How much due process must an illegal alien receive presently as interpreted by the Supreme Court? How much due process should an illegal alien receive? The answer to the latter question should be none other than confirmation he or she is here illegally. The gulf, if any, between what must be done now per judges and what should be done requires immediate closure by any peaceful and constitutional means.

(05-02-2025 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:52 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  My biggest problem with this entire issue is that the left will do whatever it takes to keep people like this in the country … even if it produces more negative outcomes for women and children.

They’re willing to die on these hills, just to spite Trump.

It’s not about virtue, or being pro Constitution (which they view as a roadblock for many of their agenda items) …

If you take the current liberal orthodoxy and take it to its most extreme view… you get a multicultural border less nanny state with violent criminals dictating public policy. Why do people side with this?

For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

In order --

so now if there are too many to deal with, just ignore civil liberties? And sorry, there are multiples of methods to help the process simply via the executive branch. And scads more if/when Congress (last I saw all Republican) got off their ass.

And yes, there were people sounding alarm bells. Absolutely. Still doesnt change the equation for application of civil liberties.

And yes, the Biden administration carries a massively heavy burden of the blame. Absolutely. How does this change the equation as to whether to apply civil liberties?

Suppose we let 100 million illegals into the United States, would we still give them all “due process” and “civil liberties” because that’s what the constitution says… Or would common sense prevail? Where is the limiting principle there?

I’m not disagreeing with what the constitution states…but the facts are that the democrats/Biden failed to enforce immigration law? That’s my main beef with this entire situation, and was my actual point above.

The truth is, these people continuously violate and trample on what the Founders intended in regard to immigration. I’m not even upset at you, because I agree they will get Due Process, but that obviously comes with “blind spots”

(05-02-2025 01:41 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  How much due process must an illegal alien receive presently as interpreted by the Supreme Court? How much due process should an illegal alien receive? The answer to the latter question should be none other than confirmation he or she is here illegally. The gulf, if any, between what must be done now per judges and what should be done requires immediate closure by any peaceful and constitutional means.

As correctly outlined by Three, it varies.


For those who are within 100 miles of a port of entry, and havent been here more than two years -- it can be as stunningly simple as the officer making a finding *at* a hearing conducted in the field, and signed off by a supervisor. Provided there is proper cause to stop and detain in the first place. Being brown on the street is not sufficient probable cause.

ANd yes, I agree with 100% of what you state above. But above all, keep the boundaries of due process intact.

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:52 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  My biggest problem with this entire issue is that the left will do whatever it takes to keep people like this in the country … even if it produces more negative outcomes for women and children.

They’re willing to die on these hills, just to spite Trump.

It’s not about virtue, or being pro Constitution (which they view as a roadblock for many of their agenda items) …

If you take the current liberal orthodoxy and take it to its most extreme view… you get a multicultural border less nanny state with violent criminals dictating public policy. Why do people side with this?

For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

Stop them?!?

They deliberately invited them in. This wasn't some "mistake" or "We need better immigration rules blah...blah" this was by design.

No one creates a unique phone APP for the illegal invaders if it isn't intentional.

Some say, still say, this is to hopefully cultivate a new crop of prog voters, yet that plan has backfired pretty convincingly already. So the focus has shifted.

Now it's about keeping as many of these criminals around so they can count them in the next census. Ca. hopes they can gain a couple seats back if they can claim a couple million new bodies.

Same with the other prog filth failing States that are losing actual citizen residents each and every day. PF New York, PF Illinois, PF Califa etc.

They see it as the only way they can survive their own stupid decisions and policies.

Will it work? I rather doubt it.

(05-02-2025 01:47 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:52 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  My biggest problem with this entire issue is that the left will do whatever it takes to keep people like this in the country … even if it produces more negative outcomes for women and children.

They’re willing to die on these hills, just to spite Trump.

It’s not about virtue, or being pro Constitution (which they view as a roadblock for many of their agenda items) …

If you take the current liberal orthodoxy and take it to its most extreme view… you get a multicultural border less nanny state with violent criminals dictating public policy. Why do people side with this?

For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

Stop them?!?

They deliberately invited them in. This wasn't some "mistake" or "We need better immigration rules blah...blah) this was by design.

No one creates a unique phone APP for the illegal invaders if it isn't intentional.

Some say, still say, this is to hopefully cultivate a new crop of prog voters, yet the plan has backfired pretty convincingly already. So the focus has shifted.

Now it's about keeping as many of these criminals around as they can so they can count them in the next census. Ca. hopes they can gain a couple seats back if they can claim a couple million new bodies.

Same with the other prog filth failing States that are losing actual citizen residents each and every day. PF New York, PF Illinois, PF Califa etc.

They see it as the only way they can survive their own stupid decisions and policies.

Will it work? I rather doubt it.

Yeah, I agree.

I’m attributing good motives in order to keep the discourse above board.

Regardless of intent, they entered illegally. It is what it is.

(05-02-2025 09:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-01-2025 11:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-01-2025 11:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-01-2025 05:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  ^^ I saw that live. He tore them a new one. If you want to sic a human bulldog on somebody, he's your guy.

Same guy that helped get that slip and fall POS Nifong of Duke lacrosse infamy disbarred and jailed for a while (I believe) while still a friggin undergrad.

One of the very few that stood up for those completely innocent guys against another predictable leftist mob action from the Crazy.

Sound familiar?

No surprise he’s a legit star on the national scene and he’s got plenty of runway left to play on.

We’re lucky to have him.

And yet Tanq has declared him to be a moron.

Anyone who has to repeatedly lie to make their position I will absolutely place in that category.

Bummer. Sorry to get you so agitated on that issue. Good grief.

My goodness, you are totally clueless. Thanks for the laughs.

(05-02-2025 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  [quote='ThreeifbyLightning' pid='20141792' dateline='1746158179']

Quote: And you can’t even wrap your feeble mind around the heinous things they’ve done or let such atrocious acts cloud your judgement long enough to realize the horrific things that the US is literally responsible for happening. So you could not be more wrong on that point. It absolutely does matter and I’m still slightly amazed the lengths the left is going to climb this particular hill to die on.

