US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt

a reply to: howtonhawky

do you have a point?

Yes, if it wasn't for Obama's illegal DACA and DAPA, we wouldn't have these kinds of numbers of illegal immigrants trying to flood our country.

a reply to: TheRedneck

lol

you are not on the same wave length at all

everything you post is just attempts at simply having a counter argument.

there is no meet to what you say.

you twist and ignore

zero tolerance policy regarding families is new. quit twisting

in the law regarding criminality of border crossing it most certainly states that an official can direct otherwise..such as the directive during obama trs for people who cross the border illegally to turn themselves in to a guard and they will simply get a court date and be sent on their way.

you should never have started twisting and spinning in tha first place

if you do not want to watch the video i posted then read the articles that another member graciously posted that cover the same material.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: howtonhawky

do you have a point?

Yes, if it wasn't for Obama's illegal DACA and DAPA, we wouldn't have these kinds of numbers of illegal immigrants trying to flood our country.

that maybe true

It is more likely that if we did not have a war on drugs then there would have been any daca and dapa.

If we did not prop up gangs in latin america then most of tha kids and families would stay home if things were better there.

We could address the causes instead of the dumbass solutions they have tried to repair the problem with.

I guess that is where i differ with most of you all.

I do not blame the kids or families but the policies put in place by admins and the way that so many have chosen to ignore the constitution and give the feds too much power when in the beginning immigration was a state function and we should give the power back to the states.

Instead of looking down on the people i choose to want to hold account the dumbass policymakers and those who choose to back the dumbasses.

a reply to: howtonhawky

such as the directive during obama trs for people who cross the border illegally to turn themselves in to a guard and they will simply get a court date and be sent on their way.

Yeah, let's talk about that! How much do you think we're spending on 300 - 400 immigration judges and another 600 employees to get these people a court hearing two years from now? I'm pretty sure I read recently that we've laid out more money to try and hire another 100 immigration judges to speed this system up, but it's being buried by the sheer number of invaders we have coming in.

a reply to: howtonhawky

zero tolerance policy regarding families is new. quit twisting

I already stated that the zero-tolerance policy is new. Start reading and maybe you will understand. Zero-tolerance is adherence to the law. There is nothing in immigration law that says it can be ignored because of a whim.

in the law regarding criminality of border crossing it most certainly states that an official can direct otherwise.

Title and chapter, please.

TheRedneck

a reply to: howtonhawky

in the beginning immigration was a state function and we should give the power back to the states.

Immigration has never been a states issue. From the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress:

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The courts have consistently ruled that Naturalization includes both immigration and naturalization, as the two are inextricably linked.

On a more common sense approach, there can be no customs or immigration restrictions between states; people are free to travel from one state to another at will. So any one state, should it have the right to control immigration, is controlling immigration for all states.

One can also argue that since immigration is is the movement across a Federal border, not just a state border, it is a Federal issue by definition.

There is no way one can look at immigration that makes a reasonable argument to make immigration a states right issue. You are so far off base here, you're not even in the same solar system. Please, read the law before taking that bar exam.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

zero tolerance policy regarding families is new. quit twisting

I already stated that the zero-tolerance policy is new. Start reading and maybe you will understand. Zero-tolerance is adherence to the law. There is nothing in immigration law that says it can be ignored because of a whim.

in the law regarding criminality of border crossing it most certainly states that an official can direct otherwise.

Title and chapter, please.

TheRedneck

I already posted tha law...it states ..unless directed by an official

Sir
69

You are over the top

get over it mr. softy

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

in the beginning immigration was a state function and we should give the power back to the states.

Immigration has never been a states issue. From the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress:

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The courts have consistently ruled that Naturalization includes both immigration and naturalization, as the two are inextricably linked.

On a more common sense approach, there can be no customs or immigration restrictions between states; people are free to travel from one state to another at will. So any one state, should it have the right to control immigration, is controlling immigration for all states.

One can also argue that since immigration is is the movement across a Federal border, not just a state border, it is a Federal issue by definition.

There is no way one can look at immigration that makes a reasonable argument to make immigration a states right issue. You are so far off base here, you're not even in the same solar system. Please, read the law before taking that bar exam.

TheRedneck

Yes anything not enumerated by the constitution is thereby givin to the state to deal with.

Back when it was written they only viewed naturalization as a function of the fed.. It was not until many years later that they passed an amendment concerning immigration.

Now if we had federal ports then it would be a federal issue.

The states own the ports and we have subverted the power over them to the federal gov..


Here is some info for you concerning the immigration issue of obama giving permission to tha people to come here across the border and about trump not recending that order before declaring them to be criminals.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien | US Law | LII / Legal ... www.law.cornell.edu... Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or ...

