(04-18-2025 07:57 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

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

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

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

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are not two separate clauses. The opening statement says all persons naturalized or citizens and then in the latter part of the clause references these persons again a second time in reference the pursuit of life, liberty, or justice. There is no inference here that it should apply to people not in these two categories and further the Constitution afforded Congress latitude for developing the laws pertaining to naturalization in Article I Section 8.

I don't understand how people can take such a broad interpretation of this clause. If this were parsed out into two separate statements then it would have different meaning, but it doesn't. Moreover, the laws establishing our sovereignty on this issue makes clear the limitations of due process for individuals who violate that sovereignty and break our immigration laws.

Unfortunately, the courts have continued to whittle away at this very narrow clause with over interpretation of this issue and the Supreme Court recently said that TdA members must be afforded due process before being removed under the Aliens Enemy Act. In that context, they have basically defined due process as notification of removal to allow reasonable time for the bad guys to file a habeus case if they so wish to do so.

Your opinion is not supported by any legal precedent.

This has been litigated to hell and back with opinions from ranging from Chinese immigrants in the 1800s up to Guantánamo detainees in 2008 having the right to due process.

(04-18-2025 08:11 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:57 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

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

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

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

These are not two separate clauses. The opening statement says all persons naturalized or citizens and then in the latter part of the clause references these persons again a second time in reference the pursuit of life, liberty, or justice. There is no inference here that it should apply to people not in these two categories and further the Constitution afforded Congress latitude for developing the laws pertaining to naturalization in Article I Section 8.

I don't understand how people can take such a broad interpretation of this clause. If this were parsed out into two separate statements then it would have different meaning, but it doesn't. Moreover, the laws establishing our sovereignty on this issue makes clear the limitations of due process for individuals who violate that sovereignty and break our immigration laws.

Unfortunately, the courts have continued to whittle away at this very narrow clause with over interpretation of this issue and the Supreme Court recently said that TdA members must be afforded due process before being removed under the Aliens Enemy Act. In that context, they have basically defined due process as notification of removal to allow reasonable time for the bad guys to file a habeus case if they so wish to do so.

Your opinion is not supported by any legal precedent.

This has been litigated to hell and back with opinions from ranging from Chinese immigrants in the 1800s up to Guantánamo detainees in 2008 having the right to due process.

Dont care.

(04-18-2025 08:09 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:06 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No problems getting rid of them -- but do it the right way.

This sums up the entirety of the issue. It isn't hard, which makes me suspect that flouting the law is part of the point.

Throw em all out. Anyway is the right way.

Jail those who help them.

We're gonna have some fun and get some great stuff done someday with that attitude, if this kind of behavior stands. A couple that spring to mind -

Reduce gun violence, anyway is the right way.
Protect the environment, anyway is the right way.

Cheer and squeal for your Dear Leader now, enjoy your time in the sun. Our day will come again.

(04-18-2025 08:16 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:09 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:06 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No problems getting rid of them -- but do it the right way.

This sums up the entirety of the issue. It isn't hard, which makes me suspect that flouting the law is part of the point.

Throw em all out. Anyway is the right way.

Jail those who help them.

We're gonna have some fun and get some great stuff done someday with that attitude, if this kind of behavior stands. A couple that spring to mind -

Reduce gun violence, anyway is the right way.
Protect the environment, anyway is the right way.

Cheer and squeal for your Dear Leader now, enjoy your time in the sun. Our day will come again.

lulz....broken

(04-18-2025 07:58 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:01 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 06:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  So Gamenole comes in after a somewhat prolonged absence and says a big word salad that amounts to "Orange Man Bad; Republicans Bad; Democrats Good" just like every other leftist who's ever posted in this subforum since 2015. Got it.

Gamenole, your "band" is nothing more than a "tribute/Greatest Hits" band. The problem is you're losing fans more and more, and all due to your doubling down on rhetoric that has been proven to be divisive and even downright dangerous. Now I won't insult you because I still think you're a reasonable person. But remember, your side created this problem. Don't get mad at us for trying to solve it for good. (Even though you will because, well, "ORANGE MAN BAD! REPUBLICANS BAD! REEEEEE! ")

Don't like how we're handling things? Come up with an alternative. Hell, come up with a new idea and quit dragging out the same old tired bullcrap. Until your side does, expect all of the squawking y'all have been doing to fall on deaf ears.

True, the Democratic brand has suffered. But "ORANGE MAN BAD" gains more fans every day thanks to the chaos of this administration, and all we need is to be preferable to the alternative. Trump was re-elected to bring prices down and secure the border, and while he's working on the 2nd his actions have been counter productive on the 1st and most important issue for the electorate. It's the economy, stupid.