Go piss on yourself with the 'feeble mind' crap, sparky.

Yeah, gangs and groups can absolutely do ****** things. In the 40s and 50s there were collections of gangs that did just as bad, maybe worse. Same with the pencil neck KKKers in the 60s as a group, the Weathermen in the late 60s, the Black Panthers, the fktard McVeigh type folks in the 90s.

Im not astonished that a deep blooded LE type dude wants to wash away due process, let alone any number of impediments to their job.

Yeah, it would be a lot easier to send the paunch belly tin stars with country fried steak gravy on their shirts in with carte blanche to rid groups of folks simply because -- without regard to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th, or a few other provisions of the document that matters. Sorry those are impediments to that enforcement of law by random decree. They exist for a reason. I suggest you actually adhere to that.

Yeah, how fing terrible that folks actually subscribe to the Bill of rights. What a horrific, untenable, feeble minded and asinine position.

Remind me again who is agitated there, sparky.

(05-02-2025 12:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  It was a hell of a hill to die on, Libturds.....

Glad you think so highly of due process there, champ.

I'll die on that hill every day of the week to keep it strong. As opposed to the kneejerk pinhead who think it a good thing to dismiss.

As I would for pretty much all the liberties enshrined in the Constitution. Glad you think otherwise, champ. As always -- you be you.

Those ushered in by Biden who do not already have an asylum claim is subject to and eligible for expedited removal. Anyone here has already had a chance to make that claim. Frankly, if they didn't do it soon after they arrived then claims for asylum are BS anyway. No further due process is necessary. The law for illegal aliens is not the same for citizen charged with a criminal offense. One time let it sync in.

Nothing ever sinks in with him.

(05-02-2025 01:43 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [quote='WalkThePlank' pid='20142246' dateline='1746204778']
My biggest problem with this entire issue is that the left will do whatever it takes to keep people like this in the country … even if it produces more negative outcomes for women and children.

They’re willing to die on these hills, just to spite Trump.

It’s not about virtue, or being pro Constitution (which they view as a roadblock for many of their agenda items) …

If you take the current liberal orthodoxy and take it to its most extreme view… you get a multicultural border less nanny state with violent criminals dictating public policy. Why do people side with this?

For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

In order --

so now if there are too many to deal with, just ignore civil liberties? And sorry, there are multiples of methods to help the process simply via the executive branch. And scads more if/when Congress (last I saw all Republican) got off their ass.

And yes, there were people sounding alarm bells. Absolutely. Still doesnt change the equation for application of civil liberties.

And yes, the Biden administration carries a massively heavy burden of the blame. Absolutely. How does this change the equation as to whether to apply civil liberties?

Quote:Suppose we let 100 million illegals into the United States, would we still give them all “due process” and “civil liberties” because that’s what the constitution says… Or would common sense prevail? Where is the limiting principle there?

The same limiting principle in any fundamental right. The answer above is 'yes'.

An analogy ---

suppose we let, because of a lapse of judgement, 300 million instances of speeding not be tried, but ticketed, in a three month period. Would we give the 300 million people with speeding tickets due process to contest that because thats what the Constitution requires? Or would common sense prevail and simply deem every one of them guilty with no process available? again, the answer to me is yes.

Or how about suppose an error in the law allows 5 million firearms that are not covered by the Bruen, Heller, and MacDonald cases into the country (that is otherwise illegal firearms). Would we give the owners due process when charging them, or on a smaller scale confiscating the firearms because thats what the Constitution requires? Again, my answer is heck yes.

Quote:I’m not disagreeing with what the constitution states…but the facts are that the democrats/Biden failed to enforce immigration law? That’s my main beef with this entire situation, and was my actual point above.

I understand its a wall of people. I also understand the fundamental importance of due process overall to this system of governance that I respect the **** out of. I would rather pay the price and afford due process when debatable, than to short circuit it because of a problem.

Granted, that issue could flip in the event of a massive insurrection style event, or a literal potentially immediately fatal to the country sudden event. If it is a chronic problem, probably best to keep the bounds in check as best one can.

I agree, Biden policies created a massive influx of illegal aliens. And I am a firm believer in that one of the most important actions of a sovereign country is the ability to enforce its borders, and the ability to restrict legal entry as it chooses.

And I faut Biden for taking the continued lapses of Congress, and adding to the problems there with his policies. I am all for correcting that problem. I am not willing to throw out the basic rights of our foundation of governance to do it faster

Quote:The truth is, these people continuously violate and trample on what the Founders intended in regard to immigration. I’m not even upset at you, because I agree they will get Due Process, but that obviously comes with “blind spots”

As to the first sentence, I agree. Note my comment on a state sovereign and its borders above.

The solution to violating that priciple is not (imo) trampling another basic principle out of the books simply because it saves time.

Not trying to 'keep' the illegals in, in the slightest. But the smallest short circuit in any fundamental right is a horrible step in my book. Those short circuits are simply a first crack in issue, or maybe a second or third small crack in the issue. I simply wish to limit out cracks in any fundamental right if it need not happen.

(05-02-2025 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:41 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  How much due process must an illegal alien receive presently as interpreted by the Supreme Court? How much due process should an illegal alien receive? The answer to the latter question should be none other than confirmation he or she is here illegally. The gulf, if any, between what must be done now per judges and what should be done requires immediate closure by any peaceful and constitutional means.

As correctly outlined by Three, it varies.


For those who are within 100 miles of a port of entry, and havent been here more than two years -- it can be as stunningly simple as the officer making a finding *at* a hearing conducted in the field, and signed off by a supervisor. Provided there is proper cause to stop and detain in the first place. Being brown on the street is not sufficient probable cause.

ANd yes, I agree with 100% of what you state above. But above all, keep the boundaries of due process intact.

Nobody is denying that's the law. The issue is that it is woefully inadequate for the situation we find ourselves in, where maybe 20M aliens were allowed in ILLEGALLY, and if they are not deported expeditiously, will forever change the fabric of our society in dramatic, unintentional and negative ways.

Above all, you want to protect due process. Above all, a lot of us want to protect our society and way of life from an illegal invasion.

