Los Angeles Clashes between ICE and demonstrators, Trump sends in the National Guard.

[arjunk]

They might be in America illegally but they are still human beings with rights…..not being given

They have the right to be captured, imprisoned and deported under humane and transparent conditions.

 

[KingQamaR]

They have the right to be captured, imprisoned and deported under humane and transparent conditions.

DUE PROCESS STILL COUNTS.

 

[mulj]

america if it means to survive will become more open protonazi state. this fake liberal face make up is spent ideology, it has to thank efficient capitalism which ate it during time.
all popular slogans like liberty, equality and shits like that are smeared by stanch produced over century of exploitation.
in essence anachronic constitution which served as tool for continental expansion and wealth grab has to be restructured to try forming proper nation or nations in north america, fact that they are ruled by jew elites does not help it at all for possible peaceful transition into normal state as they will leach on USA corps until the end before they find new host.

 

[devadwal]

Once upon a time they said “We prefer illegal Mexicans to legal Indians " karma. LMAO

 

[niubi]

Dude... who do you think supplied South Americans the money to build skylines like this....China?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The south americans themselves did. You didn't donate the resources that built Sao Paulo. They didn't loot it from you. They bought and traded it. Nothing you've done for anyone has been out of true and honest charity. Don't present this shit like you have.

 

[niubi]

I have often pondered if we need a second civil war to finally straighten this thing out once and for all.

This I certainly agree with. Pity it'll never happen. It'll just be a slow decline but the racial political tensions will never reach critical mass to create any sort of genuine revolutionary event like a ... civil war of sorts but that would certainly be a test of all sides. It's just that the US won't be the same after it. You might think it'll come out for the better. I'm hoping we can see.

 

[SolarWarden]

DUE PROCESS STILL COUNTS.

Was there due process when they came in?

To quote Homer the great philosopher, shut up boy!

 

[j_hungary]

Good, because...

Removal of Aliens Who Have Entered the United States | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

The Supreme Court, however, has suggested that the extent of due process for aliens present in the United States may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance. For instance, at times the Court has indicated that at least some of the constitutional protections to which an alien is entitled may turn upon whether the alien has been admitted into the United States or developed substantial ties to this country. Thus, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which due process considerations constrain Congress’s exercise of its immigration power with respect to aliens within the United States.​

The fact that Americans can change their laws, even up to the constitutional level, means they have the right to affect different levels of due process without violating the overall principal itself.

Again, that depends on the circumstance...not on the status of the residency.

As I said, you can be removed from the US border if you are a CItizen of the US and committed an immigration offence (Yes, you can commit an Immigration offence as a citizen) For example, this guy

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The circumstance dictate the action, again as I had explained, if you are walking down the street and fit a suspect of a known crime, you can be detained without a warrant. The circumstance is you probably committed a crime because you look like the person people saw that had committed that crime, and the result is, I can detain you.

On the other hand, if I am in a border post, refused to show you my ID document, again, that is highly probable that I had committed an immigration offence (Most likely ID fraud) and I can be turn back and removed by CBP without a warrant, even if I am an American.

Both did not violate 5A in anyway, but there are alternative to the action on both case, Police can gather evidence and point it to you before the Police apply for a search warrant or arrest warrant to arrest you instead of invoking the probable clause arrest, and CBP can sit you down and run all the detail before (like taking your fingerprint or taking a photo) before they remove you if they so choose, the outcome of both action are the same, but the course are different, yet both does not violate Due Process

The 14th Amendment DENY the children of diplomats automatic US citizenship. Do you agree with that? Am not talking about the diplomat himself. Am talking about his CHILDREN regarding AUTOMATIC citizenship.

No., again, going back to the CBP website I quoted

Chapter 3 - Children Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats

A. PurposeThe child of a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the U.S. Department of State who is born in the United States may voluntarily regis

www.uscis.gov

I am pretty sure you don't need both parent a diplomat to be called a diplomat's children

In fact, CIS make it clear that the other parent who is not an accredited Diplomat NEED NOT to be a US Citizen for 14A to apply.

Again, Diplomat is excluded in 14A not because 14A excludes diplomats, but rather, they were outside the Jurisdiction of the US according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

That is a genuinely shocking argument.

Why are there laws against murder? Are there not MORAL arguments against the unjustified killing of another human being? Are you saying there are none?

Again...

All children borne on US soil, including territories, are automatic US citizens, except for the CHILDREN of:

- Diplomats (established 1868)
- Invading/occupying army f(established 1868)

Now, there is a new list:

- Diplomats (established 1868)
- Invading/occupying army f(established 1868)

- Illegal aliens (proposed 2025)

Are you saying that the US have no MORAL right to add to that list?

