Admittedly here illegally and a gang member.
Multiple cases of wife beating.
Suspected human trafficker.

And Democrats wonder why they lose.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/...r-AA1D45sU
https://tennesseestar.com/justice/bidens...025/04/16/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/doj...r-AA1D4dYE

(04-17-2025 09:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:27 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:07 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Did you try actually reading it?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy

Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

Hey full retard. Read your last paragraph again and see if you can figure out why you're an idiot.

Do you actually comprehend this topic to the extent necessary to offer an opinion on it, or are you just here to namecall and exhort anyone who disagrees with you to a higher level of thinking?

"Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy"
"Hey full retard. Read your last paragraph again and see if you can figure out why you're an idiot."

I'm sure Elvis and I will both stay busy wracking our tiny liberal brains trying to figure out where we went so terribly wrong.

I'd recommend sticking with your last paragraph asswipe. Wrack errrr whack away.

Go back and read the entire thread or stfu.





Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:07 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:04 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  All of this illegal immigration brought about by executive order SHOULD be reversible by the same process. The problem is that Biden let illegals flood into the country in waves, and now the same clowns demand the country to handle each illegal border crossing as an event that deserves due process (and where is due process actually defined in the Constitution?). With 20 million folks, we simply cannot handle each case with anything more than "you illegally crossed the border, so time to go home." Otherwise, it would take 30+ years to resolve this flooding of migrants into the country. And for the record, Venezuela opening up its prisons to release the TdA losers to leave and set up shop in the US, to me, is an act of war.

Did you try actually reading it?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy

Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?



Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:07 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:04 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  All of this illegal immigration brought about by executive order SHOULD be reversible by the same process. The problem is that Biden let illegals flood into the country in waves, and now the same clowns demand the country to handle each illegal border crossing as an event that deserves due process (and where is due process actually defined in the Constitution?). With 20 million folks, we simply cannot handle each case with anything more than "you illegally crossed the border, so time to go home." Otherwise, it would take 30+ years to resolve this flooding of migrants into the country. And for the record, Venezuela opening up its prisons to release the TdA losers to leave and set up shop in the US, to me, is an act of war.

Did you try actually reading it?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy

Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.

Midterms looking good.

(04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:07 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Did you try actually reading it?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy

Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.

Why did you leave out the most important part of what you quoted?

Quote:Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [/b]nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote:  Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy

Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.

Why did you leave out the most important part of what you quoted?

Quote:Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [/b]nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To be fair, they never actually read anything. They just cut and paster from their masters sources

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote:  Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy

Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.

Why did you leave out the most important part of what you quoted?

Quote:Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [/b]nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well you've bolded the citizenship clause, and we absolutely agree this man is not a citizen of the United States. I don't think anyone even in the craziest cesspools of the far left suggests otherwise.

Take a look at the next sentence, first it says that no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS, and continues to say that they cannot deprive any PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process. The framers used different words, and so the government CAN abridge the privileges and immunities of a person who is not a citizen. However they drew the protection from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process with the broadest brush possible, applying it to any PERSON.

If you wish this changed, there is a process to amend the Constitution. Or if you can convince 5 Justices of the Supreme Court it means something other than what it says, joila. But absent one of these occurrences, the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is a Constitutional violation.

(04-17-2025 10:23 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.

Why did you leave out the most important part of what you quoted?

Quote:Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [/b]nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well you've bolded the citizenship clause, and we absolutely agree this man is not a citizen of the United States. I don't think anyone even in the craziest cesspools of the far left suggests otherwise.

Take a look at the next sentence, first it says that no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS, and continues to say that they cannot deprive any PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process. The framers used different words, and so the government CAN abridge the privileges and immunities of a person who is not a citizen. However they drew the protection from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process with the broadest brush possible, applying it to any PERSON.

If you wish this changed, there is a process to amend the Constitution. Or if you can convince 5 Justices of the Supreme Court it means something other than what it says, joila. But absent one of these occurrences, the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is a Constitutional violation.

The argument is, the 20M or so were let in illegally, so they can be let out the same way they came in. Otherwise, it will take 50 years to get them all out. And meanwhile, they are a national security threat b/c they were unvetted.

Under no circumstances did the founders envision a scenario like this.

And we all know they were not let in for humanitarian reasons. They were let in to add an advantage to the Dem voter rolls, and turn this country into a one-party rule. End of story.

So yeah, those of us who disagree with that will take the same illegal stance in reverse that you clowns took letting these people in. Illegally.

