- 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
re: 'Due process' was stripped from illegals by President Clinton & Congress in the 1990s
Posted on 5/6/25 at 1:39 pm to LawTalkingGuy
Posted on 5/6/25 at 1:39 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
We are talking about what the government is allowed to do, not what you can do on your own personal property. You can clearly evict trespassers....but you can't make them go to some other specific place.
how did all the homeless camped near the superdome disappear before the superbowl again?
0
Posted on 5/6/25 at 1:48 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
quote:
(and to be sure, telling someone to "go home" is depriving them of liberty).
No, it's really not.
You don't think being told where you can live is depriving you of liberty? Then you don't unfmderstand what liberty is.
quote:
You didn't care about the process when they came here, so don't pretend to care about it now.
You're making things so personal, when I'm just responding to warped logic about the Constitution.
I hated Biden's abuses that brought so many asylum seekers into the US. Don't claim I said "nothing"....but it certainly wasn't 20 million people. It may have been as many as 8 million though, and that's a lot.
quote:
Can you prove you're a citizen? No, then GTFO. That's the only due process they deserve
We pretty much agree. It doesn't have to be a difficult process at all.
I think the question is, "are you a citizen, or do you have some other legal right to remain in the country?" And give them an opportunity to produce their evidence.
You don't leave it all up to ICE, though. Let ICE round them up, then give a hearing to those who think they have a legal argument to stay in the country. It shouldn't take long at all.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 1:49 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
Well, I didn't say that. I was referencing the arguments that sending a non citizen back to their home country against their will is not depriving them of their liberty.
You’re also arguing that them shitting on the due process allowing them to be here doesn’t matter. Making them go back where they came from deprives them of nothing except what the gained illegally.
quote:
And Arkansaa stand your ground laws have very little to do with natural human rights.
It has everything to do with it. Before you use your weapon to defend life and liberty, you have to consider if you are legally present, which effectively makes your right conditional. I guess the only ones in this country with unconditional rights are criminal illegals, according to the judiciary.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 1:52 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
Gun owners would like as strict a reading on the constitution as criminal illegals are getting from leftist judges.
quote:
They've gotten it.
Really? Then how did DC v Heller make it to the USSC?
How did the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 stand for decades?
This post was edited on 5/6/25 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:00 pm to BHS78
quote:
Has the Supreme Court struck it down?
No, because there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
When the Wikipedia article discusses "no due process" - what they are talking about are people trying to enter the U.S. Whether they have been here before or not does not matter. They are not entitled to due process.
People who are present in the U.S. - illegally or not - do have various levels of due process. At a minimum - anyone and everyone has a right to a habeas proceeding. And the process of removal requires an Administration hearing.
All of the rhetoric about "due process" is designed to confuse people for political purposes. The Trump Administration is not and has not denied due process to anyone that is known. It is certainly not a matter of policy.
Of course, what "due process" means to people can vary. Sometimes it seems like some Democrats expect due process to be what is essentially a criminal trial, and the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt whatever it is they are seeking to do. That is bullshite. What is required is a determination by an administrative judge that the person is here illegally and has no legitimate claim to stay here. That is due process, and the Administration recognizes that and has been complying with that.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:23 pm to troyt37
quote:
If you want to keep the country, that is.
If we let you interpret this stuff we'd be left with the country in name only. You'd denigrate every virtous part that exists.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:24 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Really? Then how did DC v Heller make it to the USSC?
And how did that ruling go?
Those liberal courts....
lmao
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:29 pm to troyt37
quote:
Making them go back where they came from deprives them of nothing except what the gained illegally.
You are assuming they are here illegally, which is really the whole point of due process, i.e. the government proving they are here illegally before depriving them of their liberty.
If some random person is picked up off the street and forced to leave the country, then they have definitely been deprived of their liberty. If that person turns out to be in the country illegally, then they are still being deprived of liberty, but it's okay because the government does so after providing them due process to prove whether they are here illegally.
This post was edited on 5/6/25 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:33 pm to Bourre
quote:
When did the SCOTUS rule that the law in question was unconstitutional? Link the ruling so we can all read the opinions.
Or are you here just to rabble rabble, with no facts, while being SFPs little gay lap dog
What SFP stated was an undeniable fact. Congress cannot change the Constitution through a law. The Constitution can only be changed through amendment. That's all SFP wrote. That's to what I was referring.
This post was edited on 5/6/25 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:33 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
If we let you interpret this stuff we'd be left with the country in name only. You'd denigrate every virtous part that exists.
You can’t even spell virtuous. Freudian slip? The country would be a lot less kinder, gentler, mushy gushy moderate bullshite, and a lot more following the Constitution as it was written and intended, that’s for certain. The definition of simple, straightforward words would not be left to the imaginations of brilliantly corrrupt lawyers and judges, or the machinations of the corrupt bureaucracy they preside over.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:36 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
You are assuming they are here illegally, which is really the whole point of due process, i.e. the government proving they are here illegally before depriving them of their liberty.
