TheOriginalBigApp
Hall of Fame Inductor
Posts: 3,264
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 500
I Root For: Appalachian
Location: |
RE: Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
(05-01-2025 03:41 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote: (05-01-2025 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-01-2025 02:00 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote: (04-30-2025 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Sure thing.
Slaves -- SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property. Can no more afford due process to a slave than afford due process to a '83 Trans Am in their view.
Most find that all of: repugnant, misguided, and racist.
I hope that angle isnt the saving grace for a rationale for 'others' not being "persons" under the 5th and 14th in your view.
American Indians -- same story, slightly different tune. Consistent rulings that touched upon 'their own nation' were a cover for rulings denying due process. Even though due process was afforded Italians, Irish, Brits, French, various Germanic nationalities, Russsians blah blah blah blah.
Apparently non-naturalized Irish were afforded due process even though being of 'another nation', and American Indians were not while being of another nation.
Kind of obvious in the discrepancies that the rulings were permeated with rank discrimination based on 'red skin' or not.
Again, if you want to use either as a great counter-example for denying 'others' due process, that might be treading on some thin ice.
I see you havent explicitly made that argument. Just insistently asked for an answer twice in rapid succession tonite, which indicates some wish to use those as a grand counter example.
The argument that blacks, Indians, and whole host of others today arent 'persons' can be quite the balancing act to pull off without going full blown racist garbage. Id tread pretty lightly around that issue -- especially so given the explicit history of the groups and the rulings about them in a much, much, much earlier time.
Thanks for the reply.
As you stated "Slaves -- SCOTUS ruled that slaves were property."
In the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. The Court held that enslaved individuals were not citizens and did not have standing in federal courts, even after they were freed. This decision effectively treated slaves as property rather than as individuals entitled to due process or citizenship rights.
The actual ruling says: "The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind."
Quote: To me the key word here is citizen of the USA.
The issue in Dred was whether he was a citizen of a state, and entitled to rights as a citizen of state to sue. Specifically in Dred:
"A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State."
The Dred Scott simply said (paraphrase) 'slaves == property. Dred Scott, being property, and not a citizen of a state, cannot sue in state court. This case is dismissed because property cannot sue'.
Quote:The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was effectively overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery throughout the United States, while the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves.
The key word here is citizenship.
The key is that slaves were deemed to be property.
Quote:As far as the Native Americans in the USA. They had none of these Rights until 1924 when they were granted citizenship.
The Fifth Amendment rights for Native Americans are not directly tied to a specific date but rather to their status as U.S. citizens. Native Americans were granted full U.S. citizenship in 1924 with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act.
This act declared Indigenous persons born within the United States to be U.S. citizens, which included the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment.
Its way more complicated than that. If what you state were the case, there would be zero access to due rights to *any* person not a citizen.
The caselaw from that era goes out of their way to recognize a vast large number non-citizens being afforded due process -- in any number of arenas. Brits, French, Italians, Irish -- pretty much any Western or Eastern European heritage. But not Asians, and not Indians.
The exclusion of Asians and Indians, and the explicit inclusion of white non-citizens to due process -- kind of deep sixes your 'no non-citizens were afforded due process' stance. In short, the exclusion of Indians readily appears to be racially motivated, since all the non-citizen Brits, Irish, Scot, German, French, Italian, Canadian etc etc etc were afforded those rights you say were missing.
Quote: Illegals do not have all these Rights that you and Elvis speak of from what I can see. All I see is the court system pissing on the Constitution.
I suggest you call up SCOTUS and say how they have it all wrong, and have had it all wrong for the better part of a hundred and fifty years.
It is true that aliens who have once passed through our
gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceed
ings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-en
compassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immi
grant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903).
Ill be happy cite you a good 15-20 other SCOTUS cases that use this as a basis, and maybe 100 appellate decisions.
Sounds like you are dancing around the term of citizenship. The courts deemed them not citizens of the USA. By doing that they had no Rights under the Constitution.
Also it wasn't just Slaves that didn't have Rights, it was also Free Blacks.
