Refugees coming to Rutland

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
skibon
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 2nd, '07, 22:40

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by skibon »

Yes I agree, but there are also other differences. Obama deported 2 million illegal immigrants with criminal records in his 8 yrs. Hillary's was to continue this policy. Also, they had both supported a fence much of which had been constructed.

The difference is in the definition of "criminal". In Obamas world criminal is if one had been convicted of a felony. In Trumpworld it is anyone who had ever been ACCUSED OF ANYTHING BUT NOT NECCESSARILY CONVICTED..WOW, that no due process.

ALSO, what had changed since the Clinton was now illegals had been encouraged to come out of the shadows and register with the promise of eventual citizenship, thus legally working and paying taxes. Trump has not said he would not deport these people and families as well as criminal. We were on a bipartisan path to citizenship until the bully came into office.
skibon
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by madhatter »

skibon wrote:Yes I agree, but there are also other differences. Obama deported 2 million illegal immigrants with criminal records in his 8 yrs. Hillary's was to continue this policy. Also, they had both supported a fence much of which had been constructed.

The difference is in the definition of "criminal". In Obamas world criminal is if one had been convicted of a felony. In Trumpworld it is anyone who had ever been ACCUSED OF ANYTHING BUT NOT NECCESSARILY CONVICTED..WOW, that no due process.

ALSO, what had changed since the Clinton was now illegals had been encouraged to come out of the shadows and register with the promise of eventual citizenship, thus legally working and paying taxes. Trump has not said he would not deport these people and families as well as criminal. We were on a bipartisan path to citizenship until the bully came into office.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2613124" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump's radical immigration plan: Enforce the law

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

crim·i·nal
ˈkrim(ə)n(ə)l/
noun
1.
a person who has committed a crime.
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
skibon
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 2nd, '07, 22:40

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by skibon »

DearMad..you may not know this but in our country we have something called due process. And you are innocent until proven guilty. So you are not a criminal until found guilty or convicted of a crime.
skibon
brownman
Postinator
Posts: 7351
Joined: Dec 6th, '07, 17:59
Location: Stockbridge Boulevard

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by brownman »

Altright classifies all of these as enemy combatants.
Condones exodus to Guantanamo for extreme waterboarding.

:sad:
Last edited by brownman on Jan 27th, '17, 16:35, edited 1 time in total.
Forever .. Goat Path
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by madhatter »

skibon wrote:DearMad..you may not know this but in our country we have something called due process. And you are innocent until proven guilty. So you are not a criminal until found guilty or convicted of a crime.
crossing the border w/o proper authorization or otherwise residing, visiting or in any way "being" on US soil w/o proper authorization IS a crime... that a possible additional crime may have been committed is simply another reason for deportation...got it? Trump could decide that conviction is a requirement for deportation of illegals, or he could say if you get caught in the net for any reason AND you are here illegally, yer gone...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ights.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
from rabid left wing slate nonetheless...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by Coydog »

Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

These words, from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution rank along with the Constitution's Bill of Rights as — in these precincts — the most important in world and American history:

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.

...

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

...

In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights

These words, from Section One of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution rank along with the Constitution's Bill of Rights as — in these precincts — the most important in world and American history:

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.

...

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

...

In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.
alternative interpretations have no basis...sure they need due process to be convicted of a crime, but not to be deported...as was clearly stated above, it's an administrative violation that does not require due process...

in summary, if you are here illegally you may be deported, no further criminal activity is required...what we're trying to do is stop the deportation by preventing them from illegally entering the US in the first place...consider Trump's willingness to allow any of them to avoid deportation as benevolence on his part...

if we wish to incarcerate them for crimes committed, then of course due process is required, no one is arguing any different...you make a lot of arguments that you know are false equivalencies in hopes of pulling one over...even the "incredibly stupid" madhatter can see that....
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
skibon
Beginner On Rentals
Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 2nd, '07, 22:40

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by skibon »

Wow ur amazing. Thank you, I'm happy to fully understand our laws. Hope our tru colors don't get lost in this environment of bigotry and hatred.
skibon
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by Coydog »

From Fox News no less.

Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning on "America's Newsroom" what Trump can and cannot do on immigration. He said that Trump's promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is "prohibited by the Constitution."

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.

He added that any president can rescind an executive order of a predecessor. But the judge pointed out that every undocumented immigrant that Trump intends to deport would be entitled to a hearing and an appeal.

"That's between 11 and 13 million hearings and appeals. The most the United States has ever conducted in a year is 250,000. So do the math," Napolitano said, adding that the taxpayer would foot the bill for the proceedings, including defense costs.


Annotation 12 - Fifth Amendment

Deportation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. 48 The authority to deport is drawn from the power of Congress to regulate the entrance of aliens and impose conditions upon their continued liberty to reside within the United States. Findings of fact reached by executive officers after a fair, though summary deportation hearing may be made conclusive. 49 In Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 50 however, the Court intimated that a hearing before a tribunal which did not meet the standards of impartiality embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act 51 might not satisfy the requirements of due process of law. To avoid such constitutional doubts, the Court construed the law to disqualify immigration inspectors as presiding officers in deportation proceedings. Except in time of war, deportation without a fair hearing or on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process which may be corrected on habeas corpus. 52 In contrast with the decision in United States v. Ju Toy 53 that a person seeking entrance to the United States was not entitled to a judicial hearing on his claim of citizenship, a person arrested and held for deportation is entitled to a day in court if he denies that he is an alien. 54 A closely divided Court has ruled that in time of war the deportation of an enemy alien may be ordered summarily by executive action; due process of law does not require the courts to determine the sufficiency of any hearing which is gratuitously afforded to the alien.
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by Mister Moose »

Coydog wrote: a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the second president of the United States, wrote:
Wuuuuuut?

