- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Since when are illegal immigrants protected under the US Constitution
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:36 pm to troyt37
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:36 pm to troyt37
quote:
So then these criminal illegals also have the right to keep and bear arms, even in the immigration offices there they are being processed, right?
While I think they do (because I'm a big "shall not" guy and not a hypocrite), it seems the courts are coming down on the other side. Why? The 2nd Amendment doesn't use the same language as the 5th/14th.
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"The people" =/= "Person".
As I said in a prior post (with an ETA anticipating this very digression), "the people" has been interpreted synonymously with "citizen". "Person" has not.
0
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:37 pm to TBoy
quote:You know this is false, so why post it. The
All of them.
Under IIRAIRA, enacted under Clinton, aliens admitted who overstay their visas by one day or longer became ineligible for a new nonimmigrant visa. If the period of overstay ranged from 180 to 365 days, the alien would face a 3-year bar to reentry, and an overstay of more than 365 days would require a 10-year bar. These provisions impact aliens who were admitted before and after the enactment of IIRAIRA.
In these circumstances, an alien who falls under these categories would be subject to summary removal if attempting to reenter the United States.
In these removal proceedings, the alien does not have a right to a hearing or a lawyer and is subject to a 5-year bar of entry.
Many of those deported are under summary judgment and received no 'due process'.
That's not even discussing the criminal ones with criminal convictions or charges facing them back in their home country. They get put before a judge. Judge says they gotta go, they gotta go.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I would need to know more about the technicalities and intricacies of immigration law to be able to answer that. You're getting into local rule territory here
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think the Executive Branch is pretty much able to change rules for Immigration Court pretty much at will.
Factually, I doubt that there is much chance for the hold order to survive because the situation has changed so much from 2019.
Do you think the Abrego Garcia case is just incompetence or the Administration is trying to make "new law?"
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Founders would have had a problem conceptualizing how immigrants could be "illegal" in the first place
That's one hell of a reach, considering that the Constitution declares it the job of the federal government to repel invasions, which is exactly what has happened on our southern border.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:45 pm to RoosterCogburn585
If the illegals who have invaded are protected under the constitution, then when China invades they will be protected also. Dumbass liberals
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:45 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
there is no where to cite these rights are afforded to non citizens.
If we are punishing people according to our laws, wouldn't all of our laws apply? If we say "you broke this law of our country" wouldn't we then have to grant them the protections that our laws provide, as well?
I'm not really advocating either way, but thinking about what actually makes sense.
That phrase "within its jurisdiction"...if an illegal in Texas is not "within its jurisdiction", how can Texas prosecute him for a crime like speeding, theft, murder, etc.?
I think we would want illegals to be legally considered within the jurisdiction of the United States. Otherwise, no agency would have the authority to prosecute them for any crimes they commit.
They are either within the jurisdiction of the US, or they aren't. You can't claim that they are only when it suits your political agenda, but not at other times.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:46 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Do you think the Abrego Garcia case is just incompetence or the Administration is trying to make "new law?"
I think it was just a mistake due to being overly aggressive and not doing enough due diligence.
And the admin has its supporters so wound up emotionally over the issue, they know they can't show ANY weakness, so they have to double down on stupid when they do make mistakes.
This (unrelated) thread is a perfect example of how many Trumpkins would react to the admission of any mistake re: Garcia. And that would be the reaction at the beginning. NOW? Any budge even a mm would lead to mass suicide among the ranks
This is why I said to you a few days ago that what the Trump admin puts in pleadings (where there are consequences for lying and no upside for muh fight nonsense) and what they say in public are often 2 VERY different things.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:46 pm to troyt37
quote:
considering that the Constitution declares it the job of the federal government to repel invasions
Sure
quote:
which is exactly what has happened on our southern border.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:50 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I have pointed this out before. That is not the Supreme Court or Clarence Thomas saying the removal of Garcia was illegal. That is the summarization of what the Administration has put in the record.
it is an important point to make because the Court is not setting precedent that this removal was illegal, it is just taking the facts that are in the record and moving with that.
Which means that if another illegal alien is detained after determining that he is a MS13 member, has an order or deportation, and a Withhold Order from being removed to El Salvador - but the government deports him to CECOT, it is not established law that such a move is illegal.
For instance, the government has an argument, and I believe it is the one Miller publicly promotes, that the designation of MS13 as a terrorist organization makes the Withhold Order null and void. But that question is not before SCOTUS, nor is the question of the illegality of what they did because the government has taken the position that it was an improper removal done out of a good faith error.
it is an important point to make because the Court is not setting precedent that this removal was illegal, it is just taking the facts that are in the record and moving with that.
Which means that if another illegal alien is detained after determining that he is a MS13 member, has an order or deportation, and a Withhold Order from being removed to El Salvador - but the government deports him to CECOT, it is not established law that such a move is illegal.
For instance, the government has an argument, and I believe it is the one Miller publicly promotes, that the designation of MS13 as a terrorist organization makes the Withhold Order null and void. But that question is not before SCOTUS, nor is the question of the illegality of what they did because the government has taken the position that it was an improper removal done out of a good faith error.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:52 pm to JimEverett
quote:
it is an important point to make because the Court is not setting precedent that this removal was illegal, it is just taking the facts that are in the record and moving with that.