If you are here legally, you have the documentation to prove you are here legally. The burden has never been on the government to prove you aren’t legal.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:39 pm to IvoryBillMatt
So you are just here to be a leftist cheerleader? Congrats, I guess.
Neither of you two geniuses addressed the OP or stated how the law in question was “unconstitutional”. Congrats on being SFPs hype-bitch, at least you have that going for you
Neither of you two geniuses addressed the OP or stated how the law in question was “unconstitutional”. Congrats on being SFPs hype-bitch, at least you have that going for you
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:43 pm to JimEverett
The premise that all foreign nationals who manage to set their feet on US soil, either legally or illegally, are entitled to the FULL protections and rights enshrined in the constitution is a false one.
Don't indulge the trolls by debating based on this false premise.
Don't indulge the trolls by debating based on this false premise.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Congress cannot "strip" a fundamental Constitutional right. Only amending the Constitution can do so.
Lulz
Now do the alien enemies act. Been around since 1798. Written during the time of undeclared war, and for the sole purpose of removing Frenchmen suspected of engaging the US in war
quote:
predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened" against the US, all "subjects of the hostile nation or government" could be "apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies".
Truman used it outside of wartime and the Supremes agreed
quote:
In its 1948 Ludecke v. Watkins opinion, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court upheld the Truman administration’s extended reliance on the Alien Enemies Act, reasoning that it was not the judiciary’s place to second-guess the president on a matter of a “political” nature
Rights stripped. The Supremes agreed
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:48 pm to Vacherie Saint
I am not debating them. My point was that the argument over "due process" is a false one.
This Administration is giving everyone the same due process that every President has.
The only exception is the small number of AEA cases and the Administration has made clear those subject to AEA removal have a right to a habeas proceeding, even if they do not have the normal Administrative hearing.
This Administration is giving everyone the same due process that every President has.
The only exception is the small number of AEA cases and the Administration has made clear those subject to AEA removal have a right to a habeas proceeding, even if they do not have the normal Administrative hearing.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:55 pm to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
think the question is, "are you a citizen, or do you have some other legal right to remain in the country?" And give them an opportunity to produce their evidence.
You don't leave it all up to ICE, though. Let ICE round them up, then give a hearing to those who think they have a legal argument to stay in the country. It shouldn't take long at all.
Pretty reasonable opinion I agree with you completely
Posted on 5/6/25 at 2:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ah, but there is a hole in that language that I see. It says aliens, not illegal aliens.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 3:15 pm to troyt37
quote]If you are here legally, you have the documentation to prove you are here legally. The burden has never been on the government to prove you aren’t legal.[/quote]
I'm not experienced in immigration matters, so apologies if I miss stated the burden of proof. As long as the person is given a proper hearing, then they have due process
It is my understanding in deportation and removal hearings that the government bears the initial burden to show by clear and convincing evidence the person is deportable, i.e., has no legal basis to remain in the US. Then it's up to the deportee to overcome that initial burden.
The burden of proof changes if we are talking about illegal border crossings, or applications to change an immigrants status, or whatever.
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it really only makes sense that ICE has to have some reasonable basis to arrest people in the first place. We can't have them just rounding up anyone, and if that person has misplaced their birth certificate then off they go...
I'm not experienced in immigration matters, so apologies if I miss stated the burden of proof. As long as the person is given a proper hearing, then they have due process
It is my understanding in deportation and removal hearings that the government bears the initial burden to show by clear and convincing evidence the person is deportable, i.e., has no legal basis to remain in the US. Then it's up to the deportee to overcome that initial burden.
The burden of proof changes if we are talking about illegal border crossings, or applications to change an immigrants status, or whatever.
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it really only makes sense that ICE has to have some reasonable basis to arrest people in the first place. We can't have them just rounding up anyone, and if that person has misplaced their birth certificate then off they go...
This post was edited on 5/6/25 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 5/6/25 at 3:47 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Correct. The large majority of people aren't given expedited orders though, and even then they can still request, and are required to be given, Credible Fear Interviews if they claim a fear of return. If they pass the CFI then they are put into 240 removal proceedings. During those proceedings they are subject to mandatory detention, which I have seen to be a major deterrent to requesting CFI's.
This is why Stephen Miller is so smart, but also so disingenuous. He speaks in half truths that the base eats up, and then gets the Left to start arguing a position that makes them look like lunatics.
Best analysis I have seen. Thanks for wading through the irrelevant personal attacks to express it.
Posted on 5/6/25 at 3:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Congress cannot "strip" a fundamental Constitutional right. Only amending the Constitution can do so.
However, congress most certainly can curtail to minimal due process as they did in 1996.
You are a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News