Is the truth really that hard to handle. Did you not pay attention to the issues back then? Why do you not remember how things were then and how we got to the point we are at now?

Is it just convenient memory loss with most of you or do you all have other issues?

It is as if you can not even remember something we discussed last week or the week before.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

in the law regarding criminality of border crossing it most certainly states that an official can direct otherwise..

First of all, think you could enlighten me as to what the Obama trs you keep referring to is? Either I'm an idiot or I cant seem to find any reference with respect to immigration (tax reform yes, but not immigration)


Secondly are you talking about coming to the border with no qualifying papers? (Tourist visa etc) though truth be told if someone can make it to a border post even if you don't, its still a haphazard and risky way to approach it, especially if the intent is seeking asylum. For example:

Risks When Applying for Asylum at a Border Post or Other Entry Point
If at all possible, it’s best to wait, and not to mention your intent to seek asylum upon entry -- unless, that is, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer is acting like he or she doesn’t plan to let you into the U.S. anyway.
If you start the application process immediately upon your arrival, your ability to continue it depends entirely on whether one CBP officer finds your fear "credible." That officer has the power to quickly find you inadmissible and deport you, in which case you might not be allowed to return for five years. This can happen if an inspector not only believes that is your fear not credible, but also that you are making a misrepresentation (committing fraud), or that you misrepresented the truth when you got your visa, or if you do not have the proper travel or visa documents at the time you request entry.
This quick deportation procedure is known as “expedited removal.”
An added problem may arise if you come to the southern U.S. border. You might be affected by the “zero-tolerance” policy for unlawful immigration that the Trump Administration instituted in early 2018. Reports have surfaced that asylum seekers who hadn’t even crossed the border yet, but merely approached an official point of entry, were placed into detention as supposedly unlawful migrants and separated from their children.
If the CBP officer allows you to move forward with your asylum request, you’ll have very little time in which to find a lawyer or prepare your written application and testimony. Finding lawyers who serve areas near the U.S. border is extremely difficult, and the few who do work in that area are overwhelmed with clients.

Can read it here

That's if you can even make it to a border post.

If you can you're first going to be faced with:

In terms of procedure, you would first tell the inspections officer that you fear returning to your country and that you wish to apply for asylum. If you convince the officer of your fear, you should be given what’s called a “credible fear interview” with a trained asylum officer. If that goes well, you’ll be allowed to apply for asylum, either while in detention or after release on bond.

The suggested method though, is to simply get into the US first with a tourist visa, then once in apply for asylum. Still the procedure is extremely complex and near impossible without a decent Lawyer.

Long and short is, its always been "criminal" to cross the border without any qualifying paperwork, but if the stars align right for you, and you (ostensibly) don't get caught, then you need to do something if asylum is your goal immediately or sooner, but there is no guarantee that you will pass the other qualifiers none the less.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Immigration has never been a states issue. From the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress: 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; The courts have consistently ruled that Naturalization includes both immigration and naturalization, as the two are inextricably linked.

Surely you can read your own post. Immigration was always a state issue until...around 1882 when the fed got tired of the chineses

NO IMMIGRATION is not part of NATURALIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One can immigrate without naturalizing but one can not naturalize without immigrating!

Now you can say that naturalization is part of immigration but you can not honestly say that immigration is part of naturalization.

This is exactly why the founders mentioned naturalization and they did not mention immigration. They wanted the states to be able to bring in whoever they wanted but they wanted them to all naturalize to the constitution as written.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: howtonhawky

in the law regarding criminality of border crossing it most certainly states that an official can direct otherwise..

First of all, think you could enlighten me as to what the Obama trs you keep referring to is? Either I'm an idiot or I cant seem to find any reference with respect to immigration (tax reform yes, but not immigration)


Secondly are you talking about coming to the border with no qualifying papers? (Tourist visa etc) though truth be told if someone can make it to a border post even if you don't, its still a haphazard and risky way to approach it, especially if the intent is seeking asylum. For example:

Risks When Applying for Asylum at a Border Post or Other Entry Point
If at all possible, it’s best to wait, and not to mention your intent to seek asylum upon entry -- unless, that is, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer is acting like he or she doesn’t plan to let you into the U.S. anyway.
If you start the application process immediately upon your arrival, your ability to continue it depends entirely on whether one CBP officer finds your fear "credible." That officer has the power to quickly find you inadmissible and deport you, in which case you might not be allowed to return for five years. This can happen if an inspector not only believes that is your fear not credible, but also that you are making a misrepresentation (committing fraud), or that you misrepresented the truth when you got your visa, or if you do not have the proper travel or visa documents at the time you request entry.
This quick deportation procedure is known as “expedited removal.”
An added problem may arise if you come to the southern U.S. border. You might be affected by the “zero-tolerance” policy for unlawful immigration that the Trump Administration instituted in early 2018. Reports have surfaced that asylum seekers who hadn’t even crossed the border yet, but merely approached an official point of entry, were placed into detention as supposedly unlawful migrants and separated from their children.
If the CBP officer allows you to move forward with your asylum request, you’ll have very little time in which to find a lawyer or prepare your written application and testimony. Finding lawyers who serve areas near the U.S. border is extremely difficult, and the few who do work in that area are overwhelmed with clients.

