US politics general thread

[Pitbull]

Ah you use your personal judgement. How due process of you.

Now you being obtuse on purpose.

Border control is there for a reason. There is a difference between catching one at the border vs detaining a person who has been in the country illegally for a period of time. You know this, don't know what you're trying to argue...

 

[Temujin]

Ah you use your personal judgement. How due process of you.

You use a port of entry to enter a country legally. Any other means is illegal. If you're legal, go to the border post.

 

[konfab]

Ah you use your personal judgement. How due process of you.

(sigh)

Due process in this case would be the application of reasonable doubt on the part of the people enforcing the border. It is not a violation of due process laws if a border patrol arrests someone who they suspect has entered the country illegally. Just as it isn't a violation of your due process rights if a traffic cop arrests you because you have failed a drunk driving test.

Notice there actually has to be something that would amount to evidence in order for them to legally do this. A border patrol agent can't legally arrest someone on suspicion entering the country illegally (lets say if that person had a valid visa and a passport) because they think they saw that person enter the country illegally 36 years ago.

 

[cerebus]

Now you being obtuse on purpose.

Border control is there for a reason. There is a difference between catching one at the border vs detaining a person who has been in the country illegally for a period of time. You know this, don't know what you're trying to argue...

Once again - how do you determine that a person is attempting to enter illegally without a court case? There are a myriad of reasons why someone would legally be able to enter the US at the border who did not have the necessary paperwork: asylum, urgent health needs, family claims. And all of those people are protected under the 5th and 14th amendments.

You use a port of entry to enter a country legally. Any other means is illegal. If you're legal, go to the border post.

None of which addresses the point Trump is making:

Hiring many thousands of judges, and going through a long and complicated legal process, is not the way to go – will always be disfunctional [sic]. People must simply be stopped at the Border and told they cannot come into the U.S. illegally.

We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order.

He is simply saying that if we do try to hire enough judges to give immigrants a fair hearing, it will add unnecessary complication to the judicial system and they should just be stopped and turned back. It doesn't matter how you twist it, his words couldn't be much clearer.

 

[Temujin]

Once again - how do you determine that a person is attempting to enter illegally without a court case? There are a myriad of reasons why someone would legally be able to enter the US at the border who did not have the necessary paperwork: asylum, urgent health needs, family claims. And all of those people are protected under the 5th and 14th amendments.



None of which addresses the point Trump is making:



He is simply saying that if we do try to hire enough judges to give immigrants a fair hearing, it will add unnecessary complication to the judicial system and they should just be stopped and turned back. It doesn't matter how you twist it, his words couldn't be much clearer.

You forgot to bold this part

People must simply be stopped at the Border and told they cannot come into the U.S. illegally.

 

[Pitbull]

Once again - how do you determine that a person is attempting to enter illegally .

Are you being retarded on purpose now? Entering a port without the required documents is ILLEGAL. That is the reason entry can be denied. You don't need a court to tell you person A is trying to enter a country illegally as that has already been determined.

Is this stupid Monday or something?

 

[cerebus]

You forgot to bold this part

Yeah... ok? I think I bolded it before.

Are you being retarded on purpose now? Entering a port without the required documents is ILLEGAL. That is the reason entry can be denied. You don't need a court to tell you person A is trying to enter a country illegally as that has already been determined.

Is this stupid Monday or something?

You're completely wrong. Undocumented immigrants absolutely have a right to due process, and to claim to avoid expedited removal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/due-process-undocumented-immigrants.html

Do undocumented immigrants have a right to due process?
Yes. Courts have consistently held that anyone on United States soil is protected by the Constitution’s right to due process, even if they illegally entered the country, though people generally have greater legal protections inside the country than at the border.

How much process is deemed to be “due” depends on the situation. Courts have upheld that people who entered the United States illegally and were ordered deported have a right to appeal those decisions. But the courts have also essentially said that Congress can decide that more limited procedures are sufficient for noncitizens detained at the border.

Can a new immigrant avoid expedited removal?

Yes, by seeking asylum. When that happens, officers at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services — not a judge — will review cases to decide whether applicants have a credible fear of persecution back home. If so, they are placed in the immigration court system for a fuller consideration of their request. If officers decided that asylum seekers have no credible fear and should be deported, they still have a right to appeal that denial to an immigration judge, who has seven days to decide.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/...ckId=signature-journalism-vi&imp_id=579419403

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/...ckId=signature-journalism-vi&imp_id=579419403
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/...ckId=signature-journalism-vi&imp_id=443124147

 

[Temujin]

Yeah... ok? I think I bolded it before.