Just wait, 4 years like this and we'll be back in the White House itching to solve long term problems that your side has made worse. We'll fight you on fixing immigration in an unconstitutional manner, but if you win it'll provide a usual precedent. For example, without needing to follow that pesky Constitution there's a lot we can do to diminish the scourge of gun violence that the GOP has stymied any efforts to address.

The alternative? That's easy, lets take this issue of illegal immigration. Hire more immigration judges and follow the law, illegal aliens are absolutely deportable after a hearing has provided them due process. The vast majority can and should be sent home, and the administration has shown it knows how to work the levers of power and force most countries to accept their own citizens back. Just don't screw up the easy stuff, like deporting the man in this case to the ONE COUNTRY in the world a court says he can't be sent to. POTUS is perfectly capable of making some phone calls to "shithole countries" and finding one to take this guy, or any other in a similar situation.

The gang Abrego Garcia said he feared in El Salvador doesn't even exist now. And he's in prison. About as safe as he could ever be, although it's no guarantee.

Running 20M illegals through court proceedings isn't practical. And that isn't the Rs fault.

If that's true, then he may well no longer have a reasonable fear of persecution if sent home. And it doesn't matter if he's protected there or not, what matters is that the federal court ruling saying he cannot be sent to El Salvador has not been overturned. It must either be appealed or obeyed, and it sounds like the administration might well be successful if they appeal it. That's the way to proceed here, not by flouting the court's order and setting a bad precedent that we'll bite you with later.

I wasn't arguing the court order, simply stating the fact that the other gang no longer exists, per media reports.

I do think that since they all entered illegally, due process should be limited or eliminated, as can be interpreted as argued above by Three.

If someone enters my house to steal something or harm my family, they forfeit their rights.

(04-18-2025 08:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:58 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:01 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 06:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  So Gamenole comes in after a somewhat prolonged absence and says a big word salad that amounts to "Orange Man Bad; Republicans Bad; Democrats Good" just like every other leftist who's ever posted in this subforum since 2015. Got it.

Gamenole, your "band" is nothing more than a "tribute/Greatest Hits" band. The problem is you're losing fans more and more, and all due to your doubling down on rhetoric that has been proven to be divisive and even downright dangerous. Now I won't insult you because I still think you're a reasonable person. But remember, your side created this problem. Don't get mad at us for trying to solve it for good. (Even though you will because, well, "ORANGE MAN BAD! REPUBLICANS BAD! REEEEEE! ")

Don't like how we're handling things? Come up with an alternative. Hell, come up with a new idea and quit dragging out the same old tired bullcrap. Until your side does, expect all of the squawking y'all have been doing to fall on deaf ears.

True, the Democratic brand has suffered. But "ORANGE MAN BAD" gains more fans every day thanks to the chaos of this administration, and all we need is to be preferable to the alternative. Trump was re-elected to bring prices down and secure the border, and while he's working on the 2nd his actions have been counter productive on the 1st and most important issue for the electorate. It's the economy, stupid.

Just wait, 4 years like this and we'll be back in the White House itching to solve long term problems that your side has made worse. We'll fight you on fixing immigration in an unconstitutional manner, but if you win it'll provide a usual precedent. For example, without needing to follow that pesky Constitution there's a lot we can do to diminish the scourge of gun violence that the GOP has stymied any efforts to address.

The alternative? That's easy, lets take this issue of illegal immigration. Hire more immigration judges and follow the law, illegal aliens are absolutely deportable after a hearing has provided them due process. The vast majority can and should be sent home, and the administration has shown it knows how to work the levers of power and force most countries to accept their own citizens back. Just don't screw up the easy stuff, like deporting the man in this case to the ONE COUNTRY in the world a court says he can't be sent to. POTUS is perfectly capable of making some phone calls to "shithole countries" and finding one to take this guy, or any other in a similar situation.

The gang Abrego Garcia said he feared in El Salvador doesn't even exist now. And he's in prison. About as safe as he could ever be, although it's no guarantee.

Running 20M illegals through court proceedings isn't practical. And that isn't the Rs fault.

If that's true, then he may well no longer have a reasonable fear of persecution if sent home. And it doesn't matter if he's protected there or not, what matters is that the federal court ruling saying he cannot be sent to El Salvador has not been overturned. It must either be appealed or obeyed, and it sounds like the administration might well be successful if they appeal it. That's the way to proceed here, not by flouting the court's order and setting a bad precedent that we'll bite you with later.