I'm not saying ignore the law and just round up everybody with darker skin. I'm saying we need to find a way to expedite the process to get these people out before we turn into Haiti.

But at least your due process will be saved. While we all live in a sh!thole full of murders, rapists and violent gangs, and a permanent one-party system.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some laws can be amended or suspended temporarily to deal with what many of us consider to be a World War type invasion? Of course not.

(05-02-2025 12:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:52 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  My biggest problem with this entire issue is that the left will do whatever it takes to keep people like this in the country … even if it produces more negative outcomes for women and children.

They’re willing to die on these hills, just to spite Trump.

It’s not about virtue, or being pro Constitution (which they view as a roadblock for many of their agenda items) …

If you take the current liberal orthodoxy and take it to its most extreme view… you get a multicultural border less nanny state with violent criminals dictating public policy. Why do people side with this?

For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

This is just ridiculous. This didn't start or end with Biden. Our immigration laws have been a mess for decades and both parties are to blame. Until Congress addresses this, nothing much is going to change.

Decades?

No, the issue is the last 4 years, when Biden's admin completely dropped our drawers at the borders and allowed in up to maybe 20M illegals to ensure political power for the foreseeable future.

(05-02-2025 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:43 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [quote='WalkThePlank' pid='20142246' dateline='1746204778']
My biggest problem with this entire issue is that the left will do whatever it takes to keep people like this in the country … even if it produces more negative outcomes for women and children.

They’re willing to die on these hills, just to spite Trump.

It’s not about virtue, or being pro Constitution (which they view as a roadblock for many of their agenda items) …

If you take the current liberal orthodoxy and take it to its most extreme view… you get a multicultural border less nanny state with violent criminals dictating public policy. Why do people side with this?

For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

In order --

so now if there are too many to deal with, just ignore civil liberties? And sorry, there are multiples of methods to help the process simply via the executive branch. And scads more if/when Congress (last I saw all Republican) got off their ass.

And yes, there were people sounding alarm bells. Absolutely. Still doesnt change the equation for application of civil liberties.

And yes, the Biden administration carries a massively heavy burden of the blame. Absolutely. How does this change the equation as to whether to apply civil liberties?

Quote:Suppose we let 100 million illegals into the United States, would we still give them all “due process” and “civil liberties” because that’s what the constitution says… Or would common sense prevail? Where is the limiting principle there?

The same limiting principle in any fundamental right. The answer above is 'yes'.

An analogy ---

suppose we let, because of a lapse of judgement, 300 million instances of speeding not be tried, but ticketed, in a three month period. Would we give the 300 million people with speeding tickets due process to contest that because thats what the Constitution requires? Or would common sense prevail and simply deem every one of them guilty with no process available? again, the answer to me is yes.

Or how about suppose an error in the law allows 5 million firearms that are not covered by the Bruen, Heller, and MacDonald cases into the country (that is otherwise illegal firearms). Would we give the owners due process when charging them, or on a smaller scale confiscating the firearms because thats what the Constitution requires? Again, my answer is heck yes.

Quote:I’m not disagreeing with what the constitution states…but the facts are that the democrats/Biden failed to enforce immigration law? That’s my main beef with this entire situation, and was my actual point above.

I understand its a wall of people. I also understand the fundamental importance of due process overall to this system of governance that I respect the **** out of. I would rather pay the price and afford due process when debatable, than to short circuit it because of a problem.

Granted, that issue could flip in the event of a massive insurrection style event, or a literal potentially immediately fatal to the country sudden event. If it is a chronic problem, probably best to keep the bounds in check as best one can.

I agree, Biden policies created a massive influx of illegal aliens. And I am a firm believer in that one of the most important actions of a sovereign country is the ability to enforce its borders, and the ability to restrict legal entry as it chooses.

And I faut Biden for taking the continued lapses of Congress, and adding to the problems there with his policies. I am all for correcting that problem. I am not willing to throw out the basic rights of our foundation of governance to do it faster

Quote:The truth is, these people continuously violate and trample on what the Founders intended in regard to immigration. I’m not even upset at you, because I agree they will get Due Process, but that obviously comes with “blind spots”

As to the first sentence, I agree. Note my comment on a state sovereign and its borders above.

The solution to violating that priciple is not (imo) trampling another basic principle out of the books simply because it saves time.

Not trying to 'keep' the illegals in, in the slightest. But the smallest short circuit in any fundamental right is a horrible step in my book. Those short circuits are simply a first crack in issue, or maybe a second or third small crack in the issue. I simply wish to limit out cracks in any fundamental right if it need not happen.

Your examples/analogies are noted, but let’s try to stick with illegal immigration solely. The question that needs to be asked:

1. is there an actual amount where too many illegals overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and deport them quickly?

I get that it’s an extreme example, but it tests the theory of due process and civil liberties, while balancing a national sovereignty and safety of the citizens.

My argument is that these people have no right to be here, and have limited due process. Which is what Scalia wrote back in his dissent in 2001.

(05-02-2025 02:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:41 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  How much due process must an illegal alien receive presently as interpreted by the Supreme Court? How much due process should an illegal alien receive? The answer to the latter question should be none other than confirmation he or she is here illegally. The gulf, if any, between what must be done now per judges and what should be done requires immediate closure by any peaceful and constitutional means.

As correctly outlined by Three, it varies.


For those who are within 100 miles of a port of entry, and havent been here more than two years -- it can be as stunningly simple as the officer making a finding *at* a hearing conducted in the field, and signed off by a supervisor. Provided there is proper cause to stop and detain in the first place. Being brown on the street is not sufficient probable cause.

ANd yes, I agree with 100% of what you state above. But above all, keep the boundaries of due process intact.

Nobody is denying that's the law. The issue is that it is woefully inadequate for the situation we find ourselves in, where maybe 20M aliens were allowed in ILLEGALLY, and if they are not deported expeditiously, will forever change the fabric of our society in dramatic, unintentional and negative ways.

Above all, you want to protect due process. Above all, a lot of us want to protect our society and way of life from an illegal invasion.

I'm not saying ignore the law and just round up everybody with darker skin. I'm saying we need to find a way to expedite the process to get these people out before we turn into Haiti.

