- 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: Since when are illegal immigrants protected under the US Constitution
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think it was just a mistake due to being overly aggressive and not doing enough due diligence.
Except they are saying it was not a mistake.
Why was there a hold on his deportation order?
Would it matter? Do you think "due process" would let this precious Maryland father stay here? Just think of the years of future cultural enrichment citizens of the U.S. will be missing with this paragon of virtue gone away.
1
Posted on 4/22/25 at 2:51 pm to JimEverett
quote:
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.
Don't want to keep beating a dead horse. Of course, I think the government will prevail on the "can't do anything about it" argument.
It's worth noting that the government has filed into the record the assertion that Abrego Garcia’s designation as being a member of a foreign terrorist organization bypasses the obligation to remove the withholding order. I found this affidavit filed on 4/13/25.
Curious that they didn't amend their pleadings to reflect that. Here's the docket if you ever want to review:
LINK
Posted on 4/22/25 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They theoretically can IF they can get boots on the ground, as the kids say.
Illegally though
Posted on 4/22/25 at 6:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
T
Thats all made up, Illegals as a group are under the 'jurisdiction' of the country they came from, unless theay are 'citizens' of the United States being under its' jurisdiction, the illegals have NO BUSINESS RECEIVING DUE PROCESS FOR ANYTHING, DONE.
Thats all made up, Illegals as a group are under the 'jurisdiction' of the country they came from, unless theay are 'citizens' of the United States being under its' jurisdiction, the illegals have NO BUSINESS RECEIVING DUE PROCESS FOR ANYTHING, DONE.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 7:13 pm to TS1926
quote:
Except they are saying it was not a mistake.
They might be "saying" that, but they certainly aren't arguing it in court.
I actually took the time to search the docket to see if the Trump Administration amended its pleadings to incorporate Miller's argument. They have not.
If you want to search the docket instead of relying on the media or on spin, here it is:
Abrego Garcia v Noem documents
Posted on 4/22/25 at 7:30 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Right.
I don't know if it was you or someone else - but we were talking about why they have stuck with the "administrative error" line when in court.
I suppose it is the easiest line of defense, given that courts cannot force the Executive to engage in a certain sort of foreign policy.
And given that is becoming clear that the U.S. is not paying El Salvador to imprison Garcia then there is not theory that I am aware that a court can use to fore the government to do anything.
But they could argue the deportation was legal, and as you have pointed out, they have made reference to this in a few places.
I don't know if it was you or someone else - but we were talking about why they have stuck with the "administrative error" line when in court.
I suppose it is the easiest line of defense, given that courts cannot force the Executive to engage in a certain sort of foreign policy.
And given that is becoming clear that the U.S. is not paying El Salvador to imprison Garcia then there is not theory that I am aware that a court can use to fore the government to do anything.
But they could argue the deportation was legal, and as you have pointed out, they have made reference to this in a few places.
Posted on 4/22/25 at 7:34 pm to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
Since when are illegal immigrants protected under the US Constitution
Since never.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:08 am to Boogalie
quote:
Illegals as a group are under the 'jurisdiction' of the country they came from,
Not when on US soil.
Otherwise, we couldn't arrest them for crimes (like diplomats)
Posted on 4/23/25 at 7:10 am to TBoy
quote:
All of them.
Nope.
This was ramped up after 9/11 and continued into Obama’s term.
quote:
Expedited removal, also known as expedited deportation, is a process that allows immigration officers to quickly deport individuals without a hearing before an immigration judge.
This post was edited on 4/23/25 at 7:13 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:55 am to dgnx6
quote:
Nope.
This was ramped up after 9/11 and continued into Obama’s term.
quote:
Expedited removal, also known as expedited deportation, is a process that allows immigration officers to quickly deport individuals without a hearing before an immigration judge.
You simply do not understand due process.
The expedited removal statute, 8 USC 1225, provides for a process for determination of whether a non-status alien meets the criteria for expedited removal. The Supreme Court has held that the process provided by the law, which involves powers expressly conferred by Congress, is, under the circumstances of its proper application, all the process that is due.
quote:
For these reasons, an alien in respondent's position has only those rights regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute. In respondent's case, Congress provided the right to a “determin[ation]” whether he had “a significant possibility” of “establish[ing] eligibility for asylum,” and he was given that right. §§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), (v). Because the Due Process Clause provides nothing more, it does not require review of that determination or how it was made. As applied here, therefore, § 1252(e)(2) does not violate due process.
Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140; 140 S.Ct. 1959, 1983; 207 L.Ed.2d 427 (2020)
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:20 am to ninthward
quote:
It's a theoretical application, where no actual text says non-citizens are granted rights. They can moan all they fricking want about due process, and freedom of speech but again there is no where to cite these rights are afforded to non citizens.
They weren't even afforded to slaves, native americans and in some cases women.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:45 pm to RoosterCogburn585
They aren't. The Demon Party does whatever it wants. That's why it's beyond time for Americans to stand up to Demons and show them this is our country and we are done with their crap.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News