- 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
0
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:33 pm to RoosterCogburn585
If someone here illegally can invoke full constitutional rights, why can’t every human on earth do so by simply making a public asylum claim? Or is it mere feet on US soil, even in defiance of our law, all that’s needed? If that’s the case should these illegal foreign fugitives ever be extradited to face justice in their home country?
The more you think about it, the more insane these ideas sound.
The more you think about it, the more insane these ideas sound.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:38 pm to RoosterCogburn585
wait until the resident paralegal come here to explain it to you.....lmao
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:40 pm to RoosterCogburn585
They aren’t.
SFP will be along to misconstrue Plyer v. Doe as support for his opinion that they are, but Plyer only held that the right to an education was a fundamental constitutional right under the 14th Amendment such that illegal alien children could not be deprived of the ability to attend school.
The opinion did not hold that illegal aliens were a suspect or protected class under the Constitution.
Illegals are entitled to some due process before being deported but that process isn’t anywhere close to what a citizen would receive in a criminal trial.
SFP will be along to misconstrue Plyer v. Doe as support for his opinion that they are, but Plyer only held that the right to an education was a fundamental constitutional right under the 14th Amendment such that illegal alien children could not be deprived of the ability to attend school.
The opinion did not hold that illegal aliens were a suspect or protected class under the Constitution.
Illegals are entitled to some due process before being deported but that process isn’t anywhere close to what a citizen would receive in a criminal trial.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:40 pm to JimEverett
quote:
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.
The finding that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member was based on double hearsay: a report by someone out of court about what they allegedly heard from an unidentified person also out of court. Maybe Abrego Garcia would have appealed that finding if he knew that designation meant that he could be expelled without due process.
Also, the Fourth Circuit's decision (written by the very conservative Judge Wilkinson) makes it clear that the assertion that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 isn't sufficient to by pass his due process rights:
"The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal)."
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:42 pm to IvoryBillMatt
So someone can enter our country illegally and then it becomes illegal for us to send them back? Seems like a can't lose proposition for them. Why do we even have borders?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:43 pm to GumboPot
The founders started with the preamble to The Constitution. The preamble starts with We the People of the United States of America. That tells me that it was written for the people of the United States of America. When they use people or persons it should be common sense that they mean people of the United States of America.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:43 pm to exdemocrat
Very good point there.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:45 pm to Riverside
quote:
Illegals are entitled to some due process before being deported but that process isn’t anywhere close to what a citizen would receive in a criminal trial.
You're right that they don't get the full range. Is there ANY source for which due process rights are allowed. For instance, in Immigrantion Court, do they get the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:48 pm to IvoryBillMatt
The one absolute certainty about this bullshite is that lawyers are making great piles of money off it, like always.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:55 pm to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
So someone can enter our country illegally and then it becomes illegal for us to send them back? Seems like a can't lose proposition for them. Why do we even have borders?
I don't make the laws or rules or necessarily like them, but I suppose there are some instances where that is true. Asylum cases are one...but they have to apply for asylum within one year of entering our country.
Crazy facts make for crazy legal outcomes.
This is one of the many reasons the Abrego Garcia case is so screwed up. His asylum application was denied because it was untimely. He was legally protected from deportation to El Salvador, however, on the same grounds as an asylum case: fear of harm in his native country.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:57 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
The one absolute certainty about this bullshite is that lawyers are making great piles of money off it, like always.
That's a good point. Who is paying all of Abrego Garcia’s legal bills?
Posted on 4/22/25 at 1:58 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
If someone here illegally can invoke full constitutional rights, why can’t every human on earth do so by simply making a public asylum claim? Or is it mere feet on US soil, even in defiance of our law, all that’s needed?
it’s within the jurisdiction of the US.
If we can assert legal power over you, you are afforded basic rights of due process.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:21 pm to Riverside
quote:
SFP will be along to misconstrue Plyer v. Doe
quote:
The opinion did not hold that illegal aliens were a suspect or protected class under the Constitution.
I've literally never argued this
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:22 pm to exdemocrat
quote:
The founders started with the preamble to The Constitution. The preamble starts with We the People of the United States of America. That tells me that it was written for the people of the United States of America. When they use people or persons it should be common sense that they mean people of the United States of America.
They use "person" and "the people"
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:25 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
If someone here illegally can invoke full constitutional rights, why can’t every human on earth do so by simply making a public asylum claim?
They theoretically can IF they can get boots on the ground, as the kids say.
quote:
Or is it mere feet on US soil, even in defiance of our law, all that’s needed?
Being within our borders is a crucial factor.
quote:
If that’s the case should these illegal foreign fugitives ever be extradited to face justice in their home country?
That's an entirely different discussion than if they have rights, using entirely different legal bases to discuss.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:30 pm to RoosterCogburn585
what do you mean by 'protected'?
Certainly you cannot treat them like roaches - they are human beings.
I would think any reasonable interpretation would be that as long as 'they' are here 'legally' they would not be in fear of their life or well being.
BUT - that does not mean they get any kind of 'special treatment' and should be wary of crossing any bounds of the 'law' they may not be familiar with.
BUT - if they purposefully enter the country ILLEGALLY - they have a problem === they should not expect anything other than a safe exit from the country.
Rationale = they must not disobey any of our LAWs and it is their responsibility to know what they are and so to cross out boundaries purposefully without permission then they have ALREADY VIOLATED OUR LAW = too bad for them.
THEREFORE - the best they should expect is a preemptive safe exit.
Certainly you cannot treat them like roaches - they are human beings.
I would think any reasonable interpretation would be that as long as 'they' are here 'legally' they would not be in fear of their life or well being.
BUT - that does not mean they get any kind of 'special treatment' and should be wary of crossing any bounds of the 'law' they may not be familiar with.
BUT - if they purposefully enter the country ILLEGALLY - they have a problem === they should not expect anything other than a safe exit from the country.
Rationale = they must not disobey any of our LAWs and it is their responsibility to know what they are and so to cross out boundaries purposefully without permission then they have ALREADY VIOLATED OUR LAW = too bad for them.
THEREFORE - the best they should expect is a preemptive safe exit.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Founders would have had a problem conceptualizing how immigrants could be "illegal" in the first place
Well after they raped, stole, and murdered a few families in the New England colonies they would have exterminated them like they did the Native Americans.
Drop an MS13 gang member in a time machine back to 1776 and think about how the people of that era would have handled gang shenanigans from foreigners
They would have shot them in the street
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:33 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
The finding that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member was based on double hearsay: a report by someone out of court about what they allegedly heard from an unidentified person also out of court.
Those are the rules of evidence Congress has prescribed for immigration proceedings. It is the same rules applied by the Court in issuing its Withhold Order.
I do not have a problem with that. We cannot hold every immigration court case to the same standards as criminal law. Another one of those rights thaat citizens get that noncitizens do not.
quote:
Maybe Abrego Garcia would have appealed that finding if he knew that designation meant that he could be expelled without due process.
He did appeal the finding, and the Immigration Appeal Board agreed with the finding that he was MS13.
quote:
Also, the Fourth Circuit's decision (written by the very conservative Judge Wilkinson) makes it clear that the assertion that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 isn't sufficient to by pass his due process rights:
Sure, but the issue of whether the terrorist designation makes the Withhold Order moot was not before this Judge or any judge. That is the point I am making. The government is conceding the error in deporting Garcia - thus that issue is not before any Court. Judge Wilkinson and anyone else can write whatever they want on the matter and it has no power behind it, it is not at issue.
The government is conceding that he SHOULD have had a hearing on the Withhold Order before being deported to El Salvador. Their argument is that after the error there really is not anything that can be done.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News