I wasn't arguing the court order, simply stating the fact that the other gang no longer exists, per media reports.

I do think that since they all entered illegally, due process should be limited or eliminated, as can be interpreted as argued above by Three.

If someone enters my house to steal something or harm my family, they forfeit their rights.

That's a legitimate argument, but unless and until the Supreme Court endorses it OR Congress passes a law changing it and the Supreme Court rejects the ensuing challenge to that law, it isn't the law in the United States no matter how much sense you think it makes.

(04-18-2025 06:25 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 11:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 10:51 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So a dangerous illegal is deported back to his homeland and it's a Constitutional crisis, but when a man who has lost his faculties is in charge of the country, but there appears someone else is running the show, pardons to his son and people who have not even had charges brought against them is a-okay and not a constitutional crisis?

Keep constructing those straw men!

Ok.. So if Joe Biden was so competent why did the Dems feel the need to replace him in the middle of an election?

You deny that he pardoned his son, and several others who have not been charged with a crime? Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, Fauci?

But hey a gang banger got sent home and that is going to tear down the sacred Constitution that you sh*t on daily. Pound sand and have a Happy Easter.

1. I don't think there's ANY doubt that Biden started failing a lot towards the end of his presidency, but there was nothing he was doing or did that threatened our Constitution.
2. He was replaced because it was becoming WILDLY apparent he likely had no shot at winning after that debate.
3. I denied nothing on the pardons, which were all dumb by the way IMO...as most presidential pardons are. It's a dumb power that has long overstayed its welcome.
4. And I haven't paid the closest attention, but calling this guy a "gang banger" is way over the top.

(04-18-2025 07:58 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:01 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 06:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  So Gamenole comes in after a somewhat prolonged absence and says a big word salad that amounts to "Orange Man Bad; Republicans Bad; Democrats Good" just like every other leftist who's ever posted in this subforum since 2015. Got it.

Gamenole, your "band" is nothing more than a "tribute/Greatest Hits" band. The problem is you're losing fans more and more, and all due to your doubling down on rhetoric that has been proven to be divisive and even downright dangerous. Now I won't insult you because I still think you're a reasonable person. But remember, your side created this problem. Don't get mad at us for trying to solve it for good. (Even though you will because, well, "ORANGE MAN BAD! REPUBLICANS BAD! REEEEEE! ")

Don't like how we're handling things? Come up with an alternative. Hell, come up with a new idea and quit dragging out the same old tired bullcrap. Until your side does, expect all of the squawking y'all have been doing to fall on deaf ears.

True, the Democratic brand has suffered. But "ORANGE MAN BAD" gains more fans every day thanks to the chaos of this administration, and all we need is to be preferable to the alternative. Trump was re-elected to bring prices down and secure the border, and while he's working on the 2nd his actions have been counter productive on the 1st and most important issue for the electorate. It's the economy, stupid.

Just wait, 4 years like this and we'll be back in the White House itching to solve long term problems that your side has made worse. We'll fight you on fixing immigration in an unconstitutional manner, but if you win it'll provide a usual precedent. For example, without needing to follow that pesky Constitution there's a lot we can do to diminish the scourge of gun violence that the GOP has stymied any efforts to address.

The alternative? That's easy, lets take this issue of illegal immigration. Hire more immigration judges and follow the law, illegal aliens are absolutely deportable after a hearing has provided them due process. The vast majority can and should be sent home, and the administration has shown it knows how to work the levers of power and force most countries to accept their own citizens back. Just don't screw up the easy stuff, like deporting the man in this case to the ONE COUNTRY in the world a court says he can't be sent to. POTUS is perfectly capable of making some phone calls to "shithole countries" and finding one to take this guy, or any other in a similar situation.

The gang Abrego Garcia said he feared in El Salvador doesn't even exist now. And he's in prison. About as safe as he could ever be, although it's no guarantee.

Running 20M illegals through court proceedings isn't practical. And that isn't the Rs fault.

If that's true, then he may well no longer have a reasonable fear of persecution if sent home. And it doesn't matter if he's protected there or not, what matters is that the federal court ruling saying he cannot be sent to El Salvador has not been overturned. It must either be appealed or obeyed, and it sounds like the administration might well be successful if they appeal it. That's the way to proceed here, not by flouting the court's order and setting a bad precedent that we'll bite you with later.

This is legally incorrect. It does not matter if he had a court order saying he couldnt go to El Salvador. The moment the Aliens enemies act was declared, there's no court order that can hold him here because that law has no judicial review except for habeus. And he got that.

