(06-20-2025 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 01:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I figured out long ago that the only reason Tanq stays here and endures the amount of criticism he takes, is that he doesn't give a damn about anybody else's opinion except his own.

A normal person, when confronted with criticism at his level, would either attempt to do something to correct the interaction, or just leave the forum. But no, not Tanq. It takes a "special person" to react that way.

In fairness, I kinda don't care about anyone else's opinion either. But you are correct, you can disagree and not be a complete douche-nozzle. It also would be nice if he weren't completely duplicitous. For example, Tom, Elvis, Mensa, & Horseboy are just kinda dumb. But, at least you are getting their honest feelings/opinions. With Tanq, it's deceit wrapped in this notion that he just loves the "truth".

The only truth he seeks are the ones who defend his opinion.

Maybe I'm the odd man out here. I respect opposing opinions, until people give me a reason not to, such as totally discounting any opposing opinions, and personally denigrating the other person.

I have no problem with opposing opinions, as long as we understand that my opinion is the right opinion.






I keed I keed

(06-20-2025 03:10 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I have no problem with opposing opinions, as long as we understand that my opinion is the right opinion.






I keed I keed

No, you don't.

(06-20-2025 02:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Maybe I'm the odd man out here. I respect opposing opinions, until people give me a reason not to, such as totally discounting any opposing opinions, and personally denigrating the other person.

This^^^^

(06-20-2025 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 01:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I figured out long ago that the only reason Tanq stays here and endures the amount of criticism he takes, is that he doesn't give a damn about anybody else's opinion except his own.

A normal person, when confronted with criticism at his level, would either attempt to do something to correct the interaction, or just leave the forum. But no, not Tanq. It takes a "special person" to react that way.

In fairness, I kinda don't care about anyone else's opinion either. But you are correct, you can disagree and not be a complete douche-nozzle. It also would be nice if he weren't completely duplicitous. For example, Tom, Elvis, Mensa, & Horseboy are just kinda dumb. But, at least you are getting their honest feelings/opinions. With Tanq, it's deceit wrapped in this notion that he just loves the "truth".

Facts are a good thing. Blind subservience to thin rhetoric not so much.

In this case, all that you all have presented is thin rhetoric to try and defend the position of “no person” doesn’t mean “no person”.

Hate to say it but affording due process of even a minimal level is part of the fabric of our society. No one here has presented any convincing rationale for ditching it.

The Trump side is correct that Bidens immigration policies were a stinking mess. The solution of that of simply stop due process in the rush to fix that is horribly stupid. I’m a big fundamental rights guy. It will be harder to fix the issue by denying due process, but that is a massively steep price to pay.

I’m onboard with potential solutions that address the Biden immigration result that don’t **** on due process. Less efficient? Yes. As efficient than just removing due process? Nope. But far cheaper overall.

Feel free to put out non-rhetorical stuff as a counter.

(06-20-2025 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 01:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I figured out long ago that the only reason Tanq stays here and endures the amount of criticism he takes, is that he doesn't give a damn about anybody else's opinion except his own.

A normal person, when confronted with criticism at his level, would either attempt to do something to correct the interaction, or just leave the forum. But no, not Tanq. It takes a "special person" to react that way.

In fairness, I kinda don't care about anyone else's opinion either. But you are correct, you can disagree and not be a complete douche-nozzle. It also would be nice if he weren't completely duplicitous. For example, Tom, Elvis, Mensa, & Horseboy are just kinda dumb. But, at least you are getting their honest feelings/opinions. With Tanq, it's deceit wrapped in this notion that he just loves the "truth".

Facts are a good thing. Blind subservience to thin rhetoric not so much.

In this case, all that you all have presented is thin rhetoric to try and defend the position of “no person” doesn’t mean “no person”.

Hate to say it but affording due process of even a minimal level is part of the fabric of our society. No one here has presented any convincing rationale for ditching it.

The Trump side is correct that Bidens immigration policies were a stinking mess. The solution of that of simply stop due process in the rush to fix that is horribly stupid. I’m a big fundamental rights guy. It will be harder to fix the issue by denying due process, but that is a massively steep price to pay.

