Gamenole
All American

Posts: 4,294
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 984
I Root For: S Carolina & Fla State
Location:
|
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(04-17-2025 10:30 PM)TripleA Wrote: (04-17-2025 10:23 PM)Gamenole Wrote: (04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote: You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?
Again, read the Constitution -
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.
Why did you leave out the most important part of what you quoted?
Quote:Section 1 Rights
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; [/b]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.
Well you've bolded the citizenship clause, and we absolutely agree this man is not a citizen of the United States. I don't think anyone even in the craziest cesspools of the far left suggests otherwise.
Take a look at the next sentence, first it says that no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS, and continues to say that they cannot deprive any PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process. The framers used different words, and so the government CAN abridge the privileges and immunities of a person who is not a citizen. However they drew the protection from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process with the broadest brush possible, applying it to any PERSON.
If you wish this changed, there is a process to amend the Constitution. Or if you can convince 5 Justices of the Supreme Court it means something other than what it says, joila. But absent one of these occurrences, the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is a Constitutional violation.
The argument is, the 20M or so were let in illegally, so they can be let out the same way they came in. Otherwise, it will take 50 years to get them all out. And meanwhile, they are a national security threat b/c they were unvetted.
Under no circumstances did the founders envision a scenario like this.
And we all know they were not let in for humanitarian reasons. They were let in to add an advantage to the Dem voter rolls, and turn this country into a one-party rule. End of story.
So yeah, those of us who disagree with that will take the same illegal stance in reverse that you clowns took letting these people in. Illegally.
I disagree, I don't believe the rule of law does or should work that way. One illegality does not give rise to a free pass to another illegality to correct it, eye for an eye style. But at least you have articulated an argument and it does illuminate how some people feel about this issue, thanks!
(04-17-2025 10:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote: (04-17-2025 10:23 PM)Gamenole Wrote: (04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote: You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?
Again, read the Constitution -
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.
Why did you leave out the most important part of what you quoted?
Quote:Section 1 Rights
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; [/b]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.
Well you've bolded the citizenship clause, and we absolutely agree this man is not a citizen of the United States. I don't think anyone even in the craziest cesspools of the far left suggests otherwise.
Take a look at the next sentence, first it says that no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS, and continues to say that they cannot deprive any PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process. The framers used different words, and so the government CAN abridge the privileges and immunities of a person who is not a citizen. However they drew the protection from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process with the broadest brush possible, applying it to any PERSON.
If you wish this changed, there is a process to amend the Constitution. Or if you can convince 5 Justices of the Supreme Court it means something other than what it says, joila. But absent one of these occurrences, the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is a Constitutional violation.
Tell me what is not in there? Fourteenth Amendment says NOTHING about the federal government and strictly limits it to STATES. The bill of right is to protect us from the feds
That isn't the win you think it is, although you state some correct things. The Bill of Rights is to protect us from the federal government, and there in the 5th Amendment is the due process clause which binds the federal government -
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(04-17-2025 11:12 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote: (04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote: Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy
Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!
You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?
Again, read the Constitution -
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.
Seriously??? What a crock! No rational person can reasonably expect the Democrats to follow the "rule of law" when they are back on top (or any other time).
We wouldn't have this problem of "20 million" illegals invading out country over the last 4 years if your side (the Dems) had followed the "rule of law" back when they just were on top. They shamefully and intentionally thumbed their noses at all of the existing immigration laws at great expense to our country.
The illegal immigration problem far predates the Biden administration, and both parties are guilty. I actually applaud Trump for taking it on, although as usual when he tries to do something laudable he skirts the rules and takes it too far.
And if you think you've suffered under lawless Democratic administrations, you haven't seen anything yet. Trump is breaking new ground in violating norms, rules and laws every day. You'd all better hope that the courts reign the mad king in and the administration finds a way to do many of these things you want done within the law (and for deportations, this is VERY doable). If these actions stand then we're similarly going to get some things that need doing done one day, without needing to worry about what the Constitution says on the matter. I don't think that's the right way to do things, but I would love some of the policies a lawless Democrat might pursue. You will hate all of it.
|
|