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

[j_hungary]

So, there is a separate due process.

If you are talking about due process as a whole; no, if you are talking about different process within the due process, yes

Due Process is not actually a process or procedure per se, due process mean "fair treatment" thru the Judicary System. "Process" in this case, can be different ( such as Search Warrant, Arrest Warrant, Brnch Warrant, Bench Trial, Jury Trial, for example) can be different, but just because someone is opting for a Bench Trial instead of a Jury Trial, that does not mean Due Process is not observed or there is a separate due process.

And if SCOTUS agree that there can be separate due processes, what will happen next?

If SCOTUS agrees that there can be a separate process (that's a very big If) Then the text of the 14th amendment is going to be changed, because SCOTUS only had power to decide whether something is constitutional, they cannot decide whether an amendment is constitutional, because Amendment itself is the constitution. Which mean even if they had decided that deu process can be separated, it did nothing until either

1.) The wording of the constitution is changed
2.) A Federal Law established that Illegal Immigrant can be remove without due process.

Otherwise everything stays the same.

We already have two exceptions to the 14th:

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

The children of them can never automatically be US citizens. That is what am arguing about.

This is not exemption of 14th amendment

Again, Diplomat rights are under the Vienna Convention. 14A did not give Diplomat any rights, including Diplomatic Immunity. Whether or not a diplomat is under the jurisdiction of the host country does not come from the host's law, it came from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation.

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

And there are no restriction on the offspring of enemy alien not to fall into 14th amendment, otherwise all off spring from German (WW1, WW2), Japanese (WW2), Korean (Korean War), Canadian (War of 1812), British (War of Independence/War of 1812) and Southern US (Civil War) would be precluded from being US Citizens by birth right as per 14th amendment.

The moral argument for adding illegal aliens to that list is that if you entered the country thru illegal means, you are in the same category as that as an invading/occupying army. You are a hostile agent under the jurisdiction of another state.

The US Constitution if first and foremost a LEGAL document, and just like every law there was a moral argument FOR that law.

Children borne on US soil are automatically US citizens, except for:

- Diplomats (established 1868)
- Invading/occupying army (established 1868)
- Illegal aliens (proposed 2025)

So what is/are the MORAL argument(s) AGAINST adding illegal aliens to that list?

So far, I have yet to see anyone answering that question. Why not?

Or are YOU saying that the first two items do not exists?

Am not talking about legal permanent resident. Am talking about CITIZENS.

For the purpose of citizenship, should illegal aliens be treated as hostile agent?

There are no moral arguments for law, that's the problem, and the only argument is that there is no explanation of what "Jurisdiction" means here, so the universal rules apply

If there are no specification of "Jurisdiction" one have to be assume that everyone within the boundary of United States are under the Jurisdiction of the United States, otherwise you can argue if such jurisdiction is not express to EVERYONE (Be it illegal immigrant, legal migrant, diplomat or US CItizens) then since there are no explanation of the jurisdiction throughout the entire US constitution, then one can assume that if it only mean US citizens in those jurisdiction, then every law derived by the US constitution (Which is all the federal law) will not applies to those who are not fall under US JUrrisdiction. Which included Habeas Corpus, which mean the federal government do not have the right to your body if you are not of agency of the United States (ie a US CItizens) which then mean, anyone live in the US but not a US citizen cannot be arrested had they commit any crime, simply because US does not have jurisdiction on those people, if you interpret it that way.

 

[That_Guy]

In the case of the Wisconsin judge, it appears it is on video.

Gotta prove it. Contextless video.means nothing.

 

[gambit]

If you are talking about due process as a whole; no, if you are talking about different process within the due process, yes

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.

This is not exemption of 14th amendment

Again, Diplomat rights are under the Vienna Convention. 14A did not give Diplomat any rights, including Diplomatic Immunity. Whether or not a diplomat is under the jurisdiction of the host country does not come from the host's law, it came from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation.

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.

There are no moral arguments for law,

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?

 

[That_Guy]

That's fine.

She will get her day in court but she is not above the law. The process is progressing.

Then why are we arguing on this?

The support for immigration reform is not a racist campaign; it has widespread support from all races.

No one said otherwise.

The issue isn't reforms, it's what type of reforms.

This is not about race: it is about respect for the law and playing by the rules.

Oh yeah, making it difficult for black and brown people to apply for immigration and refugees status, but bringing over white South Africans who weren't in any real danger and based on lies is totally not racist.

The vast majority of legal migrants come from basket case countries and one of the main reasons they escaped is because the old country has no laws. It's the law of the jungle over there, whereas the West generally respects laws and rewards people who play by the rules.

Not even remotely true.

A vast majority of immigrants come from nations that are just under developed, nothing more.

When legal immigrants see these illegals getting rewarded for breaking the law, it negates the social contract and signals the decline of the West towards the basket case countries they escaped in the first place.