(04-17-2025 10:23 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.

Why did you leave out the most important part of what you quoted?

Quote:Section 1 Rights
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [/b]nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Well you've bolded the citizenship clause, and we absolutely agree this man is not a citizen of the United States. I don't think anyone even in the craziest cesspools of the far left suggests otherwise.

Take a look at the next sentence, first it says that no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS, and continues to say that they cannot deprive any PERSON of life, liberty or property without due process. The framers used different words, and so the government CAN abridge the privileges and immunities of a person who is not a citizen. However they drew the protection from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process with the broadest brush possible, applying it to any PERSON.

If you wish this changed, there is a process to amend the Constitution. Or if you can convince 5 Justices of the Supreme Court it means something other than what it says, joila. But absent one of these occurrences, the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law is a Constitutional violation.

Tell me what is not in there? Fourteenth Amendment says NOTHING about the federal government and strictly limits it to STATES. The bill of right is to protect us from the feds

(04-17-2025 09:48 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:25 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:21 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 09:07 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Did you try actually reading it?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Stfu and try and comprehend what he posted dummy

Sure, why doesn't everyone just have namecalling fits and don't DARE answer a question about the Constitution with a Constitutional quote. What a role model you are!

You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Due process is required for any person, including "20 million *******". Not any citizen, not any lawful immigrant, ANY PERSON. If said person has illegally waltzed into our sovereign country, then a hearing before a duly authorized court which finds they entered illegally and orders them removed constitutes that due process. What you want done is entirely possible here, but there is a way to go about it in a society governed by the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected now, don't expect us to respect it when we're back on top.

Seriously??? What a crock! No rational person can reasonably expect the Democrats to follow the "rule of law" when they are back on top (or any other time).

We wouldn't have this problem of "20 million" illegals invading out country over the last 4 years if your side (the Dems) had followed the "rule of law" back when they just were on top. They shamefully and intentionally thumbed their noses at all of the existing immigration laws at great expense to our country.

(04-17-2025 05:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 05:33 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 05:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 04:35 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  “ It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Dont break the law. Youll have liberty.

Covidtards lecturing about liberty

Gfy

Yes, the Trump admin should stop breaking the law and denying people the liberty afforded by the constitution. Thanks for agreeing for once.

But the Biden administration who broke the law thousands and thousands of times of day was ok with you? They literally oversaw the world’s largest human smuggling operation in the history of the world. And helped cartels find a new line of business that has endangered hundreds of thousands of more lives. The number of people killed, raped, or had every penny they owned extorted from them is unbearable for me to even think about. You can’t be serious!

He is dead serious.

If you have time he’ll fill your dead with propaganda from the far left Progressive lunatics. Somehow in his demented world ILLEGAL THUGS are now residents.

I truly wish these Illegals would take up residence with these clowns who so fervently defend them.

Oh the horror Trump will deport Americans next. Yeah and he is out currently looking for that narcissistic fear mongering Robert Deniro.

Please stop with the gross ignorance

This thread more than any other highlights the philosophical differences between the left and right.

The left thinks it's perfectly fine to let in 20M illegals, completely unvetted, then screams bloody murder when ONE MS-13 gang member doesn't get his full due process rights, on his way back out.

That is so out of whack it would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad.

Let's say we send him back for a hearing. Where the hell do you think he's going right after his next hearing? Right back where he is now. He is not a citizen. He is an illegal invader, a documented member of a criminal gang, a suspected human trafficker, and a two-time wife-beater.

Van Hollen making all this effort for this dude, when he didn't give one second to Rachel Morin, one of his citizen constituents. Freaking sad.

THAT's a hill you lefties want to die on?

(04-18-2025 01:09 AM)TripleA Wrote:  This thread more than any other highlights the philosophical differences between the left and right.

The left thinks it's perfectly fine to let in 20M illegals, completely unvetted, then screams bloody murder when ONE MS-13 gang member doesn't get his full due process rights, on his way back out.

That is so out of whack it would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad.

Let's say we send him back for a hearing. Where the hell do you think he's going right after his next hearing? Right back where he is now. He is not a citizen. He is an illegal invader, a member of a criminal gang, and a two-time wife-beater.

Van Hollen making all this effort for this dude, when he didn't give one second to Rachel Morin, one of his citizen constituents. Freaking sad.

THAT's a hill you lefties want to die on?