if they cross the boarder are the home free. Fair question, looking for a honest answer.  Please give me a number.

1-2% of total population of legal immigration and refugees and asylum seekers... so about 3.5-7 million annually.

[stevenl]

42 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

That's not what the topic is about and you continue to deflect. Should people be allowed into any country illegally?  the obvious answer is NO.  It is not about all of the obvious defections you pose.

LOL.

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

All these objections relate to trying to catch the immigrants, hold them and get them to court.

 

The question though was ' Perhaps we should first have a discussion of how serious a threat illegal immigration has been. If in fact there is a crisis. Illegal immigration has mostly been decreasing since 2000. Why devote so many resources and so many dollars to something that is not a crisis? ', a question you have avoided.

 

So how serious a threat is illegal immigration?

 

It doesn't need to be a threat or a crisis,

 

It is a problem. I have explained why.

 

Why not tell us your solution - who is allowed in, what level of enforcement should be allowed?

 

Or do we take it you are happy with the laws on the books right now?

[pedro01]

35 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Once again, you make statements which have little basis in fact.

 

Catching is a form of control; whether it is before or after entry.

 

I am afraid I do not see anyone seriously saying let them all in; except for Trump's misleading accusations.

 

Fortunately, no one person, including Libby Schaaf or Donald Trump, has the say on who comes to the US.

 

Like all laws, immigration law is not an open discussion, except perhaps in the halls of congress; it requires legislation and due process. 

 

I thought I had made it clear--but here it goes.

 

" . . . how should be allowed in . . ."  I'll consider you meant, WHO should be let in?

 

Easy, those who have gone through legal immigration processes.

 

" . . . what should be done about those who get in illegally."

 

Easy again, they should be caught and their cases judicially disposed.

 

Of course, as in all cases, a bit of judicial temperament needs to be applied.

 

Actually my post was full of facts. Perhaps you could point out the specific things you don't agree with.

 

Also - why not say who you think should be allowed in. People running sanctuary cities have a different opinion from the federal government. Do you agree with either of them or have your own opinion of how this should work?

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, pedro01 said:

 

It doesn't need to be a threat or a crisis,

 

It is a problem. I have explained why.

 

Why not tell us your solution - who is allowed in, what level of enforcement should be allowed?

 

Or do we take it you are happy with the laws on the books right now?

No, you have not explained why it is a problem. You have explained why a perceived problem is made a problem, but that doesn't mean the perceived problem really is a problem.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Actually my post was full of facts. Perhaps you could point out the specific things you don't agree with.

 

Also - why not say who you think should be allowed in. People running sanctuary cities have a different opinion from the federal government. Do you agree with either of them or have your own opinion of how this should work?

The level of enforcement in place before Trump assumed office was  more than adequate to ensure that illegal immigraton was not a threat to the USA.

[mikebike]

5 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Yes if you are entering a country without the right docs you should be refused entry.  Could you test this for us?   try entering Thailand without your passport or visa and let us know if you get to see a Court or Judge.

Burmese, Laosians and Cambodians do it all the time... try to think outside the box of your world.