But at least your due process will be saved. While we all live in a sh!thole full of murders, rapists and violent gangs, and a permanent one-party system.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some laws can be amended or suspended temporarily to deal with what many of us consider to be a World War type invasion? Of course not.

Yes, it does. That is the type of stupid ass chop shop outcome that should *absolutely* be avoided when possible.

Even more so with the Constitution, which is actually supreme to 'some laws'.

I mean, lets just declare an emergency, and confiscate all the guns given that dumb*** path. Sound good to you? The left harps about that gun presence is a national threatening issue.

So if you stupidly think that an 'expediency exception' exists for the 5th amendment here, seems like a pretty case for the left to say the same thing about the 2nd. Using your rationale above, not only does it normalize that move, it make it palatable, and provides a 'if they did it there, we can do it here' tests case.

I mean if yu really think that bypassing the Constitution is such the cat's meow, you have every right to think that. I think it is idiotic, because I think the right of due process under the 5th and 14th is pretty good overall. Not one people should say 'hold my beer, lets just do this' with.

But if you think otherwise, free country and all that jazz.

If you think that would be last of it, you woud be dead wrong. Again, how would you think of some progressive saying 'there is a huge national problem with firearms' (and there is), and then justifying just ignoring the 2nd amendments overall to fix the problem? Equally as good with that outcome?

That is one reason why I have the attitude towards due process. Dont fk with the base rules. Most of them make a this a great place overall. A pretty special place.

(05-02-2025 02:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:41 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  How much due process must an illegal alien receive presently as interpreted by the Supreme Court? How much due process should an illegal alien receive? The answer to the latter question should be none other than confirmation he or she is here illegally. The gulf, if any, between what must be done now per judges and what should be done requires immediate closure by any peaceful and constitutional means.

As correctly outlined by Three, it varies.


For those who are within 100 miles of a port of entry, and havent been here more than two years -- it can be as stunningly simple as the officer making a finding *at* a hearing conducted in the field, and signed off by a supervisor. Provided there is proper cause to stop and detain in the first place. Being brown on the street is not sufficient probable cause.

ANd yes, I agree with 100% of what you state above. But above all, keep the boundaries of due process intact.

Nobody is denying that's the law. The issue is that it is woefully inadequate for the situation we find ourselves in, where maybe 20M aliens were allowed in ILLEGALLY, and if they are not deported expeditiously, will forever change the fabric of our society in dramatic, unintentional and negative ways.

Above all, you want to protect due process. Above all, a lot of us want to protect our society and way of life from an illegal invasion.

I'm not saying ignore the law and just round up everybody with darker skin. I'm saying we need to find a way to expedite the process to get these people out before we turn into Haiti.

But at least your due process will be saved. While we all live in a sh!thole full of murders, rapists and violent gangs, and a permanent one-party system.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some laws can be amended or suspended temporarily to deal with what many of us consider to be a World War type invasion? Of course not.

Yes, it does. That is the type of stupid ass chop shop outcome that should *absolutely* be avoided when possible.

Even more so with the Constitution, which is actually supreme to 'some laws'.

I mean, lets just declare an emergency, and confiscate all the guns given that dumb*** path. Sound good to you? The left harps about that gun presence is a national threatening issue.

So if you stupidly think that an 'expediency exception' exists for the 5th amendment here, seems like a pretty case for the left to say the same thing about the 2nd. Using your rationale above, not only does it normalize that move, it make it palatable, and provides a 'if they did it there, we can do it here' tests case.

I mean if yu really think that bypassing the Constitution is such the cat's meow, you have every right to think that. I think it is idiotic, because I think the right of due process under the 5th and 14th is pretty good overall. Not one people should say 'hold my beer, lets just do this' with.

But if you think otherwise, free country and all that jazz.

If you think that would be last of it, you woud be dead wrong. Again, how would you think of some progressive saying 'there is a huge national problem with firearms' (and there is), and then justifying just ignoring the 2nd amendments overall to fix the problem? Equally as good with that outcome?

That is one reason why I have the attitude towards due process. Dont fk with the base rules. Most of them make a this a great place overall. A pretty special place.

Kindly read this. I am not suggesting anything illegal. I am simply hoping for a reasonable solution. Taking decades to undo 20M illegal invasions of our country is a death sentence for this country. No country in the world would stand for that.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-1009747-post-2...id20142468

(05-02-2025 02:28 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:43 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

In order --

so now if there are too many to deal with, just ignore civil liberties? And sorry, there are multiples of methods to help the process simply via the executive branch. And scads more if/when Congress (last I saw all Republican) got off their ass.

And yes, there were people sounding alarm bells. Absolutely. Still doesnt change the equation for application of civil liberties.

And yes, the Biden administration carries a massively heavy burden of the blame. Absolutely. How does this change the equation as to whether to apply civil liberties?

Quote:Suppose we let 100 million illegals into the United States, would we still give them all “due process” and “civil liberties” because that’s what the constitution says… Or would common sense prevail? Where is the limiting principle there?

The same limiting principle in any fundamental right. The answer above is 'yes'.

An analogy ---

suppose we let, because of a lapse of judgement, 300 million instances of speeding not be tried, but ticketed, in a three month period. Would we give the 300 million people with speeding tickets due process to contest that because thats what the Constitution requires? Or would common sense prevail and simply deem every one of them guilty with no process available? again, the answer to me is yes.

Or how about suppose an error in the law allows 5 million firearms that are not covered by the Bruen, Heller, and MacDonald cases into the country (that is otherwise illegal firearms). Would we give the owners due process when charging them, or on a smaller scale confiscating the firearms because thats what the Constitution requires? Again, my answer is heck yes.

Quote:I’m not disagreeing with what the constitution states…but the facts are that the democrats/Biden failed to enforce immigration law? That’s my main beef with this entire situation, and was my actual point above.

I understand its a wall of people. I also understand the fundamental importance of due process overall to this system of governance that I respect the **** out of. I would rather pay the price and afford due process when debatable, than to short circuit it because of a problem.