I’m onboard with potential solutions that address the Biden immigration result that don’t **** on due process. Less efficient? Yes. As efficient than just removing due process? Nope. But far cheaper overall.

Feel free to put out non-rhetorical stuff as a counter.

Hey! Lookie there...an almost genuine post (other than the first two sentences).

If Biden and previous leaders hadn't put us in such a shiteshow of a situation, I'd be more inclined to lean toward your notions of traditional due process. But, with anywhere from 30-40 million illegals in this nation, including MANY criminals, these times call for extreme measures. Throw on top of that 36 trillion in debt and it's difficult to jump on board with you.

I'm not a law expert, so I can't give you a full-throated legal retort. I just think that Trump should be given some latitude due to the fact that Biden, Obama, and others have put this nation behind the 8-ball, bigly.

What are you talking about Tanq. Where has due process not been provided? While there have been some unintentional rollups 99.9% of the illegals rolled up have been removed under expedited removal authority or AEA (for the TdA). The problem here is that some activist judges have assigned arbitrary and sometimes lengthy timeframes for illegals to have even further process time that is written nowhere in law. We literally have judges rewriting law in the face of Congress. And much like the Newsom diatribe where you were dead wrong you’re wrong here too. Eventually these issues are going to be taken up by the Supreme Court and put an end to this judicial activism that’s attempting to rewrite laws and limit or constrain the President’s removal authority of illegal aliens. Cheers.

(06-20-2025 04:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  What are you talking about Tanq. Where has due process not been provided? While there have been some unintentional rollups 99.9% of the illegals rolled up have been removed under expedited removal authority or AEA (for the TdA). The problem here is that some activist judges have assigned arbitrary and sometimes lengthy timeframes for illegals to have even further process time that is written nowhere in law. We literally have judges rewriting law in the face of Congress. And much like the Newsom diatribe where you were dead wrong you’re wrong here too. Eventually these issues are going to be taken up by the Supreme Court and put an end to this judicial activism that’s attempting to rewrite laws and limit or constrain the President’s removal authority of illegal aliens. Cheers.

Keep it up and Im coming to Middle games this fall.

(06-20-2025 04:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  What are you talking about Tanq. Where has due process not been provided? While there have been some unintentional rollups 99.9% of the illegals rolled up have been removed under expedited removal authority or AEA (for the TdA).

Maybe take a look at Judge Boasbergs courtroom for that, TIBL. It is very apparent that in that episdoe, those that were flown out under the AEA had no due process for that act under that basis. In fact, the 'activist judges' have noted that distinction. Boasberg, on that night, absolutely made clear that the issue of 'no due process' didnt apply to roughly 30% of the renditionees on those flights.

Further, it was absolutely clear that in the court orders stopping the flights coming out of Bluebbonnet, that those in that particular situation had not been afforded due process on that particular basis.

When there is an active removal order, you are absolutely correct that the standard has been met. Those situtations, and particularly in the case of the former (Boasberg specifically limiting the action in his court to those under the AEA *and* no current removal order) show that specifically.

I dont think your comment that, essentially, jsut ignore the 100 or so cases where it is an issue, because 99.9% of the *sum* total are done properly holds water.

Due process isnt an 'average number meeting the test means it shouldnt be addressed'. It applies at an *individual* basis. Change your number to 99.999999999999999999% -- because proper due process was afforded to 99.999999999999999999% *doesnt* mean that that .000000000000000001% dont matter -- which is what you seem to be putting forth as an excuse. That isnt the issue. good sir.

Quote:The problem here is that some activist judges have assigned arbitrary and sometimes lengthy timeframes for illegals to have even further process time that is written nowhere in law.

I might agree with the above in general. In the case of the attempt to do the 'fly out' from the Bluebonnet. It was established in the record that that general comment above consisted of giving the detainees a sheet of paper in English saying that they were out when 10 hours was up.

If instead that time were an arbitrary 9 months, instead of 10 hours -- I might agree with you. The fact that you hide '10 hours notice' and hide the zero ability to challenge inherent in that 'notice' -- kind of leads me to suspect your broad claims.

Quote:We literally have judges rewriting law in the face of Congress.