And the administration has said that if he finds his way back here, here will be detained and immediately deported back. Because there is no judge that is allowed to stop that.

(04-18-2025 08:20 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:58 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:01 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  True, the Democratic brand has suffered. But "ORANGE MAN BAD" gains more fans every day thanks to the chaos of this administration, and all we need is to be preferable to the alternative. Trump was re-elected to bring prices down and secure the border, and while he's working on the 2nd his actions have been counter productive on the 1st and most important issue for the electorate. It's the economy, stupid.

Just wait, 4 years like this and we'll be back in the White House itching to solve long term problems that your side has made worse. We'll fight you on fixing immigration in an unconstitutional manner, but if you win it'll provide a usual precedent. For example, without needing to follow that pesky Constitution there's a lot we can do to diminish the scourge of gun violence that the GOP has stymied any efforts to address.

The alternative? That's easy, lets take this issue of illegal immigration. Hire more immigration judges and follow the law, illegal aliens are absolutely deportable after a hearing has provided them due process. The vast majority can and should be sent home, and the administration has shown it knows how to work the levers of power and force most countries to accept their own citizens back. Just don't screw up the easy stuff, like deporting the man in this case to the ONE COUNTRY in the world a court says he can't be sent to. POTUS is perfectly capable of making some phone calls to "shithole countries" and finding one to take this guy, or any other in a similar situation.

The gang Abrego Garcia said he feared in El Salvador doesn't even exist now. And he's in prison. About as safe as he could ever be, although it's no guarantee.

Running 20M illegals through court proceedings isn't practical. And that isn't the Rs fault.

If that's true, then he may well no longer have a reasonable fear of persecution if sent home. And it doesn't matter if he's protected there or not, what matters is that the federal court ruling saying he cannot be sent to El Salvador has not been overturned. It must either be appealed or obeyed, and it sounds like the administration might well be successful if they appeal it. That's the way to proceed here, not by flouting the court's order and setting a bad precedent that we'll bite you with later.

I wasn't arguing the court order, simply stating the fact that the other gang no longer exists, per media reports.

I do think that since they all entered illegally, due process should be limited or eliminated, as can be interpreted as argued above by Three.

If someone enters my house to steal something or harm my family, they forfeit their rights.

That's a legitimate argument, but unless and until the Supreme Court endorses it OR Congress passes a law changing it and the Supreme Court rejects the ensuing challenge to that law, it isn't the law in the United States no matter how much sense you think it makes.

You're perhaps correct, but I'm not convinced it is so cut and dried. Will be interesting to see how all this plays out eventually in the courts.

(04-18-2025 08:16 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:09 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:06 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No problems getting rid of them -- but do it the right way.

This sums up the entirety of the issue. It isn't hard, which makes me suspect that flouting the law is part of the point.

Throw em all out. Anyway is the right way.

Jail those who help them.

We're gonna have some fun and get some great stuff done someday with that attitude, if this kind of behavior stands. A couple that spring to mind -

Reduce gun violence, anyway is the right way.
Protect the environment, anyway is the right way.

Cheer and squeal for your Dear Leader now, enjoy your time in the sun. Our day will come again.

(04-18-2025 07:57 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

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

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

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

(04-17-2025 09:41 PM)maximus Wrote:  You do understand due process isn't the same for 20 million ******* who were allowed to illegally waltz into our sovereign country.... you do know this right lite brite?

Again, read the Constitution -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are not two separate clauses. The opening statement says all persons naturalized or citizens and then in the latter part of the clause references these persons again a second time in reference the pursuit of life, liberty, or justice. There is no inference here that it should apply to people not in these two categories and further the Constitution afforded Congress latitude for developing the laws pertaining to naturalization in Article I Section 8.

I don't understand how people can take such a broad interpretation of this clause. If this were parsed out into two separate statements then it would have different meaning, but it doesn't. Moreover, the laws establishing our sovereignty on this issue makes clear the limitations of due process for individuals who violate that sovereignty and break our immigration laws.

Unfortunately, the courts have continued to whittle away at this very narrow clause with over interpretation of this issue generally along political appointment party lines. Reasonable people not looking at that clause politically would see that it's one statement not two. The only distinction for two independent elements of this issue are as yg pointed out. One is federal and the second is limitation on the states. But as stated the courts have watered this meaning down over time and the Supreme Court recently said that TdA members must be afforded due process before being removed under the Aliens Enemy Act. In that context, they have basically defined due process as notification of removal to allow reasonable time for the bad guys to file a habeus case if they so wish to do so.