Granted, that issue could flip in the event of a massive insurrection style event, or a literal potentially immediately fatal to the country sudden event. If it is a chronic problem, probably best to keep the bounds in check as best one can.

I agree, Biden policies created a massive influx of illegal aliens. And I am a firm believer in that one of the most important actions of a sovereign country is the ability to enforce its borders, and the ability to restrict legal entry as it chooses.

And I faut Biden for taking the continued lapses of Congress, and adding to the problems there with his policies. I am all for correcting that problem. I am not willing to throw out the basic rights of our foundation of governance to do it faster

Quote:The truth is, these people continuously violate and trample on what the Founders intended in regard to immigration. I’m not even upset at you, because I agree they will get Due Process, but that obviously comes with “blind spots”

As to the first sentence, I agree. Note my comment on a state sovereign and its borders above.

The solution to violating that priciple is not (imo) trampling another basic principle out of the books simply because it saves time.

Not trying to 'keep' the illegals in, in the slightest. But the smallest short circuit in any fundamental right is a horrible step in my book. Those short circuits are simply a first crack in issue, or maybe a second or third small crack in the issue. I simply wish to limit out cracks in any fundamental right if it need not happen.

Your examples/analogies are noted, but let’s try to stick with illegal immigration solely. The question that needs to be asked:

1. is there an actual amount where too many illegals overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and deport them quickly?

I get that it’s an extreme example, but it tests the theory of due process and civil liberties, while balancing a national sovereignty and safety of the citizens.

My argument is that these people have no right to be here, and have limited due process. Which is what Scalia wrote back in his dissent in 2001.

Trump has cut off their free crap and is fining businesses. If you know a business that employez illegals, report them.

(05-02-2025 02:28 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:43 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 12:12 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  For me, I only want him to have his due process under the current law. And if it's found he has to go, then by all means ship him out.

That's it.

And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

In order --

so now if there are too many to deal with, just ignore civil liberties? And sorry, there are multiples of methods to help the process simply via the executive branch. And scads more if/when Congress (last I saw all Republican) got off their ass.

And yes, there were people sounding alarm bells. Absolutely. Still doesnt change the equation for application of civil liberties.

And yes, the Biden administration carries a massively heavy burden of the blame. Absolutely. How does this change the equation as to whether to apply civil liberties?

Quote:Suppose we let 100 million illegals into the United States, would we still give them all “due process” and “civil liberties” because that’s what the constitution says… Or would common sense prevail? Where is the limiting principle there?

The same limiting principle in any fundamental right. The answer above is 'yes'.

An analogy ---

suppose we let, because of a lapse of judgement, 300 million instances of speeding not be tried, but ticketed, in a three month period. Would we give the 300 million people with speeding tickets due process to contest that because thats what the Constitution requires? Or would common sense prevail and simply deem every one of them guilty with no process available? again, the answer to me is yes.

Or how about suppose an error in the law allows 5 million firearms that are not covered by the Bruen, Heller, and MacDonald cases into the country (that is otherwise illegal firearms). Would we give the owners due process when charging them, or on a smaller scale confiscating the firearms because thats what the Constitution requires? Again, my answer is heck yes.

Quote:I’m not disagreeing with what the constitution states…but the facts are that the democrats/Biden failed to enforce immigration law? That’s my main beef with this entire situation, and was my actual point above.

I understand its a wall of people. I also understand the fundamental importance of due process overall to this system of governance that I respect the **** out of. I would rather pay the price and afford due process when debatable, than to short circuit it because of a problem.

Granted, that issue could flip in the event of a massive insurrection style event, or a literal potentially immediately fatal to the country sudden event. If it is a chronic problem, probably best to keep the bounds in check as best one can.

I agree, Biden policies created a massive influx of illegal aliens. And I am a firm believer in that one of the most important actions of a sovereign country is the ability to enforce its borders, and the ability to restrict legal entry as it chooses.

And I faut Biden for taking the continued lapses of Congress, and adding to the problems there with his policies. I am all for correcting that problem. I am not willing to throw out the basic rights of our foundation of governance to do it faster

Quote:The truth is, these people continuously violate and trample on what the Founders intended in regard to immigration. I’m not even upset at you, because I agree they will get Due Process, but that obviously comes with “blind spots”

As to the first sentence, I agree. Note my comment on a state sovereign and its borders above.

The solution to violating that priciple is not (imo) trampling another basic principle out of the books simply because it saves time.

Not trying to 'keep' the illegals in, in the slightest. But the smallest short circuit in any fundamental right is a horrible step in my book. Those short circuits are simply a first crack in issue, or maybe a second or third small crack in the issue. I simply wish to limit out cracks in any fundamental right if it need not happen.

Your examples/analogies are noted, but let’s try to stick with illegal immigration solely. The question that needs to be asked:

1. is there an actual amount where too many illegals overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and deport them quickly?

In my book no. We can even more easily beef the **** out of the immigration courts, legislatively address the statutes to remove easily exploitable paths, or make them much much much much harder to even invoke, change 8 CFR to allow greater latitude for Expedited Removal hearings, beef up ICE, beef up employer sanctions etc etc etc.

Quote:I get that it’s an extreme example, but it tests the theory of due process and civil liberties, while balancing a national sovereignty and safety of the citizens.

Im a very staunch absolutist in nature to Constitutional protections. All of them.

There can be valid limits to due process. We arent anywhere near them presently, imo.

And there are both valid executive pathways and valid congressional pathways to deal with what is, absolutely, a chronic and large problem. Use them.

in fact, I would say jsut about any valid executive pathway and/or legislative pathway is far superior to simply short circuiting a Constitutional protection for expediency.

Quote:My argument is that these people have no right to be here, and have limited due process. Which is what Scalia wrote back in his dissent in 2001.

No one disputes that. Either portion. But it is crystal clear that at a fundamental level, illegals have even limited due process rights. Lets do this the right way.

I just responded above to 3A who made some of the same points you do above.

Here is another situation that I would fight tooth and nail -- for the same reasons.

Lets assume the left begins another cattle crow call about the danger firearms are to the fabric of society. And granted, firearm deaths and injuries *are* a humongous problem. A chronic problem.

