(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Gutfeld said on the Five on Thursday that he researched due process, and illegal aliens are NOT entitled to due process. They are not entitled to a hearing, or even to counsel. They are only entitled to object to their deportation status, and if so, from that point, it is an administrative process, not a legal one.

I have no clue if that's accurate, other than I can vouch that it's what he said, paraphrased. Maybe there is video somewhere.

Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Get Megyn Kelly on it. She was a lawyer. She’d take drunk tanq behind the woodshed on it

(04-25-2025 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Gutfeld said on the Five on Thursday that he researched due process, and illegal aliens are NOT entitled to due process. They are not entitled to a hearing, or even to counsel. They are only entitled to object to their deportation status, and if so, from that point, it is an administrative process, not a legal one.

I have no clue if that's accurate, other than I can vouch that it's what he said, paraphrased. Maybe there is video somewhere.

Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Im sure you do. You dont seem like one who really tries to ferret out facts.

Most of your "facts" turn out to be BS, so there's that...

I'm sure El Salvador is upset by a boycott from Illinois.

(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Gutfeld said on the Five on Thursday that he researched due process, and illegal aliens are NOT entitled to due process. They are not entitled to a hearing, or even to counsel. They are only entitled to object to their deportation status, and if so, from that point, it is an administrative process, not a legal one.

I have no clue if that's accurate, other than I can vouch that it's what he said, paraphrased. Maybe there is video somewhere.

Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Big surprise. Tell us you sit home and watch Fox News all day without telling us.

(04-25-2025 12:18 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Gutfeld said on the Five on Thursday that he researched due process, and illegal aliens are NOT entitled to due process. They are not entitled to a hearing, or even to counsel. They are only entitled to object to their deportation status, and if so, from that point, it is an administrative process, not a legal one.

I have no clue if that's accurate, other than I can vouch that it's what he said, paraphrased. Maybe there is video somewhere.

Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Big surprise. Tell us you sit home and watch Fox News all day without telling us.

I pick Gutfeld over you, too. And Fox over MSDNC and CNN. Shocker, huh?

I actually used to watch all 3, until I figured out two of them were way worse sources than the third.

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I find it laughable that the legal system has used the 14th Amendment to give illegals any kind of Rights to be here. Some on this Board talk about people pissing on the Constitution. The only ones pissing on the Constitution are the ones in the legal system.

Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

(04-25-2025 11:44 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

This only hurts poor El Salvadorians.

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I find it laughable that the legal system has used the 14th Amendment to give illegals any kind of Rights to be here. Some on this Board talk about people pissing on the Constitution. The only ones pissing on the Constitution are the ones in the legal system.

Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

These are the same people that want to say it's a living document. Suddenly a certain word is really important to them.

(04-25-2025 11:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Gutfeld said on the Five on Thursday that he researched due process, and illegal aliens are NOT entitled to due process. They are not entitled to a hearing, or even to counsel. They are only entitled to object to their deportation status, and if so, from that point, it is an administrative process, not a legal one.

I have no clue if that's accurate, other than I can vouch that it's what he said, paraphrased. Maybe there is video somewhere.

Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Im sure you do. You dont seem like one who really tries to ferret out facts.

Most of your "facts" turn out to be BS, so there's that...

Sure thing, champ.

Im.still impressed with the fact of what a concentration camp is defined as, and the fact of your complaint about not meeting a criterion preceded by the word 'or'.

Im.also impressed with the fact of you whadabout crying about J6ers and the succeeding fact that you can't articulate a single specific instance in support of your whiny empty rhetoric.

You be you, champ.

(04-25-2025 12:59 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I find it laughable that the legal system has used the 14th Amendment to give illegals any kind of Rights to be here. Some on this Board talk about people pissing on the Constitution. The only ones pissing on the Constitution are the ones in the legal system.

Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

These are the same people that want to say it's a living document. Suddenly a certain word is really important to them.

It's funny when people who are textualists suddenly decide to ignore the meaning of the word 'people'.

I'm a textualist who understands the meaning of the word 'people', understand it is not the word 'citizen' (used elsewhere in the 14th in fact), and am not whining that 'people' doesn't mean 'people' solely to backstop my vote.

Lots you leave out in your insight above.