Three,

there is a rule of statutory construction that says 'different words / phrases' mean different things. And when different words/phrases are used, different concepts must have been intended by the writer. It makes sense.

The word 'person' is used selectively in various parts of the Constitution, and seemingly means 'person'.

If they meant the due process cluase to only apply to citizens, they had defined that.

Finally the construction of the first words gives us a full logical ordering.

You have a superset of 'persons'. From that set of persons you have 'persons born in the US' -- labeled citizens. It then says specifically that the P&I of the subset 'citizens' may not be abridged. Then it refers specifically to the superset.

It is basic statutory construction.

(04-17-2025 08:53 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I'm not reading 33 pages about this to catch up, so I imagine someone else has likely said this already. But it isn't about the alleged gang member, it's about the rule of law.

It is unquestioned that he is an illegal alien who does not belong in this country. The government has every right to deport him. BUT the one place he cannot be sent, by order of a US federal court, is home to El Salvador.

Court orders must be appealed or obeyed...and there is no appealing from the Supreme Court directive to facilitate his return. The government can then deport him to any willing nation on the planet, save El Salvador.
Alternately, they can hold him in US custody while they appeal the order which prevents him being sent home. It won't be hard to find another nation to take him, offer some 3rd world country a favor and they'll happily comply.

The rule of law protects us all, and there is a right way to do things within our system. Every time you cheer something lawless the Trump administration does because you like that particular action, remember that someday we'll hold the levers of power again. Respect the guardrails NOW because you definitely want them to still be in place THEN.

We’ll hold the levers of power again.

That is really rich. The rule of law?

Were you not watching the same clown show of abuse at every level the last four years by your demented heroes?

And save the decency of two Democrats (no longer ) in the Senate the abuse would have even been more catastrophic.

Fools never learn.

I said it at the time and now it’s came to fruition.

Enjoy the ride because your heroes are what got you here.

If you cannot see this you are simply too far gone for anyone or anything to help you.

So, maybe a decade or so later when you can flush all the stupidity and extremism out of the Democratic Party than can wield power again.

Until then …..

(04-18-2025 08:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:57 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

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

(04-17-2025 10:12 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

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

These are not two separate clauses. The opening statement says all persons naturalized or citizens and then in the latter part of the clause references these persons again a second time in reference the pursuit of life, liberty, or justice. There is no inference here that it should apply to people not in these two categories and further the Constitution afforded Congress latitude for developing the laws pertaining to naturalization in Article I Section 8.

I don't understand how people can take such a broad interpretation of this clause. If this were parsed out into two separate statements then it would have different meaning, but it doesn't. Moreover, the laws establishing our sovereignty on this issue makes clear the limitations of due process for individuals who violate that sovereignty and break our immigration laws.

Unfortunately, the courts have continued to whittle away at this very narrow clause with over interpretation of this issue generally along political appointment party lines. Reasonable people not looking at that clause politically would see that it's one statement not two. The only distinction for two independent elements of this issue are as yg pointed out. One is federal and the second is limitation on the states. But as stated the courts have watered this meaning down over time and the Supreme Court recently said that TdA members must be afforded due process before being removed under the Aliens Enemy Act. In that context, they have basically defined due process as notification of removal to allow reasonable time for the bad guys to file a habeus case if they so wish to do so.

Three,

there is a rule of statutory construction that says 'different words / phrases' mean different things. And when different words/phrases are used, different concepts must have been intended by the writer. It makes sense.

The word 'person' is used selectively in various parts of the Constitution, and seemingly means 'person'.

If they meant the due process cluase to only apply to citizens, they had defined that.

Finally the construction of the first words gives us a full logical ordering.

You have a superset of 'persons'. From that set of persons you have 'persons born in the US' -- labeled citizens. It then says specifically that the P&I of the subset 'citizens' may not be abridged. Then it refers specifically to the superset.

It is basic statutory construction.

They did. You lost.

We figured this out long ago

Going full depend on the clintonesque meaning of the word is, is means you lost

Throw the illegal peons out. Full stop. Cool cool and whatever nonsense you like

(04-17-2025 07:53 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 07:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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:  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!

The Biden approach to the border was horrendous.

And I (and many others) have zero problem with a far stronger border policy, *and* having a far more active deportation regime for illegal aliens.

When it gets to denying due process in full, that is way beyond the line.

And no, your giant whadabout excuse simply is..... a giant whadabout that attempts to retionalize and normalize the Trump excess.

