It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rules immigrants can be detained indefinitely

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: scrounger

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Dam my whole family are imigrents; does this rulling apply to them even though they are full citizens of the United States... Or is the word "imigrent" not being used properly in the OP linked artical?


If they are citizens then it does not apply to them. It is referring to illegal immigrants as well as immigrants who are lawfully present in the US (green card etc).


So than the word "imigrent" is not being used properly in the OP linked artica. I figured as much; for some reason that I can not fathum journalists get very sloppy with this easy to understand concept.


I can see it both ways. In this case immigrant is referring to a person who is present inside the US and is not a citizen of the US. Their status, here legally or here illegally, also is a non factor.

A person who is a naturalized citizen, which can be referred to as an immigrant, is technically a US citizen and not an immigrant.

Hopefully that explanation makes sense. A lot of older people who came to the US after World War II and became US citizens would consider themselves immigrants, even though they are US citizens. It is like the evolution of the word gay, where the original meaning meant happy and the word fag, which in the UK is referring to a cigarette.

Immigration to the US up until the 1950's / 1960's is different than immigration afterwards. Prior when people came to the US they brought the best of their own culture and assimilated it, along with themselves, into the US culture. Presently it seems immigrants want to come to the US and be US citizens however they want to create their former country in this country, which causes conflict.

While the left loves to hold up the statue of Liberty they always leave out the other key phrase from that same time period about how the US was made.

The US was a melting pot and that is what made the US great.


I just had to quote it in its entirety due to how well written and TOTALLY FACTUAL.
well done


the only thing I would add is now the left uses the word "immigrant" not in way (as you clearly stated) it means but as a "prop" (if you will) to support their cause of ILLEGAL immigration in direct conflict of what the word means (in definition and spirit).
they also ignore what Illegal means for same reason.

Scrounger


Completely agree... Democrats seem to want to export jobs and sovereignty while importing voters.




posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm no Democrat, and I'm not advocating for more or less immigrants. All I'm saying is indefinite imprisonment for legal immigrants isn't what our already flawed "justice" system needs.

Why spend tax dollars to keep people locked up for three years without making a decision?

I just don't get it, people take a political line on things like this and that's why we hemorrhage money.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
It seems to imply that the "indefinite detention" should last only as long as it takes to verify the immigrants' legal or illegal status, which should not be a particularly time consuming endeavour.

All the talk about "death camps" seems a tad melodramatic. Nowhere did the Supreme Court say you can systemically kill masses of immigrants.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: watchitburn

I won't argue with that. Laws are laws, but allowing for indefinite imprisonment without a hearing is not American. I don't want us to be know for that ever, whether you're a citizen or not.


Actually no it is american. In the old days we would kick you out without a trial and it was perfectly legal under the tresspass laws or in extreme cases Spying laws.


Cool, then kick them out instead of imprisoning them indefinitely.


We need to treat them like we do. people who refuse to sign over their children to the DSS after losing custody. you are held until you give up. i know a few in jail 10 yrs later for not doing it.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm no Democrat, and I'm not advocating for more or less immigrants. All I'm saying is indefinite imprisonment for legal immigrants isn't what our already flawed "justice" system needs.

Why spend tax dollars to keep people locked up for three years without making a decision?

I just don't get it, people take a political line on things like this and that's why we hemorrhage money.


Ok fair enough so lets try this. Illegal immigrants are here illegally and upon their arrest there only option is to leave.
if they illegally enter more than once they can be charged and eventually it becomes a felony. In those circumstances they are afforded the full protection of the US legal system, including access to a lawyer and a speedy trial.

It would be like a cop arresting someone for trespassing, writing the guy a ticket and then releasing him on the same property he was illegally on.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
It seems to imply that the "indefinite detention" should last only as long as it takes to verify the immigrants' legal or illegal status, which should not be a particularly time consuming endeavour.

All the talk about "death camps" seems a tad melodramatic. Nowhere did the Supreme Court say you can systemically kill masses of immigrants.


and that is exactly what this ruling does. Prior to the ruling ICE had 48 hours to issue a detainer and pick the offender up. Sheriff's office (some anyways) werent giving notice until 15 minutes before the Sheriff had to release them on the local or state charges.

All this ruling does is allow them to be detained past the 48 hour mark. Essentially it is the same thing as a capious warrant, which is applied to minors who run away / commit certain crimes and to adults who do the same and meet certain criteria.

All it means is the person remains in custody until such time he goes before a judge, who can then decide if the person is held or if they can get a bail set.

People who dont understand the process are making it into something its not.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Dam my whole family are imigrents; does this rulling apply to them even though they are full citizens of the United States... Or is the word "imigrent" not being used properly in the OP linked artical?


If they are citizens then it does not apply to them. It is referring to illegal immigrants as well as immigrants who are lawfully present in the US (green card etc).


So than the word "imigrent" is not being used properly in the OP linked artica. I figured as much; for some reason that I can not fathum journalists get very sloppy with this easy to understand concept.