Can read it here

That's if you can even make it to a border post.

If you can you're first going to be faced with:

In terms of procedure, you would first tell the inspections officer that you fear returning to your country and that you wish to apply for asylum. If you convince the officer of your fear, you should be given what’s called a “credible fear interview” with a trained asylum officer. If that goes well, you’ll be allowed to apply for asylum, either while in detention or after release on bond.

The suggested method though, is to simply get into the US first with a tourist visa, then once in apply for asylum. Still the procedure is extremely complex and near impossible without a decent Lawyer.

Long and short is, its always been "criminal" to cross the border without any qualifying paperwork, but if the stars align right for you, and you (ostensibly) don't get caught, then you need to do something if asylum is your goal immediately or sooner, but there is no guarantee that you will pass the other qualifiers none the less.

Sure in the video i linked they briefly covered it and actually you have touched the surface in some of your postings. After obama was denied enacting zero tolerance the admin then shifted into a mode of catch and release. I am sure you have heard of that before.

Do you get it? When the admin says the policy is catch and release then that is directing people to come over here by any means and find a border guard and they would be released.

So no you are also incorrect in stating that it has always been illegal to come here without papers because the laws states unless otherwise directed by an official...i referenced the law in a post to the redneck

One of the biggest megaphones at the time for the policy of catch and release was msm.

That is why i am wondering why so many pretend it never happened or that the law does not state that it is only a crime to cross the border if you are not directed by an official to do so.





Catch and release was an official policy just as zero tolerance was an official policy.

One was legal and the other is not.

Do you really think that the constitutional lawyer would not have done zero tolerance if he could have?

He was stopped by the constitution just as trump has been.

It is what it is...

Trump has always known this and that is why he touted for a wall because being between asylum and humanity is like being between a rock and a hard place.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

Do you get it? When the admin says the policy is catch and release then that is directing people to come over here by any means and find a border guard and they would be released.

With respect to the Catch and Release policy, I absolutely do get it. I was dealing more with the now...not the before General Kelly as Homeland Security Secretary decided to do away with Catch and Release.

So no you are also incorrect in stating that it has always been illegal to come here without papers because the laws states unless otherwise directed by an official...i referenced the law in a post to the redneck

That's true, it hasn't ALWAYS been illegal to come here without papers, I have to cede that point, but it also wasn't always illegal to have PoC as slaves too.

This may seem off-topic, but bear with me and I'll try to make it make sense. I'm a huge fan of I Love Lucy eipsodes. It's likely that I know all of them by heart yet still love watching them. In one particularly memorable episode, a reference is made to the US Census, where there are 180 million people in the US. That was 1956....geologically speaking a very short amount of time. That was 62 years ago, In 62 years we've almost doubled that amount to 330+ million. My point? Well, I don't know what the population was circa 1776, however, in that 180 years we developed a 180 million population. In the following 62 years, almost doubled THAT. So it's clear that we need some restrictions simply to avoid no jobs and no resources. The founding fathers I doubt ever envisioned a time where the people wanting to come here would ever surpass the lands ability to accommodate them. I'm CERTAIN they never planned on almost doubling life expectancy, which also plays a part.

There are so many moving parts to it all, it almost impossible to comprehend.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Yes anything not enumerated by the constitution is thereby givin to the state to deal with.

Back when it was written they only viewed naturalization as a function of the fed.. It was not until many years later that they passed an amendment concerning immigration.

Firstly, when the Constitution was ratified, there were no restrictions on immigration. Those came later, and as I mentioned, have been upheld by the courts as an integral part of naturalization. Therefore, immigration and naturalization are both enumerated.

Secondly, exactly what amendment are you referring to?

The states own the ports and we have subverted the power over them to the federal gov.

The states own the ports so they can engage in international commerce. The Federal government is involved to enforce Federal law concerning such. It's no different than the TSA having authority over airlines... which are privately owned.

You try to twist that into the states having some sort of right to subvert Federal law, and call my posts "twisting facts"?

Here is some info for you...

Hooray! You finally figured out what a statute is!

Now, let's look at the whole thing, shall we? 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Now, under what conditions may an immigration official officially designate a location as acceptable for entry? Does every official have the legal right to do so according to the CBP? Why don't you take a gander at that and see who has the ability to do so? I'll wait.