Sorry, there is no fing 'war' with Venezuela that allows deportation of Venezuelans with no due process -- which is precisely what happened with what appears two planeloads last week. I will grant you if there was a war with Venezuela, the Trump actions under the EAA would have been proper and legal. There isnt. And its not.

it looks like Abrego got caught up in the party that the Trump regime kicked off last week with the EAA. In his case, its a triple problem. In addition to the double problem of a blatant thin ass lie to rationalize insta-depoortations, and the insta-deportations under the EAA occurring with a lack of due process, Abrego has the added problem that he had a pre-existing hold, from a competent previous hearing, barring the actions that happened. That is, he had the results of his previous application of due process washed away automatically. Kind of fing grotesque.

Again -- do it correctly. If the detainees were processed in accordance with the standards of due process, thats great. From the record provided in Boasberg's court, that may not have happened.

From the record in Xinis's court, its pretty obvious that Abrego wasnt afforded *any* due process when his 'do not deport' order was violated from what appears to be on a whim.

Look, this isnt a defense of the Biden border policy. Its stupid to use that as the grand whadabout to justify and rationalize executive overreach and what appears to be a pretty stark violation of due process.

I guess the Republican stance should now be 'Fk due process, its not so great.'

And no, being a champion of due process should not be solely a liberal thing. Infortunately that seems to be the trajectory.

Democrats are not liberal. They are seditious prog filth.

Yes

The republican stance is frick terrorist invaders, ms13, rapists and wife beaters that arent citizens. Yes frick their constitutional rights.

Blow their brains out for that matter.

Whiney stupid dollar store lawyer tears make us happy too.

You got it.

Cool cool.

He is a worth a dollar now? I was thinking dime!

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the ‘death camps’ & ‘torture,’ now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!" Bukele exclaimed in a post on X.
In another post, Bukele wrote, "Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody."


Reeeeeeeeeeee


GOP gonna wreck the midterms. Keep it up filth.

(04-18-2025 08:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:58 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:01 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 06:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  So Gamenole comes in after a somewhat prolonged absence and says a big word salad that amounts to "Orange Man Bad; Republicans Bad; Democrats Good" just like every other leftist who's ever posted in this subforum since 2015. Got it.

Gamenole, your "band" is nothing more than a "tribute/Greatest Hits" band. The problem is you're losing fans more and more, and all due to your doubling down on rhetoric that has been proven to be divisive and even downright dangerous. Now I won't insult you because I still think you're a reasonable person. But remember, your side created this problem. Don't get mad at us for trying to solve it for good. (Even though you will because, well, "ORANGE MAN BAD! REPUBLICANS BAD! REEEEEE! ")

Don't like how we're handling things? Come up with an alternative. Hell, come up with a new idea and quit dragging out the same old tired bullcrap. Until your side does, expect all of the squawking y'all have been doing to fall on deaf ears.

True, the Democratic brand has suffered. But "ORANGE MAN BAD" gains more fans every day thanks to the chaos of this administration, and all we need is to be preferable to the alternative. Trump was re-elected to bring prices down and secure the border, and while he's working on the 2nd his actions have been counter productive on the 1st and most important issue for the electorate. It's the economy, stupid.

Just wait, 4 years like this and we'll be back in the White House itching to solve long term problems that your side has made worse. We'll fight you on fixing immigration in an unconstitutional manner, but if you win it'll provide a usual precedent. For example, without needing to follow that pesky Constitution there's a lot we can do to diminish the scourge of gun violence that the GOP has stymied any efforts to address.

The alternative? That's easy, lets take this issue of illegal immigration. Hire more immigration judges and follow the law, illegal aliens are absolutely deportable after a hearing has provided them due process. The vast majority can and should be sent home, and the administration has shown it knows how to work the levers of power and force most countries to accept their own citizens back. Just don't screw up the easy stuff, like deporting the man in this case to the ONE COUNTRY in the world a court says he can't be sent to. POTUS is perfectly capable of making some phone calls to "shithole countries" and finding one to take this guy, or any other in a similar situation.

The gang Abrego Garcia said he feared in El Salvador doesn't even exist now. And he's in prison. About as safe as he could ever be, although it's no guarantee.

Running 20M illegals through court proceedings isn't practical. And that isn't the Rs fault.

If that's true, then he may well no longer have a reasonable fear of persecution if sent home. And it doesn't matter if he's protected there or not, what matters is that the federal court ruling saying he cannot be sent to El Salvador has not been overturned. It must either be appealed or obeyed, and it sounds like the administration might well be successful if they appeal it. That's the way to proceed here, not by flouting the court's order and setting a bad precedent that we'll bite you with later.

