US judge halts deportation, threatens Sessions with contempt

a reply to: Kharron

Are they here legally? If not then by definition they are subject to deportation.

So many questions. Whats her legal status? Why didn't she seek asylum at the Embassy in El Salvador. Why did Mexico allow passage?

Anyway, this is a mess, but Clinton's 96 IIRIRA Bill eliminated a lot of recourse for litigation, and it was my undestanding they cannot sue.
"A common feature in the new law is the elimination of many previously available avenues for judicial review of INS actions. The new law spells out the cases not subject to review and sets out rules for the few cases where appeals are still possible."
www.visalaw.com...

We dont know if her asylum case was reviewed or not. If it was rejected, I would say the gubment was in the clear. We just dont know.



I just dredged up this thread from 2014 where Obama was dumping 1000 kids a month in Arizona without even telling Govenor Brewer. Where was the outrage then. Not so much, which makes me think this is a case of TDS .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
The illegals are criminals. That’s the law

Leftist judges who hold politics above the law need to be replaced

Common trump, say the words...’You’re fired’

Due process is 100% part of the law or do you not care about the Bill of Rights? Also our courts work under the assumption of innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Kharron

Are they here legally? If not then by definition they are subject to deportation.

Are they human beings? If so then they have the right to due process.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Due process is 100% part of the law or do you not care about the Bill of Rights? Also our courts work under the assumption of innocent until proven guilty.

Based on statistics only about 15% of the 400,000 illegal immigrants who are deported each year are deported based on a court hearing. We don't have the time or the money to provide "due process" for every person who isn't even here legally in the first place.

If you can't use our due process to get here, then you don't get due process to determine when you leave.

a reply to: Deetermined

Since when did people's rights come down to having the money to honor them? Perhaps our policies are flawed if we can't afford to provide the guaranteed rights to people to enforce the policies? Ever consider that? Instead of compromising on the 6th amendment how about we don't be such hard asses with illegal immigration law?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

When they come here to flaunt the laws. Illegals have the highest no show rate for their hearings, Meaning they dont give a damn about the law. Screw illegals.

cis.org...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Deetermined

Since when did people's rights come down to having the money to honor them? Perhaps our policies are flawed if we can't afford to provide the guaranteed rights to people to enforce the policies? Ever consider that? Instead of compromising on the 6th amendment how about we don't be such hard asses with illegal immigration law?

You're right. The policy needs to change based on the fact that we do not have the time or resources to provide due process to every illegal immigrant who chooses to come here. The day we stop being "hard asses" on illegal immigration is the day we lose our sovereignty and national security.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Do you know the history of how Due Process came to be in our country? After the Boston Massacre, the British soldiers accused of firing into the crowd were left with no legal defense against the unruly American mob. HOWEVER John Adams stood up and became their legal defense because he believed that ALL people no matter what they are accused of are entitled to a proper legal defense. The British soldiers were acquitted of charges and it was discovered that someone in the crowd had incited them to fire, but without Adams' conviction they would have been left to mob justice.

Right now you are trampling all over that ideal by trying to argue about denying people due process because you've judged them guilty. Uhhh no. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And you get due process no matter who you are. For shame!

If our country does not abide by the laws we set then we should have no expectation that others will.

a reply to: Deetermined

The day we stop being "hard asses" on illegal immigration is the day we lose our sovereignty and national security.

Lol. No it isn't. Immigrants are some of the hardest working people and are statistically less likely to commit crimes than the native born population. This includes illegals too.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
If our country does not abide by the laws we set then we should have no expectation that others will.

That's exactly what has happened. Illegal immigrants think they've been given free reign in this country. Until we enforce the laws on deporting illegal immigrants, they're not going to take us seriously on what they absolutely need to do in order to come here.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Deetermined

The day we stop being "hard asses" on illegal immigration is the day we lose our sovereignty and national security.

Lol. No it isn't. Immigrants are some of the hardest working people and are statistically less likely to commit crimes than the native born population. This includes illegals too.

Surely, you're not ignorant enough to believe that if we just allow everyone to come here that wants to that it won't end up in mob rule?!

My god man...we werent even a sovreign country in 1770. Lol
Did that due process work for Indians and Negroes. WTH does that incident have to do with the OP?

What about the rule of law as applied to immigration law?

reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Deetermined

No, but I'm also not cold hearted enough to believe that every person who crosses the boarder illegally should be kicked out. We should prioritize troublemakers and repeat offenders as has been done in the past. Then we should give the hard working illegals and avenue to legalize so we can get them on the tax rolls.

What we are doing now is monumentally stupid though. It's a waste of tax money and not to mention it is cruel hearted. Oh and it works against our national interests since we need immigrants to resupply our aging society's workforce. Plus it looks REALLY bad among the international community when we've held ourselves up so long as the pillar of goodness and freedom to treat these people as they are being treated.

a reply to: lakenheath24

Ok. So I see the implications of that story went over your head. Well in that case I'll just quote the 5th and 6th amendments to you:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I notice you like to intermingle immigrants and illegals to suit your agenda. Illegals are just that ...illegal. And you insult every immigrant who did things by the book.


a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: lakenheath24

Illegals are human beings. I know you find that hard to believe, but its true.

Pretty sure due process originated in 1066...not 1770.
See....our civil law encorporates much of English common law. So no....i didnt go over my head...you used a poor example is all.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: lakenheath24

The point of the story was to show you the history of how important due process is to our rule of law and you are trying to circumvent it because you don't think illegals are human beings worthy of their rights. You are wrong. Non-citizens get rights too.