An immigration official may designate a location as a port of entry, but only under the guidelines of the CBP. Any random immigration official cannot just decide "OK, since you just waded across, I'm going to declare this a port of entry." Next you're going to tell me soldiers in the middle of a military operation can just decide to issue orders because they want to, or a clerk in a department store can decide on a whim to change the price of the merchandise.

The statute you gave is the very one that prohibits crossing the border and makes the action illegal!

TheRedneck

a reply to: toysforadults

Its complete bull#. Illegals sueing our gover ment. Get the hell out of here.

Every person - citizen or not - has a right to due process. Our country isn't a Black Site (yet)

a reply to: howtonhawky

NO IMMIGRATION is not part of NATURALIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't argue with me. Argue with the Supreme Court. They say differently. As a matter of fact, you might want to check out a recent ruling, Arizona v. United States, wherein the Supreme Court decided that states could not even enforce immigration laws... it is the sole domain of the Federal government.

As I remember, the Obama supporters were cheering for Federal immigration sovereignty when that happened.

This is exactly why the founders mentioned naturalization and they did not mention immigration.

There were no restrictions in immigration when the Constitution was written.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: toysforadults

Its complete bull#. Illegals sueing our gover ment. Get the hell out of here.

Every person - citizen or not - has a right to due process. Our country isn't a Black Site (yet)

No. IF you're talking imprisonment, yes. If you're talking deportation, no. You want to sneak in the open borders, it won't be allowed. I don't need a court hearing to kick a trespasser off my house, nor should the U.S as a country need one either.

As for those wanting states to have immigration control power so that leftists can vote open borders and import 100s of millions of low skill non english speaking migrants, no. We won't have masses with foreign cultures and religious totalitarianism overpowering all other votes.

Again you want that, you don't have to secede, there are quite plenty of failed states you want your socialist utopia go to venezuela!

No matter how hard you try to make the U.S into venezuela, or into a third world banana republic or into a religious theocracy, know that there are those that will fight you to the bitter end. Your way is inferior, your way is corrupted, and you will be shown the light. We will not allow your ignorance to destroy a great nation.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

NO IMMIGRATION is not part of NATURALIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't argue with me. Argue with the Supreme Court. They say differently. As a matter of fact, you might want to check out a recent ruling, Arizona v. United States, wherein the Supreme Court decided that states could not even enforce immigration laws... it is the sole domain of the Federal government.

As I remember, the Obama supporters were cheering for Federal immigration sovereignty when that happened.

This is exactly why the founders mentioned naturalization and they did not mention immigration.

There were no restrictions in immigration when the Constitution was written.

TheRedneck

Yes i most certainly will argue with you when you post nonsense.

Such as bringing up obama supporters as if i was or am one.

We very much agree that the courts have subverted power to the fed.

It would serve us well to understand that scotus can and do often get it wrong.

The thing about power is that they are not giving it away easy but that in no way negates the founders vision of what would work and how we have pissed on that vision over and over again to the point that we have become what they escaped.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: howtonhawky

Yes anything not enumerated by the constitution is thereby givin to the state to deal with.

Back when it was written they only viewed naturalization as a function of the fed.. It was not until many years later that they passed an amendment concerning immigration.

Firstly, when the Constitution was ratified, there were no restrictions on immigration. Those came later, and as I mentioned, have been upheld by the courts as an integral part of naturalization. Therefore, immigration and naturalization are both enumerated.

Secondly, exactly what amendment are you referring to?

The states own the ports and we have subverted the power over them to the federal gov.

The states own the ports so they can engage in international commerce. The Federal government is involved to enforce Federal law concerning such. It's no different than the TSA having authority over airlines... which are privately owned.

You try to twist that into the states having some sort of right to subvert Federal law, and call my posts "twisting facts"?

Here is some info for you...

Hooray! You finally figured out what a statute is!

Now, let's look at the whole thing, shall we? 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Now, under what conditions may an immigration official officially designate a location as acceptable for entry? Does every official have the legal right to do so according to the CBP? Why don't you take a gander at that and see who has the ability to do so? I'll wait.

An immigration official may designate a location as a port of entry, but only under the guidelines of the CBP. Any random immigration official cannot just decide "OK, since you just waded across, I'm going to declare this a port of entry." Next you're going to tell me soldiers in the middle of a military operation can just decide to issue orders because they want to, or a clerk in a department store can decide on a whim to change the price of the merchandise.

The statute you gave is the very one that prohibits crossing the border and makes the action illegal!

TheRedneck

Thanks for posting the whole thing there.

It shows us clearly that an immigration official can direct immigrants where ever they see fit just as they did under obama.

Would you care to address the underhanded tactic of changing policy in the middle of the night in an attempt to entrap more immigrants.

Any self respecting leader would have gave a warning that the policy would be changed so as not to be inhumane.