This is a BS argument and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The US relied heavily on undocumented workers, it was the opposite of a decline.

You are factually incorrect.

The people who broke the migration law have proved that they will break any law they don't like in order to satisfy their personal desires. Why would you hire such a person? Tomorrow they may decide that you (or your business) doesn't deserve your wealth and they are entitled to steal from you because they need the money more than you do!

Again, this is just not true.

Most undocumented people are actually law abiding, except for the fact that they entered through non-conventional means. It is not a crime, it is a misdemeanor for a reason.

Your entire argument is based on an appeal to emotions rather than facts.

These same arguments are made by white-supremacists, as such i have no respect for them.

 

[gambit]

Most undocumented people are actually law abiding, except for the fact that they entered through non-conventional means. It is not a crime, it is a misdemeanor for a reason.

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

 

[KingQamaR]

Bangers. Being passed off as "peaceful protestors".

View attachment 126586

Not that far to Mexico there pal. Top off your bike and head on back:

View attachment 126588

Relax, it’s not chaos - it’s a protest, the kind the “worlds democracy champion’” proudly preaches to others

 

[KingQamaR]

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

You really want a police force capable of arresting you without any charge or due process and detaining you near indefinitely for writing an opinion piece? Want to shipped off to a foreign prison without due process because of an admin error? Or do you just want that to happen to other people and you're hoping it doesn't end up including yourself?

 

[Developereo]

Then why are we arguing on this?

Because you stated INCORRECTLY that ICE is detaining judges illegally.

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

No one said otherwise.

The issue isn't reforms, it's what type of reforms.

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.

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

Oh yeah, making it difficult for black and brown people to apply for immigration and refugees status, but bringing over white South Africans who weren't in any real danger and based on lies is totally not racist.

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.

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

Not even remotely true.

A vast majority of immigrants come from nations that are just under developed, nothing more.

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.

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

This is a BS argument and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

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

The US relied heavily on undocumented workers, it was the opposite of a decline.

You are factually incorrect.

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.

Again, this is just not true.

Most undocumented people are actually law abiding, except for the fact that they entered through non-conventional means. It is not a crime, it is a misdemeanor for a reason.

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.

Your entire argument is based on an appeal to emotions rather than facts.

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.

These same arguments are made by white-supremacists, as such i have no respect for them.

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.

 

[KingQamaR]

Because you stated INCORRECTLY that ICE is detaining judges illegally.

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



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.

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



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.

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



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.

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



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.

That's because legal ones are being targeted too

So he’s not targeting illegal immigrants.
He's targeting immigrants. Have a word
• with yourself about that massive chip on your shoulder.

 

[SolarWarden]

You really want a police force capable of arresting you without any charge or due process and detaining you near indefinitely for writing an opinion piece? Want to shipped off to a foreign prison without due process because of an admin error? Or do you just want that to happen to other people and you're hoping it doesn't end up including yourself?

You just described the UK in a nutshell.

 

[Developereo]

That's because legal ones are being targeted too

So he’s not targeting illegal immigrants.
He's targeting immigrants. Have a word
• with yourself about that massive chip on your shoulder.

Except for a couple of well publicizeds cases, the deportations of legal migrants have been stopped by courts. By and large, the US still remains a nation of laws.

In all cases, I am advocating rule of law to be followed.

Why are you opposed to a country enforcing its laws for a change?

 

[arjunk]

Most undocumented people are actually law abiding, except for the fact that they entered through non-conventional means.

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.

 

[tower9]

ICE is way overreaching and I don’t think all illegal aliens should be deported although some do.

But it’s also quite stupid to be waving Mexican flags when you’re protesting about getting deported to Mexico. Very stupid look tbh.

 

[arjunk]

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.

By the way I find it funny some woke Pakistanis support illegal immigrants.

Indians are one of the top 3-5 largest groups of illegal immigrants to the US, sending around 700,000 illegal immigrants a year from Mexico alone. This does not include Indian H1B visa fraud which easily adds at least 100,000 more (there is no way 75% of H1B talent in the world comes from India).

Did your ancestors really fight for separation from India, just for you to go to a western country and lobby for these rapist indian chapris to invade in the millions and harass your women on the streets?

I mean the Indians have already set up murder gangs, killing American and Canadian citizens who criticise the Indian government. And the cuck US govt is indifferent to this, instead it wants to send white american teens to die fighting iran and china...

 

[KingQamaR]

Except for a couple of well publicizeds cases, the deportations of legal migrants have been stopped by courts. By and large, the US still remains a nation of laws.

In all cases, I am advocating rule of law to be followed.

Why are you opposed to a country enforcing its laws for a change?

They might be in America illegally but they are still human beings with rights…..not being given. That’s my point.