Great -- please be specific which "activist judges" have rewritten which laws, and how. Its a great conclusory comment -- give me some background specific facts on that instead of the bald conclusory rhetoric you provide.

Quote:Eventually these issues are going to be taken up by the Supreme Court and put an end to this judicial activism that’s attempting to rewrite laws and limit or constrain the President’s removal authority of illegal aliens. Cheers.

You are correct. in the bolded. And argument by rhetoric (italicized), and broad rthetoric (by my count there is a swarm of supposed 'judicial activists' in the matter) doesnt do much to sway. Cheers.

(06-20-2025 04:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  What are you talking about Tanq. Where has due process not been provided? While there have been some unintentional rollups 99.9% of the illegals rolled up have been removed under expedited removal authority or AEA (for the TdA). The problem here is that some activist judges have assigned arbitrary and sometimes lengthy timeframes for illegals to have even further process time that is written nowhere in law. We literally have judges rewriting law in the face of Congress. And much like the Newsom diatribe where you were dead wrong you’re wrong here too. Eventually these issues are going to be taken up by the Supreme Court and put an end to this judicial activism that’s attempting to rewrite laws and limit or constrain the President’s removal authority of illegal aliens. Cheers.

Subscribe. My two additional cents. You enter our country illegally, you go back out the same way you came in.

Can't prove your legal visa status? Bye. The Secretary of State has discretion to kick you out. Visas are a privilege, not a right.

Breaking into our country illegally should not earn one any constitutional rights. You either have a valid visa, or you don't. There is your due process.

(06-20-2025 04:21 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 01:54 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 01:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I figured out long ago that the only reason Tanq stays here and endures the amount of criticism he takes, is that he doesn't give a damn about anybody else's opinion except his own.

A normal person, when confronted with criticism at his level, would either attempt to do something to correct the interaction, or just leave the forum. But no, not Tanq. It takes a "special person" to react that way.

In fairness, I kinda don't care about anyone else's opinion either. But you are correct, you can disagree and not be a complete douche-nozzle. It also would be nice if he weren't completely duplicitous. For example, Tom, Elvis, Mensa, & Horseboy are just kinda dumb. But, at least you are getting their honest feelings/opinions. With Tanq, it's deceit wrapped in this notion that he just loves the "truth".

Facts are a good thing. Blind subservience to thin rhetoric not so much.

In this case, all that you all have presented is thin rhetoric to try and defend the position of “no person” doesn’t mean “no person”.

Hate to say it but affording due process of even a minimal level is part of the fabric of our society. No one here has presented any convincing rationale for ditching it.

The Trump side is correct that Bidens immigration policies were a stinking mess. The solution of that of simply stop due process in the rush to fix that is horribly stupid. I’m a big fundamental rights guy. It will be harder to fix the issue by denying due process, but that is a massively steep price to pay.

I’m onboard with potential solutions that address the Biden immigration result that don’t **** on due process. Less efficient? Yes. As efficient than just removing due process? Nope. But far cheaper overall.

Feel free to put out non-rhetorical stuff as a counter.

Hey! Lookie there...an almost genuine post (other than the first two sentences).

If Biden and previous leaders hadn't put us in such a shiteshow of a situation, I'd be more inclined to lean toward your notions of traditional due process. But, with anywhere from 30-40 million illegals in this nation, including MANY criminals, these times call for extreme measures. Throw on top of that 36 trillion in debt and it's difficult to jump on board with you.

I'm not a law expert, so I can't give you a full-throated legal retort. I just think that Trump should be given some latitude due to the fact that Biden, Obama, and others have put this nation behind the 8-ball, bigly.

Last numbers I saw were 18-19 million.

I dont see where the 36 trillion in debt has anything to do with the issue -- that is problem all its own.

No need for a 'legal retort'. Im simply not for curtailing any fundamental right in the Constitution for expediency. In almost every situtation.

Not the 1st amendment, not the 2nd, not the 4th, not the 5th, not the 6th, not the 8th, not the 10th, not the 14th -- not anything afforded to individuals under the Constitution.