I can see it both ways. In this case immigrant is referring to a person who is present inside the US and is not a citizen of the US. Their status, here legally or here illegally, also is a non factor.

A person who is a naturalized citizen, which can be referred to as an immigrant, is technically a US citizen and not an immigrant.

Hopefully that explanation makes sense. A lot of older people who came to the US after World War II and became US citizens would consider themselves immigrants, even though they are US citizens. It is like the evolution of the word gay, where the original meaning meant happy and the word fag, which in the UK is referring to a cigarette.

Immigration to the US up until the 1950's / 1960's is different than immigration afterwards. Prior when people came to the US they brought the best of their own culture and assimilated it, along with themselves, into the US culture. Presently it seems immigrants want to come to the US and be US citizens however they want to create their former country in this country, which causes conflict.

While the left loves to hold up the statue of Liberty they always leave out the other key phrase from that same time period about how the US was made.

The US was a melting pot and that is what made the US great.


The word Imigrent has a meaning:

a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

This includes a person who is a naturalized citizen and a person who is present inside the US and is not a citizen of the US, and a few other groups of people as well; there is no "both ways" about it.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm fine with the idea of multiple offenders. It gets communicated to them and they understand the repercussions.

Let's be honest, we need immigrants. Plenty of jobs are done by them that otherwise wouldn't be filled.

But let's reward the people who go through the proper process.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: watchitburn

I won't argue with that. Laws are laws, but allowing for indefinite imprisonment without a hearing is not American. I don't want us to be know for that ever, whether you're a citizen or not.


Actually no it is american. In the old days we would kick you out without a trial and it was perfectly legal under the tresspass laws or in extreme cases Spying laws.


Cool, then kick them out instead of imprisoning them indefinitely.


We need to treat them like we do. people who refuse to sign over their children to the DSS after losing custody. you are held until you give up. i know a few in jail 10 yrs later for not doing it.


Good point, the "justice system" is doing great and is very efficient with tax dollars. Let's give it more money. Seriously, this topic has a humanitarian angle, and a fiscal one. It doesn't make sense to want to imprison these people indefinitely.

The year cost for every inmate is 30,000~. So why do it?



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

di di mention you only get bread and water,and are not permitted yard time? ya locked up 23 hrs a day. Its so miserable you eventually give in most of th etime.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

That exists, and we still have a higher incarceration rate than all of the developed world. We have harsh punishments, higher incarceration rate, and the death penalty (one of two western countries).

None have proven to act as a deterrent. The only number it's helping is tax dollars spent. Ironically enough its helping private prisons, or vendors for state/federal owned prisons. Funny, all of those industries have a strong lobby presence.

So again humanitarian or fiscally counter intuitive.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm fine with the idea of multiple offenders. It gets communicated to them and they understand the repercussions.

Let's be honest, we need immigrants. Plenty of jobs are done by them that otherwise wouldn't be filled.

But let's reward the people who go through the proper process.


I completely agree. I am all for immigration to this country - as long as it is legal and as long as they bring the best of their former country / culture with them to assimilate it into the US culture.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 04:03 AM
link   
It looks like the groups who have been filing class action lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants and those people who have been judge shopping in the 9th circuit, in addition to the 9th circuit court itself are the ones to blame for this recent supreme court ruling. SCOTUS chided the 9th circuit in their ruling and took a dim view on those class action lawsuits.

Illegal immigrants have no automatic right to freedom, Supreme Court rules

Immigrants being held for deportation don’t have an automatic right under the law to post bond and be set free, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a decision that could give the Trump administration more freedom to pursue stiff detention policies for illegal immigrants who show up at the border claiming asylum.

In the 5-3 ruling, the justices also took a dim view of the kinds of class-action lawsuits on behalf of immigrants that have become a key tool for anti-Trump immigrant rights activists, leaving the activists worried about the fates of other cases winding their way through the lower courts challenging President Trump on issues such as illegal immigrant Dreamers and Iraqi deportees.

The ruling was also a rebuke by the high court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had its decision overturned.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. chided the 9th Circuit for ignoring the text of immigration laws and creating a legal standard for bail hearings “out of thin air” by requiring that immigrants be given periodic bail hearings.

“Spotting a constitutional issue does not give a court the authority to rewrite a statute as it pleases,” Justice Alito wrote for the majority.


Nice job to the left for another well planned 11th hour misadventure into it "once again blows up in their face yet again" land.

Also known as Operation "out of the frying pan".



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: yuppa

That exists, and we still have a higher incarceration rate than all of the developed world. We have harsh punishments, higher incarceration rate, and the death penalty (one of two western countries).

None have proven to act as a deterrent. The only number it's helping is tax dollars spent. Ironically enough its helping private prisons, or vendors for state/federal owned prisons. Funny, all of those industries have a strong lobby presence.

So again humanitarian or fiscally counter intuitive.


Child support dodgers are rarely hardened criminals who that wont work on though.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join