(05-01-2025 10:56 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (05-01-2025 09:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-01-2025 08:40 PM)TripleA Wrote: And here is the brilliant Scott Jennings bopping Clarence right on top of his noggin.
Quote:BOOM! Scott Jennings TRUTH NUKE:
"Why is it that we can let 20 million people into the country just walk across, whatever, and there's no real process for them to do that... but then we have to individually pick out every single person and go through years upon years upon years of paperwork, and this and that and the other, and all we're trying to do is send them back to where they came from because they came here illegally in the first place."
"20 million in with no process. How do you get 20 million out with years and years of people fighting every single case?"
"You can cherry pick any case you want. But the reality is the crisis that put Donald Trump in the White House was caused over years and years and years of neglect and letting people walk into here without any process all. And now you're trying to gum up the works to keep them here."
Inane rhetoric.
Along with some demonstrable falsehoods.
Perfect fodder for the slow witted.
"20 million in with no process" has zero to do with the issue of due process overall.
Might as well be "20,000 speeders with no process, they cant enjoy due process when charged".
I can go on. Im glad you got a stiffie for the stupid rhetorical drivel like that.
"pick out every single person and go through years upon years upon years of paperwork, a" -- nope. doensnt need 'years and years'. Far rom it.
Sugar water cool words aimed at the enjoyment of those who wouldnt rather bother with facts, Again -- glad it got you a stiffie there, pardner.
And more.... but you get the picture.
This right here is why you and so many on the left are wrong. Distinction matters. The way people were funneled and allowed to enter illegally absolutely does matter. Your speeder reference is an incredibly failed and flawed analogy because American drivers aren’t creating national security risks or intentional harms against other people. But even with that analogy playing it out if the local or state government illegally paid a contractor to come up with new speed limits and then further illegally implemented the speed traps all those cases would be universally thrown out. And so that’s the same thing we’re trying to do with the illegal way in which the prior administration let these people in. You know throw them out. But your analogy is asinine in the first place.
But more important the origin story here is more than unequivocally relevant. This isn’t a situation where this country ended up with a few thousand or even few million people here and there getting in over a 10 to 20 year period. This was the largest human smuggling operation in global history - good portion of it literally directed and overseen by the USG with all of it at least enabled by the Biden regime. We literally handed criminal organizations and cartels a new line of business and made them more powerful than they’ve ever been. 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.
(05-02-2025 01:11 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote: (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.
Yes he is.
The current situation was exacerbated by Biden. Reversed Remain in Mexico, creating pathways for 10 million illegals, changing catch and release practices…all incentivized more illegal immigration.
COVID did throw some things off, but that also meant less illegals at the border too.
But his inaction and carelessness created the current environment we see today. It cannot be compared to anything we saw under Obama and Trump 1.0.
(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: (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 01:47 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 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 01:51 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote: (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 01:53 PM)TripleA Wrote: (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 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.
(05-02-2025 02:42 PM)shere khan 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?
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 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.
(05-02-2025 03:41 PM)shere khan Wrote: (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: 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.
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
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
(05-02-2025 09:54 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (05-02-2025 09:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-02-2025 08:53 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (05-02-2025 06:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-02-2025 05:18 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: Tanq if what you referenced previously is enough to meet due process in your book, that’s most certainly not all that the media and their handlers (ie Dem party) want/expect and that might be the rub.
Im not BSing with my comments above. Nor with my previous comments to you.
The interesting thing is that the same definitional issue seem to permeate the right to some extent.
You can see the right (and you) dismiss the ERH as no due process. It actually is, and forms sufficient due process *for that purpose*.
And each step 'up the ladder' in 8 CFR puts on more and more -- depending on the context.
By the way, I need to thank you. The interaction with you made me crash review this stuff. Id never practice it 'at the front', but it has been invaluable in forming my thoughts on the issue.
I think there are two other 'rubs' at play here. The introduction of the AEA actions forced everyone's attention to that -- which had not even the amount of due process available to ERH. It is an extreme example of detention, deportation, and rendition with *NO* afforded due process. A pretty maximal outlier.