Using the oath you outline above, it seems that a valid concern for short circuiting the 2nd amendment, and the much fuller protections under Heller, McDonald, and Bruen mind you, since there is this chronic societal problem which is rooted in large numbers of relaitvely uncontrolled firearms in the hands of the public. Hey, lets just magpie 'its a severe chronic problem.' Using your own construct -- "where too many illegals firearms overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and [remove] them quickly."

I dont want that to be used in any form, against any fundamental right.

In the case of illegal aliens -- it absolutely is a mountain of an issue. But there are solutions that, with time, absolutely will alleviate that.

Id prefer, to a maximum level, to not be solution that touches a core fundamental right.

(05-02-2025 02:40 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:41 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  How much due process must an illegal alien receive presently as interpreted by the Supreme Court? How much due process should an illegal alien receive? The answer to the latter question should be none other than confirmation he or she is here illegally. The gulf, if any, between what must be done now per judges and what should be done requires immediate closure by any peaceful and constitutional means.

As correctly outlined by Three, it varies.


For those who are within 100 miles of a port of entry, and havent been here more than two years -- it can be as stunningly simple as the officer making a finding *at* a hearing conducted in the field, and signed off by a supervisor. Provided there is proper cause to stop and detain in the first place. Being brown on the street is not sufficient probable cause.

ANd yes, I agree with 100% of what you state above. But above all, keep the boundaries of due process intact.

Nobody is denying that's the law. The issue is that it is woefully inadequate for the situation we find ourselves in, where maybe 20M aliens were allowed in ILLEGALLY, and if they are not deported expeditiously, will forever change the fabric of our society in dramatic, unintentional and negative ways.

Above all, you want to protect due process. Above all, a lot of us want to protect our society and way of life from an illegal invasion.

I'm not saying ignore the law and just round up everybody with darker skin. I'm saying we need to find a way to expedite the process to get these people out before we turn into Haiti.

But at least your due process will be saved. While we all live in a sh!thole full of murders, rapists and violent gangs, and a permanent one-party system.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some laws can be amended or suspended temporarily to deal with what many of us consider to be a World War type invasion? Of course not.

Yes, it does. That is the type of stupid ass chop shop outcome that should *absolutely* be avoided when possible.

Even more so with the Constitution, which is actually supreme to 'some laws'.

I mean, lets just declare an emergency, and confiscate all the guns given that dumb*** path. Sound good to you? The left harps about that gun presence is a national threatening issue.

So if you stupidly think that an 'expediency exception' exists for the 5th amendment here, seems like a pretty case for the left to say the same thing about the 2nd. Using your rationale above, not only does it normalize that move, it make it palatable, and provides a 'if they did it there, we can do it here' tests case.

I mean if yu really think that bypassing the Constitution is such the cat's meow, you have every right to think that. I think it is idiotic, because I think the right of due process under the 5th and 14th is pretty good overall. Not one people should say 'hold my beer, lets just do this' with.

But if you think otherwise, free country and all that jazz.

If you think that would be last of it, you woud be dead wrong. Again, how would you think of some progressive saying 'there is a huge national problem with firearms' (and there is), and then justifying just ignoring the 2nd amendments overall to fix the problem? Equally as good with that outcome?

That is one reason why I have the attitude towards due process. Dont fk with the base rules. Most of them make a this a great place overall. A pretty special place.

Kindly read this. I am not suggesting anything illegal. I am simply hoping for a reasonable solution. Taking decades to undo 20M illegal invasions of our country is a death sentence for this country. No country in the world would stand for that.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-1009747-post-2...id20142468

I think there are multiple ways to deal with this in the manner you suggest in that post. And overall agree with the direction of your post there.

And, to be honest, currently the only Constitutional excesses I have seen are in the implementation of deportations under the AEA. And I think from reading your posts that you and I are quite close in our viewpoints in that subject when it is narrowed to that subject.


That it is limited to AEA problems may be changing -- there are reports of actual citizens being detained for extensive time under the 'normal' policing of the southern border.

Im actually driving to a certain town in S. Texas tomorrow to be in a meeting with a family of one such person. A friend of mine who might be representing them in the matter knows of some other things I have done lately in and about this, and asked me to join him mainly as a second set of eyes, but one that can invoke attorney client privilege. If the practice extends to detention and questioning of US citizens -- the subject outside the AEA may get a little warmer.

Im not going to say anything more in that angle. Especially knowing a member of DHS listens in here, and saying that with the utmost of respect to him.

I hope that the allegations are not well founded -- I would hate to see the issue of US citizen rights join the ongoing fray, since really the only questions of due process violations is now centered with the AEA detainees.

(05-02-2025 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:28 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:43 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And that would be fine if there wasn’t over 2 million backlogged cases which will take years to process.

Especially when the same people currently in charge sounded the alarm bells years ago about how this issue would manifest itself.

Again…the Biden administration is 100% the blame here for not even attempting to stop them.

In order --

so now if there are too many to deal with, just ignore civil liberties? And sorry, there are multiples of methods to help the process simply via the executive branch. And scads more if/when Congress (last I saw all Republican) got off their ass.

And yes, there were people sounding alarm bells. Absolutely. Still doesnt change the equation for application of civil liberties.

And yes, the Biden administration carries a massively heavy burden of the blame. Absolutely. How does this change the equation as to whether to apply civil liberties?

Quote:Suppose we let 100 million illegals into the United States, would we still give them all “due process” and “civil liberties” because that’s what the constitution says… Or would common sense prevail? Where is the limiting principle there?

The same limiting principle in any fundamental right. The answer above is 'yes'.

An analogy ---

suppose we let, because of a lapse of judgement, 300 million instances of speeding not be tried, but ticketed, in a three month period. Would we give the 300 million people with speeding tickets due process to contest that because thats what the Constitution requires? Or would common sense prevail and simply deem every one of them guilty with no process available? again, the answer to me is yes.

Or how about suppose an error in the law allows 5 million firearms that are not covered by the Bruen, Heller, and MacDonald cases into the country (that is otherwise illegal firearms). Would we give the owners due process when charging them, or on a smaller scale confiscating the firearms because thats what the Constitution requires? Again, my answer is heck yes.