Law have no moral cause, you may find it shocking but I don't think I need to tell you that what's illegal may not be immoral, and what's immoral may not be illegal, if we have to uphold the law bound by moral guidance, that would have had make a complete different jurisprudence. Take murder for example. Murder can be moral and can be legal, while 90% of murder are immoral and illegal, there still murder that is moral but illegal (such as revenge killing) and immoral but legal (usually assisted suicide). For example, if I am sitting in front of a person who is bleeding to death, and I just watch him bleed and without doing anything, legally, I cannot be charge of any crime unless I abetted the death (like I help him to die or did something to accerlate the process) if I am just sit there and watch the man die, that's immoral but that's not illegal.

I am not saying there are no moral argument in law, believe me, as a cop myself and my wife being a lawyer, that's what we argue most of the time, but those argument is just that, law is blind, dumb and deaf, that's how law supposed to be, you cannot applies moral clause on law, because if you do that, then we will start having exception to the rules, which then render the rule pointless to begin with. I get what you are saying, because morally, we shouldn't be in charge of those who come into the country legally, but unless you somehow have to redefine the law, that's not what the law said, and trust me, this is not the issue appear the first time, case in point, in 1955 we don't have a law to prevent someone from bombing an aircraft or hijack an aircraft, and I think both you and I can agree that aircraft bombing or hijacking is immoral, BUT because law wasn't written during the time of flight, then United Flight 629 happened.

United Air Lines Flight 629 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And we found ourselves unable to prosecute that crime (well, we do get that guy with felony murder at the end but that's not the point) which mean people who put bomb on a plane, unless he had a specific target, he cannot be prosecuted. Which is why we change the law and code the hijacking and aircraft piracy as law instead of mooching on some law that have a similar reach.......

49 U.S. Code § 46502 - Aircraft piracy

www.law.cornell.edu

This is the point, we can't just redefine the text where it wasn't there, if we want to do that, you need to have the text rewritten and we need to make appropriate law to plug the gap (ie amend the 14A), this is how law is since the beginning of the first set of code was written, because you can't just add stuff that weren't there (For example, adding illegal in a arbitrary category that 14A excluded) , if you want to add into the law, you either need to redefine the amendment or pass a new law to repeal the old law, that's how law work. This is not about moral or immoral, or even about the US.

 

[That_Guy]

Non-conventional? This is why the majority of Americans support Dump regarding immigration issues.

They actually don't, you're making things up.

They are tired of the kind of word games you just did. Non-conventional? How about straight language and say 'illegal'? But the fact you avoid such straight talk means you know exactly that it is wrong. Non-conventional? What a laugh...

"Illegal" to the point of it being just a misdemeanor.

So I'm presenting it exactly like it's meant to be presented. You have no sense of nuance regarding the subject.

By the way, the US deported a 4 year old CITIZEN WITH CANCER.

Justify that bullshit.

I respect your opinion regarding military matters, but over the years I've come to realize that your politics is horrific.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The south americans themselves did. You didn't donate the resources that built Sao Paulo. They didn't loot it from you. They bought and traded it. Nothing you've done for anyone has been out of true and honest charity. Don't present this shit like you have.

Where was China and Taiwan in this building boom?
The answer: Nowhere.

Were you buying their goods...nope.
Were you designing their buildings...nope.
Were you giving them money...nope.

Were you doing the usual "nothing" yep!

But you claim the US wasn't doing anything....but somehow these skyscrapers cities in South America got built at a time when Beijing and Taipei were full of low story slums.

 

[That_Guy]

Because you stated INCORRECTLY that ICE is detaining judges illegally.

BECAUSE THEY ARE! JUST BECAUSE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DID THE ARRESTING, DOESN'T MAKE THE ARREST LEGAL!

THE COURTS HAVE INTERVENED IN DOZENS OF CASES SO FAR OF THE ICE BREAKING THE LAW TO DETAIN AND DEPORT PEOPLE!

Now you are backtracking as you always do, in every discussion, when you are proved wrong. As always, you descend into personal attacks.

I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT BACK TRACKING!

YOU DIDN'T PROVE SHIT WRONG!

WHERE DID I PERSONALLY ATTACK YOU? STOP FUCKING LYING!

Please learn to read comments in context. My comment was in response to a claim that the demand for immigration reforms is based on race.

HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN TO READ A COMMENT IN CONTEXT, BECAUSE YOU NEVER DO AND NEVER HAVE, REGARDLESS OF CONTEXT.

YOUR SO CALLED CONTEXT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING!

You yourself repeat this racism claim later in your post. Perhaps you should learn to read your own posts before posting to avoid embarassment.

BECAUSE IT IS!

YOU SHOULD LEARN EMPATHY INSTEAD! BECAUSE IT IS ABSOLUTELY A RACIST CLAIM BASED UPON RACISM, AND MADE ORIGINALLY BY RACISTS!