This is legally incorrect. It does not matter if he had a court order saying he couldnt go to El Salvador. The moment the Aliens enemies act was declared, there's no court order that can hold him here because that law has no judicial review except for habeus. And he got that.

And the administration has said that if he finds his way back here, here will be detained and immediately deported back. Because there is no judge that is allowed to stop that.

Try actually reading the 9-0 Supreme Court opinion. It basically says the exact opposite of your first paragraph.

SCOTUS literally says he was “improperly removed”.

(04-18-2025 08:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:58 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:01 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  True, the Democratic brand has suffered. But "ORANGE MAN BAD" gains more fans every day thanks to the chaos of this administration, and all we need is to be preferable to the alternative. Trump was re-elected to bring prices down and secure the border, and while he's working on the 2nd his actions have been counter productive on the 1st and most important issue for the electorate. It's the economy, stupid.

Just wait, 4 years like this and we'll be back in the White House itching to solve long term problems that your side has made worse. We'll fight you on fixing immigration in an unconstitutional manner, but if you win it'll provide a usual precedent. For example, without needing to follow that pesky Constitution there's a lot we can do to diminish the scourge of gun violence that the GOP has stymied any efforts to address.

The alternative? That's easy, lets take this issue of illegal immigration. Hire more immigration judges and follow the law, illegal aliens are absolutely deportable after a hearing has provided them due process. The vast majority can and should be sent home, and the administration has shown it knows how to work the levers of power and force most countries to accept their own citizens back. Just don't screw up the easy stuff, like deporting the man in this case to the ONE COUNTRY in the world a court says he can't be sent to. POTUS is perfectly capable of making some phone calls to "shithole countries" and finding one to take this guy, or any other in a similar situation.

The gang Abrego Garcia said he feared in El Salvador doesn't even exist now. And he's in prison. About as safe as he could ever be, although it's no guarantee.

Running 20M illegals through court proceedings isn't practical. And that isn't the Rs fault.

If that's true, then he may well no longer have a reasonable fear of persecution if sent home. And it doesn't matter if he's protected there or not, what matters is that the federal court ruling saying he cannot be sent to El Salvador has not been overturned. It must either be appealed or obeyed, and it sounds like the administration might well be successful if they appeal it. That's the way to proceed here, not by flouting the court's order and setting a bad precedent that we'll bite you with later.

This is legally incorrect. It does not matter if he had a court order saying he couldnt go to El Salvador. The moment the Aliens enemies act was declared, there's no court order that can hold him here because that law has no judicial review except for habeus. And he got that.

And the administration has said that if he finds his way back here, here will be detained and immediately deported back. Because there is no judge that is allowed to stop that.

Try actually reading the 9-0 Supreme Court opinion. It basically says the exact opposite of your first paragraph.

SCOTUS literally says he was “improperly removed”.

They can go get him back then. Send Ketanji

(04-17-2025 09:09 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-17-2025 07:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(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:  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!

The Biden approach to the border was horrendous.

And I (and many others) have zero problem with a far stronger border policy, *and* having a far more active deportation regime for illegal aliens.

When it gets to denying due process in full, that is way beyond the line.

And no, your giant whadabout excuse simply is..... a giant whadabout that attempts to retionalize and normalize the Trump excess.

Sorry, there is no fing 'war' with Venezuela that allows deportation of Venezuelans with no due process -- which is precisely what happened with what appears two planeloads last week. I will grant you if there was a war with Venezuela, the Trump actions under the EAA would have been proper and legal. There isnt. And its not.

it looks like Abrego got caught up in the party that the Trump regime kicked off last week with the EAA. In his case, its a triple problem. In addition to the double problem of a blatant thin ass lie to rationalize insta-depoortations, and the insta-deportations under the EAA occurring with a lack of due process, Abrego has the added problem that he had a pre-existing hold, from a competent previous hearing, barring the actions that happened. That is, he had the results of his previous application of due process washed away automatically. Kind of fing grotesque.

Again -- do it correctly. If the detainees were processed in accordance with the standards of due process, thats great. From the record provided in Boasberg's court, that may not have happened.

From the record in Xinis's court, its pretty obvious that Abrego wasnt afforded *any* due process when his 'do not deport' order was violated from what appears to be on a whim.

Look, this isnt a defense of the Biden border policy. Its stupid to use that as the grand whadabout to justify and rationalize executive overreach and what appears to be a pretty stark violation of due process.

I guess the Republican stance should now be 'Fk due process, its not so great.'