Quote:I’m not disagreeing with what the constitution states…but the facts are that the democrats/Biden failed to enforce immigration law? That’s my main beef with this entire situation, and was my actual point above.

I understand its a wall of people. I also understand the fundamental importance of due process overall to this system of governance that I respect the **** out of. I would rather pay the price and afford due process when debatable, than to short circuit it because of a problem.

Granted, that issue could flip in the event of a massive insurrection style event, or a literal potentially immediately fatal to the country sudden event. If it is a chronic problem, probably best to keep the bounds in check as best one can.

I agree, Biden policies created a massive influx of illegal aliens. And I am a firm believer in that one of the most important actions of a sovereign country is the ability to enforce its borders, and the ability to restrict legal entry as it chooses.

And I faut Biden for taking the continued lapses of Congress, and adding to the problems there with his policies. I am all for correcting that problem. I am not willing to throw out the basic rights of our foundation of governance to do it faster

Quote:The truth is, these people continuously violate and trample on what the Founders intended in regard to immigration. I’m not even upset at you, because I agree they will get Due Process, but that obviously comes with “blind spots”

As to the first sentence, I agree. Note my comment on a state sovereign and its borders above.

The solution to violating that priciple is not (imo) trampling another basic principle out of the books simply because it saves time.

Not trying to 'keep' the illegals in, in the slightest. But the smallest short circuit in any fundamental right is a horrible step in my book. Those short circuits are simply a first crack in issue, or maybe a second or third small crack in the issue. I simply wish to limit out cracks in any fundamental right if it need not happen.

Your examples/analogies are noted, but let’s try to stick with illegal immigration solely. The question that needs to be asked:

1. is there an actual amount where too many illegals overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and deport them quickly?

In my book no. We can even more easily beef the **** out of the immigration courts, legislatively address the statutes to remove easily exploitable paths, or make them much much much much harder to even invoke, change 8 CFR to allow greater latitude for Expedited Removal hearings, beef up ICE, beef up employer sanctions etc etc etc.

Quote:I get that it’s an extreme example, but it tests the theory of due process and civil liberties, while balancing a national sovereignty and safety of the citizens.

Im a very staunch absolutist in nature to Constitutional protections. All of them.

There can be valid limits to due process. We arent anywhere near them presently, imo.

And there are both valid executive pathways and valid congressional pathways to deal with what is, absolutely, a chronic and large problem. Use them.

in fact, I would say jsut about any valid executive pathway and/or legislative pathway is far superior to simply short circuiting a Constitutional protection for expediency.

Quote:My argument is that these people have no right to be here, and have limited due process. Which is what Scalia wrote back in his dissent in 2001.

No one disputes that. Either portion. But it is crystal clear that at a fundamental level, illegals have even limited due process rights. Lets do this the right way.

I just responded above to 3A who made some of the same points you do above.

Here is another situation that I would fight tooth and nail -- for the same reasons.

Lets assume the left begins another cattle crow call about the danger firearms are to the fabric of society. And granted, firearm deaths and injuries *are* a humongous problem. A chronic problem.

Using the oath you outline above, it seems that a valid concern for short circuiting the 2nd amendment, and the much fuller protections under Heller, McDonald, and Bruen mind you, since there is this chronic societal problem which is rooted in large numbers of relaitvely uncontrolled firearms in the hands of the public. Hey, lets just magpie 'its a severe chronic problem.' Using your own construct -- "where too many illegals firearms overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and [remove] them quickly."

I dont want that to be used in any form, against any fundamental right.

In the case of illegal aliens -- it absolutely is a mountain of an issue. But there are solutions that, with time, absolutely will alleviate that.

Id prefer, to a maximum level, to not be solution that touches a core fundamental right.

They still don’t have absolute constitutional rights. The government has a duty to uphold the rights of its own citizenry.

Again…you keep trying to compare gun control to this one in order to explain the slippery slope potential. On the surface, it’s understandable.

- The main difference is that the people in question have no right to be here, where law abiding gun owners have full rights as being a citizen. These are still very different issues and now the law defines legal vs illegal

- Due process has been curtailed in the past, albeit not at the level that I’m proposing.

- The ultimate belief: deporting illegals does not hinder the rights of citizens, we have priority when it comes to who stays. Obviously if you continue the level of immigration under Biden, you’d get an unsustainable future where society wouldn’t be able to properly function due to overcrowding and potential poverty rates.

(05-02-2025 03:16 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  - The main difference is that the people in question have no right to be here,

And you most likely unintentionally nailed the issue on its head.

How do you determine that have 'no right to be here'? They have an absolute right, in varying degrees and manners, to have due process apply *specifically* to that determination and first issue. Do they have a legal basis to be here. End of story.


In the above -- you completely skip that entire issue. Jumping *straight* to that determination, and after making that determinative answer, then state that they have no due process.

That is completely bass-ackwards.

Quote:- The ultimate belief: deporting illegals does not hinder the rights of citizens,

Absolutely agree. And again you put the cart before the horse.

One *must* determine they are illegal -- then it becomes a non-hindrance.

And one *must* use SOME form of due process to complete the step of 'are they illegal.'

Yeah, once found illegal -- ship them away. And once found illegal there is absolutely no hindrance to any one else's rights or protections. That isnt the issue.

The issue is if you deny them due process in the step of determining whether they are illegal, you actually may very well be hindering the rights of those here.

Quote:we have priority when it comes to who stays. Obviously if you continue the level of immigration under Biden, you’d get an unsustainable future where society wouldn’t be able to properly function due to overcrowding and potential poverty rates.

Look, contunuously saying <something Biden> doesnt make anything a positive, nor any more a negative. In terms of affording due process, and even that I did not support Biden's border policies and actions in the slightest, Biden's nonfeasance or even malfeasance ahs *nothing* nothing to do with the question of *now* whether we should employ due process in the action aof addressing that problem.

It would be like my neighbor bitching about the guy who owned the house before me over a problematic tree -- that previous angst really doesnt do **** in solving the here and now issues.