Nonsense argument. US immigration has been exceptionally fair over the years. You are picking ONE example of white South Africans to make your nonexistent point.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY A SENSIBLE ARUGMENT! HOW ABOUT THE PREVIOUS MUSLIM BAN BY THIS ADMINISTRATION THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN FOR BEING BLATANTLY XENOPHOBIC?

OR HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT ICE HAS BEEN TARGETING BROWN PEOPLE, EVEN THOSE THAT HAVE CITIZENSHIP, BECAUSE THEY "FIT A DISCRIPTION"?

If anyone is being racist here, it is you. Remember, racism against whites is also racism.

OH SHUT THE **** UP!

WHITE PEOPLE FROM SOUTH AFRICA AREN'T FACING ANY REAL DANGER!

YOU ARE LYING!

YOU ARE A LIAR!

Law enforcement in developing countries is far worse than in developed countries. Rich people will always get by in any country, but those who are not rich only want a level playing field where honest effort and playing by the rules is rewarded.

SO GOING FROM LAWLESS, TO LESS LAWFUL! YOU LITERALLY JUST MOVED THE GOAL POST!

This is one of the main reasons people migrate to the West.

IT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT!

Please document your 'scrutiny' with, you know, facts.



Again, you are out of your depth and ignorant of facts.

The US has always allowed migrants to come into the country LEGALLY. It has always been illegal to hire workers without proper documentation. The US has been humanitarian and lenient in the past.



Being in the US in violation of your visa rules, or being here without a visa in the first place, makes you illegal.

Once again, you don't know the facts and are just typing random words.



My argument is based on historical facts. You have provided none and have, in fact, backtracked on your own statements when they were exposed as being false.



Ah yes, the standard racist accusation when you can't support your argument with facts.

As explained, the only people bringing race into the question is your side. I am against all illegal migrants. Never once have I mentioned race.

Man, **** cloudflare.

I wrote so damn much, and I lost everything!

Anyway, **** this shit.

I'm right, you're wrong.

You've presented zero evidence.

You've failed to prove that these people are causing a decline in the west, and are instead asking me to do the job for you.

You've failed to realize that your claims of law abiding makes no sense, considering these people are allowed due process, which they're being denied.

You do this every time.

You present zero evidence, and pretend you're a scholarly saint, who's words a biblical.

Just stop

 

[niubi]

Where was China and Taiwan in this building boom?
The answer: Nowhere.

Were you buying their goods...nope.
Were you designing their buildings...nope.
Were you giving them money...nope.

Were you doing the usual "nothing" yep!

But you claim the US wasn't doing anything....but somehow these skyscrapers cities in South America got built at a time when Beijing and Taipei were full of low story slums.

Lol I didn't mean to make you cry there.

I know China lives rent free in your head but none of this has to do with China.

You made the idiotic claim that the US was responsible for everything built in South America. This is untrue. You gave them nothing and did them no favours. Don't pretend you did.

So essentially with your logic, if China/Taiwan buys European goods, we can claim that their wealth is thanks to us. Got it, thanks genius.

If China designs a high speed rail or a port or a gantry crane then we can claim absolute credit... I guess that means the Queen Elizabeth Class carrier is thanks to China. I guess the F-35 in the USAF is thanks to China. Every Tesla made using a BYD battery. Every colony the west ever established and looted using Chinese gunpowder and compass.

Just because China wasn't directly responsible for South America's building boom and the US was more involved still doesn't mean you own South America or they owe you like your post I replied to suggests. They paid for every building you designed. They don't owe you shit. Anyway, enjoy.

 

[That_Guy]

They illegally trespassed into the country. The legal way to enter the US is via a designated port of entry, be it land air or sea.

Its considered a misdemeanor, no worse than jaywalking.

Most of them are running from horrific situations such as political persecution (caused by US meddling in the first place).

Your argument lacks sense, and relies on a black and white legal and moral compass.

 

[KingQamaR]

Was there due process when they came in?

To quote Homer the great philosopher, shut up boy!

You’re a simpleton pal

Wilful ignorance

 

[That_Guy]

Was there due process when they came in?

To quote Homer the great philosopher, shut up boy!

A lot of the time? Actually, yes.

A majority of the time, they're caught and released after being processed. It was US policy for decades, because the US relied on their labour. This was especially true under the Republicans, who talked tough but were actually more lenient towards undocumented workers than the Dems were, because red states relied far more heavily on immigrants and undocumented labour than blue states.

Also, Homer Simpson learned his lesson. He went full anti-immigrant, until he realized it affected him directly. Not even joking, Simpsons did it first. So you using Homer in your comment is highly ironic, because even in his stupidity, even he realized that going after undocumented immigrants was a bad idea.