I don't think anyone arguing honestly is implying as much, just using that as a statement for this specific case.
And the admin, as far as I know, has never wavered from asserting that illegality has always exists and still exists to this day.
quote:
For instance, the government has an argument, and I believe it is the one Miller publicly promotes, that the designation of MS13 as a terrorist organization makes the Withhold Order null and void. But that question is not before SCOTUS
Correct, and can't be until that due process is given. It's putative until that happens. There are other ways the order could be rescinded via proper due process outside of this argument.
quote:
nor is the question of the illegality of what they did because the government has taken the position that it was an improper removal done out of a good faith error.
And has not changed its stance in any filed pleading up to this point (when it had opportunity to do so)
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:54 pm to The Torch
quote:
Since Trump said they weren't
This is the correct answer.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:56 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Let's stay factual here
We're on the same page here.
I think the Supreme Court used a term that was so vague to permit the Trump Administration to satisfy the order by saying "Hey, we tried our best, but we couldn't get him returned."
That's very different from holding: "Therefore the Trump Administration must return Abrego Garcia to the United States."
I think it was a good decision by the Court.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:57 pm to JackieTreehorn
quote:
If the illegals who have invaded are protected under the constitution, then when China invades they will be protected also. Dumbass liberals
If china invaded would be we be sending ICE or the military?
Would we deport captured soldiers?
Would Trump not ask Congress to declare war?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 12:58 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
Many of those deported are under summary judgment and received no 'due process'.
Your statement is nonsense.
The term “due process” could also be said to compel “whatever process is due.” There are different levels of what process is due. Some government action requires more process and other actions require less. It’s a sliding scale.
A what you describe as a summary proceeding is still a proceeding. Someone has a burden of proof. In the removal proceedings you describe, the non-status alien bears the burden of coming forth with evidence that their presence is lawful. That is a very different level of process than is required before the government sends you to prison, but it is still process, and it is all that is due. The same structure exists for asylum proceedings. The alien must carry a burden of proving an asylum claim. That’s due process in that situation.
Now let’s get back to the guy in the Salvadorian jail. If he was afforded any due process at all, he could have presented the order issued by a judge that he was not to be removed. That would have carried his burden of proving lawful presence, and he would have been allowed to go home. The Administration concedes that his removal was unlawful.
The Trump position is that there are no constraints on his power, like a king. Under his position (and post PoliBoard posters), the president (but only if the president is Trump) has the unlimited power of a king. The due process limitation on governmental power does not exist. This is dead wrong.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correct, and can't be until that due process is given. It's putative until that happens
Why is that? The argument would most probably be that the person has a valid Order of Removability from a Court as well as a factual finding from a Court that the person is a MS13 member and thus a foreign terrorist. That would be the due process side.
Now whether that in fact makes any Withhold Order null and void would be the question - not due process. At least that is what I would think would be the case.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:12 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I have pointed this out before. That is not the Supreme Court or Clarence Thomas saying the removal of Garcia was illegal
Thanks, Jim. I respect that argument, but I don't agree with it. Even without an admission from the government, it's such an obvious legal proposition that the Feds have to honor federal Immigration Judge's orders (even ones that might have been factually wrong) that the Court had no choice except to find the deportation to El Salvador illegal.
The first Trump administration could have appealed the withholding order OR the release of the dangerous Abrego Garcia into the general population, but they chose not to. They could have filed a motion to remove the hold based on changed circumstances in El Salvador (the demise of the gang that the Immigration Judge held to be a threat to Abrego Garcia). For some reason, they didn't.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:14 pm to RoosterCogburn585
We are founded on the principle that some rights are inalienable.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:20 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I am not saying it is the correct argument. All I am saying is that the issue of the legality of the deportation is not and never has been before the Court.
The government certainly could have made the argument that the deportation was legal. Why they didn't is a guess as far as I know. Maybe it was due simply to the INS agent's record and/or the initial attorney who wrote to the Court that it was an error.
Perhaps they are not really confident in the argument.
Regardless. Given the exact same facts as Garcia, it is entirely possible that SCOTUS (of a lower court) could find that the removal is not illegal - if the question was presented to them.
The government certainly could have made the argument that the deportation was legal. Why they didn't is a guess as far as I know. Maybe it was due simply to the INS agent's record and/or the initial attorney who wrote to the Court that it was an error.
Perhaps they are not really confident in the argument.
Regardless. Given the exact same facts as Garcia, it is entirely possible that SCOTUS (of a lower court) could find that the removal is not illegal - if the question was presented to them.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:25 pm to JimEverett
quote:
And there are classes of people with more protections than others: a green card holder has more rights to free speech (maybe less than a citizen) than a person here on a visa, for instance.
Mahmoud Khalil had a green card and was living in New York. He is coming on 50 days spent in a jail in Louisiana for speech detrimental to US foreign policy, as self-determined by the US Secretary of State. Depending on the conclusion of his case, green card holders may in fact have no right to freedom of expression.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:29 pm to ned nederlander
Yeah, I imagine that will be the issue raised in his habeas hearing.
Do you know if Khalil had a conditional green card (typical for someone newly married) of full green card (which would be unusual). I have read reports that contradict on that question.
Do you know if Khalil had a conditional green card (typical for someone newly married) of full green card (which would be unusual). I have read reports that contradict on that question.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News