Yes there is a mass of illegals here -- even with your inflated 30-40 million, or even the numbers I saw of 18 - 19 million. yes -- including CRIMINALS. Im simply not willing to cut shortcuts into rights held by all to make the work in fixing the issue shorter. That might work in the short run to get quicker results. Long run its a completely screwed up notion to try and 'carve away' (no matter how small) those rights that actually accrue to me as well.

Do It The Right Way.

Or, find a way to make the current system more efficient. Which can actually happen.

Look, I dont have issues legally with 'sweeps'. Once they are in the system, use expedited hearings which apply to 85 - 90% of them. Structure the hearing system to be 'detention center'-centric. Literally assembly line the 'right process'. Same for the amnesty prong.

Going to the extreme (like the AEA) is fked up.

And yes my previous first sentence was snark -- absolutely. A response to *your* crappy comment of "With Tanq, it's deceit wrapped in this notion that he just loves the "truth"."

(06-20-2025 05:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 04:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  What are you talking about Tanq. Where has due process not been provided? While there have been some unintentional rollups 99.9% of the illegals rolled up have been removed under expedited removal authority or AEA (for the TdA). The problem here is that some activist judges have assigned arbitrary and sometimes lengthy timeframes for illegals to have even further process time that is written nowhere in law. We literally have judges rewriting law in the face of Congress. And much like the Newsom diatribe where you were dead wrong you’re wrong here too. Eventually these issues are going to be taken up by the Supreme Court and put an end to this judicial activism that’s attempting to rewrite laws and limit or constrain the President’s removal authority of illegal aliens. Cheers.

Subscribe. My two additional cents. You enter our country illegally, you go back out the same way you came in.

Can't prove your legal visa status? Bye. The Secretary of State has discretion to kick you out. Visas are a privilege, not a right.

Breaking into our country illegally should not earn one any constitutional rights. You either have a valid visa, or you don't. There is your due process.

How frickin hard is this to understand. If a country landed troops in our country would they deserve muh due process?

Frickin idiots.

(06-20-2025 05:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 04:44 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  What are you talking about Tanq. Where has due process not been provided? While there have been some unintentional rollups 99.9% of the illegals rolled up have been removed under expedited removal authority or AEA (for the TdA). The problem here is that some activist judges have assigned arbitrary and sometimes lengthy timeframes for illegals to have even further process time that is written nowhere in law. We literally have judges rewriting law in the face of Congress. And much like the Newsom diatribe where you were dead wrong you’re wrong here too. Eventually these issues are going to be taken up by the Supreme Court and put an end to this judicial activism that’s attempting to rewrite laws and limit or constrain the President’s removal authority of illegal aliens. Cheers.

Subscribe. My two additional cents. You enter our country illegally, you go back out the same way you came in.

You leave off the crux in your broad comment. First -- Most agree with "You enter our country illegally, you go back out". The *issue* you look right past is 'how do you determine *if* 'you came in illegally'? Just by pointing at someone and screaming? Hate to tell you - -*that* is the issue in a nutshell.

Quote:Can't prove your legal visa status? Bye.

My neighbor Carlos was born here, really doesnt speak English. Does he have to "prove his legal visa status"? Do *I* have to "prove my legal visa status"?

Yeah, if there is 'sufficient cause and sufficient proof' *of* being illegal - -your standard is proper. On its own its stupid.

Quote:Breaking into our country illegally should not earn one any constitutional rights. You either have a valid visa, or you don't. There is your due process.

I dont have a valid visa. Thats my due process? The funny thing is that there literally *has* to be a form of due process to get to the conclusion of 'broken into our country illegally' -- and that is the issue that your rhetoric *completely* misses and overlooks.

Dangit I leave for a few hours and now I have to catch up all the tanq posts.

How hard is it to prove you have a valid visa? I would give everybody that chance. Due process.

But if you can't produce one or otherwise show you are here on a valid visa, then you obviously broke into the country (or overstayed your once valid visa), and the fed gov has every right to deport you. Sec of State revokes visas every day at his discretion, for a myriad of reasons.

(06-20-2025 05:52 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Dangit I leave for a few hours and now I have to catch up all the tanq posts.

Here, I can summarize all his posts for you: "Due process! All persons! 3A, you're still an idiot."

Now you're caught up.