(04-25-2025 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 10:48 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The solution to this issue is due process within immigration settings needs to be explicitly defined.

It pretty much is.

Quote:The courts have ruled (1) that illegal aliens are subject to due process considerations; and (2) due process in illegal alien cases is more limited in most cases than the standard process under the 5th and 14th amendments for American citizens.

And they have defined those limits. Remember those cases on ERH that noted those that I linked for you?

Quote:In other words, each judge can apply their own qualifiers to it, because that issue has not been universally addressed or defined. Ideally, Congress would take up immigration reform to address issues such as improper and illegal entry policy tactics and the parameters for what's clearly legal for removal operations. But that will probably never happen so we're left with the courts who will decide individual cases but likely leave a final declaration of this issue off the table.

8 CFR seems replete with those things. Same with 8 USC.

Those sections go into excruciating detail on many specific due process rights. Burdens, allowance of evidence, right to counsel.

The problem in this arena is four-fold:

1. you have an administration that absolutely and wholly lies to its followers about the presence of due process in the issue. They say 'illegals dont have them', and the mushbrains (like many here) simply regurgitate that false point. case in point Steven Miller, and various posters here who post his thin garbage like the Bible. (not you, Three).

2. you have an administration that simply doesnt care that the existing system can actually deal with the issue in time. In fact, again they lie about it. Case in point -- just a few days ago Trump falsely yelled that it would take 200 years to deal with it if he couldnt get his way with insta-deportations. Absolutely fing bull****.

And his followers lap that **** up like fine wine.

3. you have an administration that is fundamentally violating the basics of the legal program to help keep their woodie hard on insta-deportation. Implementing the EAE was fktard move -- an overreaction that catered to the short term wet dreams of really stupid people, without any regard to the standing law. And they continue that crap in the lawsuits. Lying, ignoring court orders, yada yada yada. And his fktard stupid followers just think its awesome.

4. There *is* an element of racism to this. This administration is actively provoking the 'otherism' aspect in this. Maybe they know their base, maybe they dont.

The issue isnt defining the process -- 8 CFR and 8 USC go way into the weeds already for that.

The issue is that Trump has convinced his low IQ followers that fundamental rights dont exist here, and above from others as evidence, that if they are fundamental rights there is nothing wrong with ignoring them.

Trump is opening doors that can, and most probably will, be used devastatingly by the Left against the Right in terms of the legal process. And MAGA is too fing stupid to note it, or simply wants to wreck it in the first place.

If it were clear and straightforward I don't think we would see so many lawsuits.

Here's a couple of points. Almost all illegals non-contest their illegal status. End of story right there. At that point, no further due process should be granted because they've waived it at that point but we're seeing third parties file lawsuits to fight that even when the individual didn't.

If they contest deportation, the only grounds which should be heard are asylum or convention against torture removals but that also isn't the case. People are granted relief of removal for all sorts of ridiculous things. And again the big issue is predicated on why/how they got here in the first place. This is unlike any other time in American history. We can't simply address the removal process without addressing the reality of the complete failure of the prior administration to enforce immigration and border security laws. These two issues go hand in hand and can't be placed in a vacuum like action #1 never happened. Ultimately, because of this nuance and anomaly I think the Supreme Court is going to side with the current administration on most of these cases that get to them. And it's going to hurt the left in the long run.

(04-25-2025 12:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm sure El Salvador is upset by a boycott from Illinois.

I agree, it's not like their shipments of bananas to Oblunders residence will stop.

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I find it laughable that the legal system has used the 14th Amendment to give illegals any kind of Rights to be here. Some on this Board talk about people pissing on the Constitution. The only ones pissing on the Constitution are the ones in the legal system.

Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

Nowhere does it (or the 5th) mention retards or redheads either. Us it you stance that retards and redheads aren't persons as well?

Is it your stance since redheads aren't mentioned, they aren't afforded due process?

Yep illegals aren't mentioned. So what. Think about the above when you try to instruct us on the 5th and the 14th with that insight. Maybe toss out every other inane distinction about what they 'didn't mention.' Could be fun

(04-25-2025 01:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:59 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I find it laughable that the legal system has used the 14th Amendment to give illegals any kind of Rights to be here. Some on this Board talk about people pissing on the Constitution. The only ones pissing on the Constitution are the ones in the legal system.

Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

These are the same people that want to say it's a living document. Suddenly a certain word is really important to them.

It's funny when people who are textualists suddenly decide to ignore the meaning of the word 'people'.

I'm a textualist who understands the meaning of the word 'people', understand it is not the word 'citizen' (used elsewhere in the 14th in fact), and am not whining that 'people' doesn't mean 'people' solely to backstop my vote.

Lots you leave out in your insight above.

When they refer to the word people some how you and others think that includes illegals. That opinion does nothing but pisses on the United States Of American's Constitution.

(04-25-2025 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I find it laughable that the legal system has used the 14th Amendment to give illegals any kind of Rights to be here. Some on this Board talk about people pissing on the Constitution. The only ones pissing on the Constitution are the ones in the legal system.

Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

Nowhere does it (or the 5th) mention retards or redheads either. Us it you stance that retards and redheads aren't persons as well?

Is it your stance since redheads aren't mentioned, they aren't afforded due process?

Yep illegals aren't mentioned. So what. Think about the above when you try to instruct us on the 5th and the 14th with that insight. Maybe toss out every other inane distinction about what they 'didn't mention.' Could be fun

Do you think all people mentioned in the 14th included all people in the USA?

(04-25-2025 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Im sure you do. You dont seem like one who really tries to ferret out facts.

Most of your "facts" turn out to be BS, so there's that...

Sure thing, champ.

Im.still impressed with the fact of what a concentration camp is defined as, and the fact of your complaint about not meeting a criterion preceded by the word 'or'.

Im.also impressed with the fact of you whadabout crying about J6ers and the succeeding fact that you can't articulate a single specific instance in support of your whiny empty rhetoric.

You be you, champ.

Let's take a vote on who's the real doofus, champ. Loser goes home for 6 months.

(04-25-2025 11:38 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Gutfeld said on the Five on Thursday that he researched due process, and illegal aliens are NOT entitled to due process. They are not entitled to a hearing, or even to counsel. They are only entitled to object to their deportation status, and if so, from that point, it is an administrative process, not a legal one.

I have no clue if that's accurate, other than I can vouch that it's what he said, paraphrased. Maybe there is video somewhere.

Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Get Megyn Kelly on it. She was a lawyer. She’d take drunk tanq behind the woodshed on it

Don't know about Tanq but I'd kinda like that!

(04-25-2025 03:41 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:38 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 07:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:32 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Gutfeld said on the Five on Thursday that he researched due process, and illegal aliens are NOT entitled to due process. They are not entitled to a hearing, or even to counsel. They are only entitled to object to their deportation status, and if so, from that point, it is an administrative process, not a legal one.

I have no clue if that's accurate, other than I can vouch that it's what he said, paraphrased. Maybe there is video somewhere.

Another episode of 3A says that some half bulb says..... cool cool.

I pick Gutfeld over you every time.

Get Megyn Kelly on it. She was a lawyer. She’d take drunk tanq behind the woodshed on it

Don't know about Tanq but I'd kinda like that!

Not after she kicked you in the balls, then knocked your teeth out when you doubled over.

(04-25-2025 02:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:21 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  I find it laughable that the legal system has used the 14th Amendment to give illegals any kind of Rights to be here. Some on this Board talk about people pissing on the Constitution. The only ones pissing on the Constitution are the ones in the legal system.

Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

Nowhere does it (or the 5th) mention retards or redheads either. Us it you stance that retards and redheads aren't persons as well?

Is it your stance since redheads aren't mentioned, they aren't afforded due process?

Yep illegals aren't mentioned. So what. Think about the above when you try to instruct us on the 5th and the 14th with that insight. Maybe toss out every other inane distinction about what they 'didn't mention.' Could be fun

Do you think all people mentioned in the 14th included all people in the USA?

Did you read it? It clearly does through its distinct use of citizen and person in different clauses.

“ 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; 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.”

There is hundred plus of years of case law and Supreme Court opinion on the interpretation. It’s not our fault if you can’t read so good and are mad that the constitution doesn’t let your orange idol throw brown people in a concentration camp.