But I think the left now views *any* immigration action as suffering from those extremes, which they dont.
Second, there has been a very tangible uptick of US nationals being swept up and questioned, some even detained, in ICE actions. And there are now news reports of Executive Orders authorizing warrantless searches by ICE. (Im not commenting on that since I havent seen or verified that). People can easily sweep the above accounts into the generalized 'ICE is going lawless' bucket that the AEA can be used to frame the issue with.
Quote:So when you say due process, perhaps put limited in front of it otherwise - especially with the rest of your framing - it sounds like you’re advocating for the same thing the far left that promulgated all this nonsense continues to demand.
Three, my points are on the absence of due process. The first discussion we had was your stance that no due process was needed, based on your knowledge of ERHs. Interestingly enough, I had to convince you that due process was actually aprt of that action - I even linked the ICE Immigration Proceedings Guide stating that, and a District Court that ruled that failure to provide the steps in 8 CFR were a denial of that.
I need to clarify, when I say due process must be afforded, then I am okay with the minimal level in ERHs. And the marginally better amount in the various proceedings in a real hearing. I dont think any progressive (which I am not) would think otherwise with that -- even if limited. and correspondingly I dont think that any progressive would be bad with *any* detainee having the status of lesser applied due process,
My beef is mainly four-fold.
First, there was *NO* inherent due process of any sort applied to AEA detainees. Now, by court order, there might be.
Second, the statement that 'an illegal should not be afforded any due process' is just wrong. Due process of at least a minimal sort *must* be afforded to illegal immigrants -- mainly in the determination if illegal. That is basic even in the text of the 5th and 14th.
Third, the statement that 'since Biden f'ed it up, we must remove due process' is just chilling to me. Yes, Biden f'ed it up. You dont counter that by circumventing the Bill of Rights.
Fourth, I think DHS, through the DOJ, has abjectly lied to at least two courts. And defied the orders of two courts. I find that reprehensible. If further facts come to light that run counter to my opinion, Ill reassess.
I have actually been consistent on this. I’ve never pressed against some degree of due process - because like you have recently indicated that is achieved in certain circumstances already by the laws on the books. My issue is with the “process for perpetuity” that many advocating for that’s inappropriate based on the law as authorred under the umbrella of the constitution. In what is a matter of people’s opinion, I believe the AEA is viable because of the connections between Maduro and TdA (even if they are nothing but tenuous associations). Maduro didn’t empty the prisons of TdA members out of the goodness of his heart. And we now know various levels of his regime instructed them on both how and where to move to the US. So that’s why I believe the AEA is warranted for known TdA members. And if there are people who think our intelligence and Law apparatus doesn’t know who these people are but then think we can identify every J6 individual as terrorist whether they did anything other than show up for the protest then I really don’t know what to tell those people.
So yes in some cases due process is warranted. Those are asylum seekers, countries where Convention Against Torture (CAT), would be in play, etc. TdA and MS13 in the country illegally where initially detained on entry do not meet these caveats.
I dont quite grasp what you mean by 'process in perpetuity'. Could you expand? Thx in advance
Redundant, excessive actions to achieve the holy grail of “due process”.
(05-03-2025 02:57 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (05-03-2025 02:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-03-2025 01:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (05-03-2025 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (05-03-2025 12:58 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: I guess this is a fake one. Maduro never emptied his jail full of TdA, has never cooperated with TdA, has never had his government facilitate movement to the U.S. to take over parts of U.S. cities, wreak havoc, cause chaos through violent tactics in the US, etc. Yep, none of that ever happened. But if it did I wonder what that might look like or be called.
Cool. Emptying prisons means effective war.
Cool. Cooperating with bad folk is effective war.
If there was direct facilitation to 'take over US cities' -- then put it into evidence. easy peasy. But this Administration even lies about if planes have taken off, and refuses to answer questions about simple things like takeoff times.
Yeah -- Id say make the administration prove their point to a judge now.