Quick AI search on Visa documents. Pretty simple. All visa permit holders are required to carry visa docs on their person at all times, and immigration officials are permitted to request these docs at any time. There is your due process. You either have the required paperwork, as required by law, or you don't. Pretty easy to double check that, too, I bet.

Quote:Yes, individuals in the U.S. on a visa are generally required to carry certain immigration documents with them at all times. This is a legal requirement for non-citizens to demonstrate their authorized presence in the country.

Specific documents to carry may include:

* Passport with valid visa stamp:

This is a key document for most non-immigrants, showing their visa type and entry into the U.S.

* Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record):

This document, often obtained electronically, records the individual's permitted stay in the U.S.

Other relevant documents:

* Depending on the visa type, this could include Form I-20 (for F-1 students), Form DS-2019 (for J-1 exchange visitors), or Form I-797 (for H-1B and other nonimmigrant categories).

* Employment Authorization Document (EAD):

If the visa grants permission to work, the EAD card is also a required document.

* Green card (for permanent residents):

Lawful permanent residents are required to carry their green cards.

Why carry these documents?

* Legal requirement:

The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that non-citizens carry documentation of their immigration status.

* Law enforcement:

Immigration officials may request these documents during routine stops or investigations, and failure to present them can lead to legal issues.

* Proof of status:

These documents serve as proof of authorized presence and any work authorization, if applicable.

Important considerations:

Photocopies:
While carrying original documents is important, some recommend keeping laminated copies as well, especially if the originals are needed for travel or other purposes.

Safe storage:
If originals cannot be carried, ensure they are stored securely and accessible when needed.

Awareness of laws:
Staying informed about current immigration laws and regulations is crucial for compliance.

(06-20-2025 06:23 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-20-2025 05:52 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Dangit I leave for a few hours and now I have to catch up all the tanq posts.

Here, I can summarize all his posts for you: "Due process! All persons! 3A, you're still an idiot."

Now you're caught up.

Nope, just said the bolded. And made a point in the process that you dont seem to consider.

Ive asked you a simlpe question on *your* application of the issue, regarding to 'how do you determine, at first blush, who *might* be an illegal alien with no due process.'

If asking you to answer that question is what you take as the italicized, thats on you, 3A. Maybe answer the question before complaining the bolded..... eh?

(06-20-2025 06:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Quick AI search on Visa documents. Pretty simple. All visa permit holders are required to carry visa docs on their person at all times, and immigration officials are permitted to request these docs at any time. There is your due process. You either have the required paperwork, as required by law, or you don't. Pretty easy to double check that, too, I bet.

Quote:Yes, individuals in the U.S. on a visa are generally required to carry certain immigration documents with them at all times. This is a legal requirement for non-citizens to demonstrate their authorized presence in the country.

Specific documents to carry may include:

* Passport with valid visa stamp:

This is a key document for most non-immigrants, showing their visa type and entry into the U.S.

* Form I-94 (Arrival/Departure Record):

This document, often obtained electronically, records the individual's permitted stay in the U.S.

Other relevant documents:

* Depending on the visa type, this could include Form I-20 (for F-1 students), Form DS-2019 (for J-1 exchange visitors), or Form I-797 (for H-1B and other nonimmigrant categories).

* Employment Authorization Document (EAD):

If the visa grants permission to work, the EAD card is also a required document.

* Green card (for permanent residents):

Lawful permanent residents are required to carry their green cards.

Why carry these documents?

* Legal requirement:

The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that non-citizens carry documentation of their immigration status.

* Law enforcement:

Immigration officials may request these documents during routine stops or investigations, and failure to present them can lead to legal issues.

* Proof of status:

These documents serve as proof of authorized presence and any work authorization, if applicable.

Important considerations:

Photocopies:
While carrying original documents is important, some recommend keeping laminated copies as well, especially if the originals are needed for travel or other purposes.

Safe storage:
If originals cannot be carried, ensure they are stored securely and accessible when needed.

Awareness of laws:
Staying informed about current immigration laws and regulations is crucial for compliance.

That doesnt answer my question. How do you determine *who* to force to prove up the above at the first step? That is the *initial* application of due process. Show a reason *to* ask for the above. Show it up at the first blush. You miss that step.