Thats why ai am so fing gd sick of the constant answers here of "whadabout <something Biden>". Its just s stupid deflection.

(05-02-2025 03:16 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:28 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 02:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2025 01:43 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  In order --

so now if there are too many to deal with, just ignore civil liberties? And sorry, there are multiples of methods to help the process simply via the executive branch. And scads more if/when Congress (last I saw all Republican) got off their ass.

And yes, there were people sounding alarm bells. Absolutely. Still doesnt change the equation for application of civil liberties.

And yes, the Biden administration carries a massively heavy burden of the blame. Absolutely. How does this change the equation as to whether to apply civil liberties?

Quote:Suppose we let 100 million illegals into the United States, would we still give them all “due process” and “civil liberties” because that’s what the constitution says… Or would common sense prevail? Where is the limiting principle there?

The same limiting principle in any fundamental right. The answer above is 'yes'.

An analogy ---

suppose we let, because of a lapse of judgement, 300 million instances of speeding not be tried, but ticketed, in a three month period. Would we give the 300 million people with speeding tickets due process to contest that because thats what the Constitution requires? Or would common sense prevail and simply deem every one of them guilty with no process available? again, the answer to me is yes.

Or how about suppose an error in the law allows 5 million firearms that are not covered by the Bruen, Heller, and MacDonald cases into the country (that is otherwise illegal firearms). Would we give the owners due process when charging them, or on a smaller scale confiscating the firearms because thats what the Constitution requires? Again, my answer is heck yes.

Quote:I’m not disagreeing with what the constitution states…but the facts are that the democrats/Biden failed to enforce immigration law? That’s my main beef with this entire situation, and was my actual point above.

I understand its a wall of people. I also understand the fundamental importance of due process overall to this system of governance that I respect the **** out of. I would rather pay the price and afford due process when debatable, than to short circuit it because of a problem.

Granted, that issue could flip in the event of a massive insurrection style event, or a literal potentially immediately fatal to the country sudden event. If it is a chronic problem, probably best to keep the bounds in check as best one can.

I agree, Biden policies created a massive influx of illegal aliens. And I am a firm believer in that one of the most important actions of a sovereign country is the ability to enforce its borders, and the ability to restrict legal entry as it chooses.

And I faut Biden for taking the continued lapses of Congress, and adding to the problems there with his policies. I am all for correcting that problem. I am not willing to throw out the basic rights of our foundation of governance to do it faster

Quote:The truth is, these people continuously violate and trample on what the Founders intended in regard to immigration. I’m not even upset at you, because I agree they will get Due Process, but that obviously comes with “blind spots”

As to the first sentence, I agree. Note my comment on a state sovereign and its borders above.

The solution to violating that priciple is not (imo) trampling another basic principle out of the books simply because it saves time.

Not trying to 'keep' the illegals in, in the slightest. But the smallest short circuit in any fundamental right is a horrible step in my book. Those short circuits are simply a first crack in issue, or maybe a second or third small crack in the issue. I simply wish to limit out cracks in any fundamental right if it need not happen.

Your examples/analogies are noted, but let’s try to stick with illegal immigration solely. The question that needs to be asked:

1. is there an actual amount where too many illegals overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and deport them quickly?

In my book no. We can even more easily beef the **** out of the immigration courts, legislatively address the statutes to remove easily exploitable paths, or make them much much much much harder to even invoke, change 8 CFR to allow greater latitude for Expedited Removal hearings, beef up ICE, beef up employer sanctions etc etc etc.

Quote:I get that it’s an extreme example, but it tests the theory of due process and civil liberties, while balancing a national sovereignty and safety of the citizens.

Im a very staunch absolutist in nature to Constitutional protections. All of them.

There can be valid limits to due process. We arent anywhere near them presently, imo.

And there are both valid executive pathways and valid congressional pathways to deal with what is, absolutely, a chronic and large problem. Use them.

in fact, I would say jsut about any valid executive pathway and/or legislative pathway is far superior to simply short circuiting a Constitutional protection for expediency.

Quote:My argument is that these people have no right to be here, and have limited due process. Which is what Scalia wrote back in his dissent in 2001.

No one disputes that. Either portion. But it is crystal clear that at a fundamental level, illegals have even limited due process rights. Lets do this the right way.

I just responded above to 3A who made some of the same points you do above.

Here is another situation that I would fight tooth and nail -- for the same reasons.

Lets assume the left begins another cattle crow call about the danger firearms are to the fabric of society. And granted, firearm deaths and injuries *are* a humongous problem. A chronic problem.

Using the oath you outline above, it seems that a valid concern for short circuiting the 2nd amendment, and the much fuller protections under Heller, McDonald, and Bruen mind you, since there is this chronic societal problem which is rooted in large numbers of relaitvely uncontrolled firearms in the hands of the public. Hey, lets just magpie 'its a severe chronic problem.' Using your own construct -- "where too many illegals firearms overwhelm the system, that the only way to reasonably fix it is to forgo “constitutional rights” and [remove] them quickly."

I dont want that to be used in any form, against any fundamental right.

In the case of illegal aliens -- it absolutely is a mountain of an issue. But there are solutions that, with time, absolutely will alleviate that.

Id prefer, to a maximum level, to not be solution that touches a core fundamental right.

They still don’t have absolute constitutional rights. The government has a duty to uphold the rights of its own citizenry.

Again…you keep trying to compare gun control to this one in order to explain the slippery slope potential. On the surface, it’s understandable.

- The main difference is that the people in question have no right to be here, where law abiding gun owners have full rights as being a citizen. These are still very different issues and now the law defines legal vs illegal

- Due process has been curtailed in the past, albeit not at the level that I’m proposing.

- The ultimate belief: deporting illegals does not hinder the rights of citizens, we have priority when it comes to who stays. Obviously if you continue the level of immigration under Biden, you’d get an unsustainable future where society wouldn’t be able to properly function due to overcrowding and potential poverty rates.

Yep. Send the back to fix their shiteholes. They dont assimilate they set up little shitehole colonies here

Fine the employers and cut off their free stuff. They gotta go back. The country is worse than broken.

Obama and Biden* may have destroyed America. Im not sure it can recover without civil war