You're completely wrong. Undocumented immigrants absolutely have a right to due process, and to claim to avoid expedited removal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/due-process-undocumented-immigrants.html

Stopping at border before entering vs due process for those already across the border.
You're mixing the two, Trump said stop em before they enter, Hint: I bolded it for you in previous post

 

[Pitbull]

Yeah... ok? I think I bolded it before.



You're completely wrong. Undocumented immigrants absolutely have a right to due process, and to claim to avoid expedited removal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/due-process-undocumented-immigrants.html

This is exactly what I said above earlier...

You have two different types of illegals. You are trying to argue one with the other as proof /facepalm

 

[Pitbull]

Stopping at border before entering vs due process for those already across the border.
You're mixing the two, Trump said stop em before they enter, Hint: I bolded it for you in previous post

Even within a 100 air mile from port of entry.

Border agencies have authority for a pretty big stretch from the border.

 

[cerebus]

Stopping at border before entering vs due process for those already across the border.
You're mixing the two, Trump said stop em before they enter, Hint: I bolded it for you in previous post

Well since we're playing a game of trumpsplaining:

When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came.

Doesn't sound like he's saying before they enter to me. I mean, basically it sounds like he really isn't clear on immigration laws and he just wants immigrants stopped and he's frustrated that all this due process malarkey is getting in the way and can we just install beaner catapults at McAllen border already.

 

[Temujin]

Well since we're playing a game of trumpsplaining:



Doesn't sound like he's saying before they enter to me. I mean, basically it sounds like he really isn't clear on immigration laws and he just wants immigrants stopped and he's frustrated that all this due process malarkey is getting in the way and can we just install beaner catapults at McAllen border already.

People must simply be stopped at the Border and told they cannot come into the U.S. illegally.

 

[Pitbull]

Or arrested in the process of entering the country illegally (within the US) catch them and deport them immediately.

All countries do this. Even in the UK people are deported immediately if it can be determined where they originate from and they are in the UK illegally. The issue is that most people caught in the UK will make sure they have no proof of origin so it makes it harder for the Immigration officials to determine where they came from. This delays the process and weighs heavy on the legal system.

If you catch a Mexican within the US close to the Mexican border, pick them up and drop them off at the Mexican side of the border again. It's not rocket science, and exactly what Trump is saying.

 

[Temujin]

Even within a 100 air mile from port of entry.

Border agencies have authority for a pretty big stretch from the border.

Yeah, I'm saying, he's not saying round people up in cities that have been there for years, with jobs, families etc. He isn't and hasn't said 'no due process' for some, ship em out. Stopping people at the border from illegally entering is not him saying 'no due process', they're illegal, they don't have required documents, passports, visa etc. Not allowing them in isn't 'no due process'

 

[Pitbull]

Yeah, I'm saying, he's not saying round people up in cities that have been there for years, with jobs, families etc. He isn't and hasn't said 'no due process' for some, ship em out. Stopping people at the border from illegally entering is not him saying 'no due process', they're illegal, they don't have required documents, passports, visa etc. Not allowing them in isn't 'no due process'

Exactly, and there is already a separate process for people being in the country a number of years vs people who just arrived. Cerebus knows this, he's trying to play devil's advocate by using the one's processes as a defense for the other one. He's doing it on purpose...

 

[cerebus]

That is not the context Trump is arguing from. He is talking about the backlog of immigrant cases:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ration-courts-and-law/?utm_term=.d2be19672513

Trump says the United States would need “thousands” of judges to get through the 700,000-case backlog in the immigration system. “They came in to see me last week,” Trump said June 25. “They said, ‘We’d like to hire 5,000 more judges’ — 5,000. You ever hear of a thing like that?”

 

[Pitbull]

That is not the context Trump is arguing from. He is talking about the backlog of immigrant cases:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ration-courts-and-law/?utm_term=.d2be19672513

Why do you need to have Judges to tell you these people are in the country illegally and need to be deported?

If they don't belong there they don't belong there. Simple as that... Doesn't matter which context he's coming from. He is right!

 

[cerebus]

Why do you need to have Judges to tell you these people are in the country illegally and need to be deported?

If they don't belong there they don't belong there. Simple as that... Doesn't matter which context he's coming from. He is right!

Okay so I'm right then.

 

[Temujin]

That is not the context Trump is arguing from. He is talking about the backlog of immigrant cases:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ration-courts-and-law/?utm_term=.d2be19672513

People must simply be stopped at the Border and told they cannot come into the U.S. illegally.

=

He is talking about the backlog of immigrant cases

 

[Pitbull]

Okay so I'm right then.

Right about what?

You haven't made a clear stance yet. There is ZERO problem with getting rid of people in your country illegally. If they have a case of asylum it can be heard and judged. Jumping a fence from Mexico has nothing to do with asylum...