I'm going TripleA you if you keep this up. I have no reason to continue to engage with you or debate you if you're going keep coming back with stupid **** like this that I DID NOT SAY. I never said it was war. I'm saying it is the "OR".
I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.
Yep I understand the OR. None of what you note above gets it into the definitions of war, invasion, or incursion relayed by the opinion --- let alone by a foreign nation or government.
Quote:It is in fact a predatory incursion overseen and facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States. These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life. It was intentional and purposeful.
To the italicized, that is quite the conclusory thing you just made. Ill get back to that.
Does overseen ... by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.
Does facilitated by well document enemy and adversary to the United States get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.
Does These are not day laborers that were just looking for a job or a better life get you to that historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.
Does It was intentional and purposeful get you to the historical definition of invasion or incursion? Nope.
Under the historical framework and language and use of the language in statute, and in the statutory record as well -- yeah, these are all bad things. None of them, alone or in conjunction get to the conclusory statement you just made under that historical definitional analysis.
Quote:I've done all I can to demonstrate this to you within unclassified parameters. If you don't see or don't want to see then that's on you.
Maybe you should draft a memo to the lawyers handing the case to do that.
Based on the words of the Act, the caselaw of the Act, and the words in the Proclamation -- the government failed to make their case that the AEA applies.
I think the statutory record is clear, the Act deals with war, or warlike events. One Senator in the drafting process said he wanted to make sure than 'incursions related to major actions with organized troops or the equivalent of troops.'
Training a gang doesnt come fing close to that level. Not promoting or defending either the gangs, nor any Venezuelan responsibilities in coordination or such -- but there simply hasnt been a 'major action involving organized troops'. End of story.
If they are baddies (and I will even assume they are), there are other tools to get them. The AEA is reserved for events like, Pancho Villa's raid, Indian raids in the 1780s to 1850s, an invasion by foreign power troops without a declaration of war, and an actual declared war.
Not for loose facilitation like TdA, not for loosely affiliated cartel activities like the Juarez cartel being aided by the Mexican government in some loose manner, and all the other style of examples.
When you show that large action with organized units -- yeah, Ill be there. Not the jibber jabber lets stretch bad gangs that have some relationship to some foreign government like this Adiminstation is trying to tango and cha cha cha their way into.
Look, the AEA is a *tremendously* powerful act. It actually allows the ****** fing act of almost no oversight in its power. And no, Im dont want to let some tinpot authoritarian ******** who wants to control universities get anywhere near it -- unless he can show the large scale, direct action by organized troops operating for another country that the authors of the AEA intended that it be used on and for.
And nowhere near it for a bunch of shitbird gang members that can be addressed in literally a dozen of other ways under the law.
Your nopes are your bias. On a couple of those you reference they are yes for me. I've been involved with the actions of TdA for the last three years. And quite a bit of dealing with implications of the acts of the Maduro regime when they started working with Iran to trade illicit oil movements before the catastrophic actions of the Biden regime to include Lebanese Hezbollah's role in Venezuela and it's association with TdA.
The AEA EO implementation was implicitly and narrowly limited to TdA and TdA only.
I appreciate your prior thanks, so I think I will leave it at this. We've beat this dead horse and killed it a second time, so I think I'm going to sit back and watch what happens next with appeals and likely onward to the SC.
Cheers.
I think "Due Process" for Illegal Aliens should include reading quoted posts over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...
|
|
/
[NEWS] Womp Womp - MS13 member shipped to El Salvador can remain there
today. 
![[Image: 100.gif?cid=6c09b952wzkh3nyu0o214pfe1n6o...p;amp;ct=g]](https://media1.giphy.com/media/GJVpbMjfT2Ftm/100.gif?cid=6c09b952wzkh3nyu0o214pfe1n6olyaniq0zo6b20trisd9s&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=100.gif&ct=g)
![[Image: 200.webp]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExYmMxa3dqNDNxbTN4NnRwc3hqYnNwMXc2NTB4emd5YzVvdTY1N2psayZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/mjmEGdHtzjVss/200.webp)