And no, being a champion of due process should not be solely a liberal thing. Infortunately that seems to be the trajectory.

The Aliens Enemy Act doesn’t require an actual declaration of war. Just because it was previously used during war and that war is one of the predicates doesn’t mean war is the only use case. One of the use cases is predatory incursion. Ok, what is predatory incursion?

A "predatory incursion" refers to a form of attack or invasion, typically associated with military or political actions, that involves the aggressive and often harmful entry of one party into the territory or affairs of another. It's often used in contexts where an alien entity is deemed a threat, like a foreign government or a criminal gang.

This is the context for the Trump adminstration’s use of the Act. The administration has determined that the Maduro regime intentionally emptied its prisons full of TdA members (a criminal gang and now an FTO) with the explicit intent of sowing chaos in the United States. You can take umbrage with that if you want but a) you don’t have access to the classified intelligence used to make that determination and b) it’s no different than Obama declaring ISIS fair game under the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was granted only for the war against al-Qa’ida. The executive branch in both cases determined that it was necessary and applicable to use these authorities to address a threat to the United States and American way of life. But you won’t here this from media that’s become nothing but a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

So, can we indict find a guilty verdict and sentence Biden and his cohorts for intentionally allowing this invasion?

Actually it wouldn’t matter to Biden if was in an El Salvador prison or an old folks home or a Beverly Hills Mansion. He checked out mentally years ago.

Trump isn't maybe too sharp on due process.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...381145002/

President Trump said Wednesday he favors taking guns away from people who might commit violence before going through legal due process in the courts, one of many startling comments he made in a rambling White House meeting designed to hash out school safety legislation with a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Trump also said some of his fellow Republicans were "petrified" of the NRA, called on lawmakers to produce a “comprehensive” gun bill, and squelched prospects for a GOP-backed concealed carry proposal as part of a broader gun package.



I would imagine most folks here would object to that method, even if the person was a "bad hombre."

(04-18-2025 08:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 08:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:58 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:19 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-18-2025 07:01 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  True, the Democratic brand has suffered. But "ORANGE MAN BAD" gains more fans every day thanks to the chaos of this administration, and all we need is to be preferable to the alternative. Trump was re-elected to bring prices down and secure the border, and while he's working on the 2nd his actions have been counter productive on the 1st and most important issue for the electorate. It's the economy, stupid.

Just wait, 4 years like this and we'll be back in the White House itching to solve long term problems that your side has made worse. We'll fight you on fixing immigration in an unconstitutional manner, but if you win it'll provide a usual precedent. For example, without needing to follow that pesky Constitution there's a lot we can do to diminish the scourge of gun violence that the GOP has stymied any efforts to address.

The alternative? That's easy, lets take this issue of illegal immigration. Hire more immigration judges and follow the law, illegal aliens are absolutely deportable after a hearing has provided them due process. The vast majority can and should be sent home, and the administration has shown it knows how to work the levers of power and force most countries to accept their own citizens back. Just don't screw up the easy stuff, like deporting the man in this case to the ONE COUNTRY in the world a court says he can't be sent to. POTUS is perfectly capable of making some phone calls to "shithole countries" and finding one to take this guy, or any other in a similar situation.

The gang Abrego Garcia said he feared in El Salvador doesn't even exist now. And he's in prison. About as safe as he could ever be, although it's no guarantee.

Running 20M illegals through court proceedings isn't practical. And that isn't the Rs fault.

If that's true, then he may well no longer have a reasonable fear of persecution if sent home. And it doesn't matter if he's protected there or not, what matters is that the federal court ruling saying he cannot be sent to El Salvador has not been overturned. It must either be appealed or obeyed, and it sounds like the administration might well be successful if they appeal it. That's the way to proceed here, not by flouting the court's order and setting a bad precedent that we'll bite you with later.

This is legally incorrect. It does not matter if he had a court order saying he couldnt go to El Salvador. The moment the Aliens enemies act was declared, there's no court order that can hold him here because that law has no judicial review except for habeus. And he got that.

And the administration has said that if he finds his way back here, here will be detained and immediately deported back. Because there is no judge that is allowed to stop that.

Try actually reading the 9-0 Supreme Court opinion. It basically says the exact opposite of your first paragraph.

SCOTUS literally says he was “improperly removed”.

Scotus also said there is no judicial review other than habeus for the aliens invasion act. Which is why the administration has said we will facilitate getting him back, and which time he gets deported immediately. Because the holding order has no bearing.

Thats what will happen, because the aliens invasion law says they get habeus, and then they get removed without anything else being judicially reviewable.