- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 10:23 pm to BBONDS25
You aren’t committed to understanding what’s being said, and I honestly think you’re confusing yourself and might be slightly illiterate.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 10:24 pm to BertyFot
quote:
You aren’t committed to understanding what’s being said, and I honestly think you’re confusing yourself and might be slightly illiterate.
I thought this was a poster making fun of you. Nope. Just you being a complete moron.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 10:25 pm to BertyFot
quote:
Biden did not open the border
ok. You’re just a dishonest hack. You won’t be here in 5 days. No need to spend more time exposing you. You uneducated morons keep trying to create these alters. You aren’t special. You get exposed almost immediately. I guarantee you won’t be here in 5 days.
This post was edited on 4/22/25 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 4/22/25 at 11:32 pm to BertyFot
quote:incorrect. I explained this already
Once someone is inside the U.S., whether legally or not, the government must follow legal procedures before deporting them
quote:also incorrect, according to US GOV documentation
That’s due process
Posted on 4/22/25 at 11:37 pm to BertyFot
I'm curious why you haven't responded to my post about the 14th and the AEA
Posted on 4/22/25 at 11:39 pm to BertyFot
quote:factually incorrect. Go see my post on the 14th
That means all individuals on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to due process protections under the Constitution
quote:wrongly
This has been upheld in multiple Supreme Court cases
Posted on 4/22/25 at 11:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
SFP. I went to the trouble of typing a message specifically for you and you haven't responded.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 11:46 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Your characterization does not match USCIS stipulations
I'm copying and pasting from USCIS my man....
quote:
Homan has been clear about this. If you want to apply for asylum, do so through a legal port of entry. If you cross the border illegally, the US GOV has every right to deport you WITHOUT any sort of proceeding.
Homans opinion while important isn't the one that matters here. He's simply the enforcement arm of government. The actual interpretation of law is up to the judicial branch and will be settled by the court system.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 5:46 am to paulb52
Liberals are a bunch of pendejos and hypocrites!
For 9 years I was under a student visa. You know what my due process was at the time if I ever broke the law, got cheating at an exam (at A&M) etc……BIG F’ing zero!!
When I applied for my green card, INS made it very clear to me that the government could take it away at any time they chose, my due process was a meeting with immigration to tell me what I did and to pack my bags!
And I was here legally!
These illegals have ZERO rights to shite!!
For 9 years I was under a student visa. You know what my due process was at the time if I ever broke the law, got cheating at an exam (at A&M) etc……BIG F’ing zero!!
When I applied for my green card, INS made it very clear to me that the government could take it away at any time they chose, my due process was a meeting with immigration to tell me what I did and to pack my bags!
And I was here legally!
These illegals have ZERO rights to shite!!
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:07 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
And for SFP
"person within its jurisdiction"
equals CITIZEN
No.
quote:
Illegals are NOT within the jurisdiction of US law.
They are. If they weren't, then we couldn't arrest them (like diplomats).
quote:
I don't care how many lawyers get this wrong in any number of court cases for any number of decades and what their judicial title is. The 14th does not apply to people outside the jurisdiction of US law, i.e. illegals. The language is plain and facile. If you cross the border illegally, you are subject to the US military, such as the alien enemies act.
You're very wrong.
quote:
There is a plain, unambiguous connection between the establishment of a citizen in the first sentence and the rights granted in the subsequent sentences.
They are, in fact, in dependent clauses with different meanings/impacts.
quote:
The AEA is applicable because 20 mil people crossing the border illegally (some with the help of foreign nations) is absolutely a "predatory incursion."
It's an incredibly weak argument to be so confident in.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:09 am to oklahogjr
Asylum seekers? Dude time for you you to go choke on some more lube. You are so embarrassing.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:35 am to oklahogjr
quote:
What is the official US government process for asylum seekers? What steps are they told to take by the US government to come here and seek asylum?
Those rules are as ridiculous as the due process crap to send illegals away.
And, not every illegal came here under the BS asylum crap you democrats pushed.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:49 am to oklahogjr
quote:
What is the official US government process for asylum seekers? What steps are they told to take by the US government to come here and seek asylum?
First country they come to is where they are to ask for asylum. So Mexico for most of them.
Regarding people who claim it here in America, if we are unable to deny them, we should setup large tent cities in southern Arizona. Those people will be housed there and given 3 sandwiches and fresh water every day.
99.9% of those people would not accept that, because instead of actually needing asylum, they really want money and jobs here in America.
Claiming asylum is just a way to get set free into our country.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:12 am to oklahogjr
quote:you seem to not understand what you cited. "Defensive asylum" is not about crossing outside of a legal port of entry, as you stated. Therefore, your citation of defensive asylum is not germane to the point of crossing at a legal point of entry. Any person who wants to claim asylum can do so through legal ports of entry. Crossing the border illegally means you can be deported without any sort of process, as Homan has explained and has been carrying out. Defensive asylum is a PROCESS by which someone can try to remain in the US after having been deemed a candidate for deportation. There's no language in the defensive asylum section that says anything about being granted immunity from deportation after crossing illegally.