Coydog wrote: "That's between 11 and 13 million hearings and appeals. The most the United States has ever conducted in a year is 250,000. So do the math," Napolitano said, adding that the taxpayer would foot the bill for the proceedings, including defense costs.
How many hearings are needed for those that self deport due to unfavorable changes in employment and or benefits?

This is the question that needs to be asked far more often.
Image
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by freeski »

skibon wrote:Wow ur amazing. Thank you, I'm happy to fully understand our laws. Hope our tru colors don't get lost in this environment of bigotry and hatred.
We need to change the thread title to: Refugees NOT coming to Rutland. How do you like those apples :?: 8) :ear
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
Coydog
Guru Poster
Posts: 5926
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 12:23

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by Coydog »

Mister Moose wrote: How many hearings are needed for those that self deport due to unfavorable changes in employment and or benefits?

This is the question that needs to be asked far more often.
Probably similar to the number of businesses that would stop hiring undocumented workers due to a crack down on illegal hiring.

And perhaps that's the question that needs to be asked far more.
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by Mister Moose »

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote: How many hearings are needed for those that self deport due to unfavorable changes in employment and or benefits?

This is the question that needs to be asked far more often.
Probably similar to the number of businesses that would stop hiring undocumented workers due to a crack down on illegal hiring.

And perhaps that's the question that needs to be asked far more.
I'll take either or for $600, Alex.
Image
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by madhatter »

Coydog wrote:From Fox News no less.

Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning on "America's Newsroom" what Trump can and cannot do on immigration. He said that Trump's promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is "prohibited by the Constitution."

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.

He added that any president can rescind an executive order of a predecessor. But the judge pointed out that every undocumented immigrant that Trump intends to deport would be entitled to a hearing and an appeal.

"That's between 11 and 13 million hearings and appeals. The most the United States has ever conducted in a year is 250,000. So do the math," Napolitano said, adding that the taxpayer would foot the bill for the proceedings, including defense costs.


Annotation 12 - Fifth Amendment

Deportation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. 48 The authority to deport is drawn from the power of Congress to regulate the entrance of aliens and impose conditions upon their continued liberty to reside within the United States. Findings of fact reached by executive officers after a fair, though summary deportation hearing may be made conclusive. 49 In Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 50 however, the Court intimated that a hearing before a tribunal which did not meet the standards of impartiality embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act 51 might not satisfy the requirements of due process of law. To avoid such constitutional doubts, the Court construed the law to disqualify immigration inspectors as presiding officers in deportation proceedings. Except in time of war, deportation without a fair hearing or on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process which may be corrected on habeas corpus. 52 In contrast with the decision in United States v. Ju Toy 53 that a person seeking entrance to the United States was not entitled to a judicial hearing on his claim of citizenship, a person arrested and held for deportation is entitled to a day in court if he denies that he is an alien. 54 A closely divided Court has ruled that in time of war the deportation of an enemy alien may be ordered summarily by executive action; due process of law does not require the courts to determine the sufficiency of any hearing which is gratuitously afforded to the alien.
also from the slate article...
Still, immigrants facing deportation do have some rights. Most are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, representation by a lawyer (but not one that's paid for by the government), and interpretation for non-English-speakers. The government must provide "clear and convincing" evidence to deport someone (a lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt").
On the other hand, some immigrants who are suspected terrorists may not be allowed to confront the evidence against them. In 1996, Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a secret tribunal that can examine classified evidence. (Interestingly, Congress mandated in the same law that an immigrant tried by the terrorist court would have the right to counsel at government expense.) But the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has never been used, and a Department of Justice spokesman said he isn't aware of any plans to use the terrorist court any time soon.
any wars going on? do they need to be declared by congress? what exactly is " a time of war"...will the "new" supreme court decide the definition? who appoints immigration judges? can they be removed from the bench? or are their "jobs" lifetime? is there a set number of them? or can Trump simply appoint more of them to handle the overflow of cases...is failure to provide valid documentation " clear and convincing? it would certainly seem so...

again due process is NOT required or afforded...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
brownman
Postinator
Posts: 7351
Joined: Dec 6th, '07, 17:59
Location: Stockbridge Boulevard

Re: Refugees coming to Rutland

Post by brownman »

freeski wrote:
skibon wrote:Wow ur amazing. Thank you, I'm happy to fully understand our laws. Hope our tru colors don't get lost in this environment of bigotry and hatred.
We need to change the thread title to: Refugees NOT coming to Rutland. How do you like those apples :?: 8) :ear
News reports last couple nights showcased a couple Syrian immigrant families that recently settled in The Rut.
i'm betting these Syrian folk will be more productive contributors than the slug dreg citizens mooching down there.

:Toast
Forever .. Goat Path
Post Reply