I'm copying and pasting from USCIS my man
quote:Incorrect. Even the judicial branch disagrees with you because SCOTUS is still reviewing the matter. And it doesn't even matter what conclusion they arrive at because it's clearly within the purview of the executive.
The actual interpretation of law is up to the judicial branch and will be settled by the court system
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:yes. It's plain language. Perhaps you need a refresher in the english language
No
quote:They clearly are not, as stipulated in the plain language. The first sentence clearly lays out who is within the jurisdiction. I even bolded the language for you.
They are
quote:Silly. "Arrest" just means to detain. The military can "arrest" people who aren't under the jurisdiction of US law and that has nothing to do with due process. Just because leo arrests someone does not mean it was done because the person arrested had a prior guarantee of due process. You just made that up in your head.
If they weren't, then we couldn't arrest them (like diplomats)
quote:prove it. Use your words
You're very wrong
quote:So you don't understand english. This is another point you made up in your head that doesn't match reality. The sentences use the SAME WORDS and make a clear connection to each other. Yet you somehow think they are "independent." If they are independent, why aren't they in separate sections like the rest of the 14th?
They are, in fact, in dependent clauses with different meanings/impacts
quote:I quoted the act verbatim
It's an incredibly weak argument to be so confident in
If you're going to deny obvious reality clearly spelled out by facile language, then you need to admit you have mental illness. If you can't admit that then you are either laughably biased or a troll. If you admit you have mental illness, I'll buy that and we can have a laugh about it
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:30 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
yes. It's plain language.
"Person" does not denote "citizen"
Especially when they intentionally used "the people" to mean something else (citizens) or citizens directly.
To make this point:
quote:
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."
Only citizens have rights to privileges and immunities.
Persons have the other rights.
The intentional use of "person" instead of "citizen" denotes they do not mean the same thing.
quote:
They clearly are not,
So if they commit a murder, we can't arrest/prosecute them?
quote:
The first sentence clearly lays out who is within the jurisdiction. I
The first sentence only establishes birthright citizenship. Nothing more. It's an independent clause from the one you're referencing.
quote:
Silly. "Arrest" just means to detain. The military can "arrest" people who aren't under the jurisdiction of US law and that has nothing to do with due process.
We're not talking due process here. We're talking jurisdiction.
If we don't have jurisdiction, we can't arrest/prosecute them. An example of someone not subject to the jurisdiction of the US is a diplomat. Diplomats have immunity from prosecution by the US while here in a diplomatic role. That's being outside of US jurisdiction.
quote:
This is another point you made up in your head that doesn't match reality.
It's how you read laws.
quote:
The sentences use the SAME WORDS
See above: this is not true. ("Person" is not used to mean the same as "citizen" specifically in the 14A).
quote:
Yet you somehow think they are "independent." I
The period makes them independent clauses.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Illegals are NOT within the jurisdiction of US law.
They are. If they weren't, then we couldn't arrest them (like diplomats).
The immunities afforded to diplomats aren't really constitutional. There are certainly situations where they can be arrested. Furthermore, they can be asked to leave at any time for pretty much any reason (yes there may be diplomatic implications to doing so, but there is no constitutional barrier to such an act).
Yet you love trotting out this ridiculous red herring as if it's somehow meaningful to anything in this discussion.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:32 am to bhtigerfan
It is a financial tidalwave for the legal profession. They are all for it. Millions of clients coast to coast.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:59 am to somethingdifferent
From your link
quote:
defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the United States. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Individuals are generally placed into defensive asylum processing in one of two ways:
They are referred to an immigration judge by USCIS after they have been determined to be ineligible for asylum at the end of the affirmative asylum process, or
They are placed in removal proceedings because they:
Were apprehended in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry without proper legal documents or in violation of their immigration status; or
Were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trying to enter the United States without proper documentation, were placed in the expedited removal process, and were found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an asylum officer. See Questions & Answers: Credible Fear Screenings for more information on the credible fear process.
Immigration judges hear defensive asylum cases in adversarial (courtroom-like) proceedings, as necessary. The judge will hear arguments from both of the following parties:
You (and your attorney, if represented)
The U.S. government, which is represented by an attorney from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
The immigration judge then decides whether you are eligible for asylum. If the immigration judge finds you eligible, they will grant asylum. If the immigration judge finds you ineligible for asylum, they will determine whether you are eligible for any other forms of relief from removal. If the immigration judge finds you ineligible for other forms of relief, they will order you to be removed from the United States. Either party can appeal the immigration judge’s decision.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 11:06 am
Page 9 of 11
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News