Locked and Loaded on the Border...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Contrary to the ignorance of some. Hawaii is no longer a kingdom. I haven't seen a grass shack in a long while.

It is one of the United States of America. As a US citizen you don't apply for permission to vote, you register.

a reply to: Phage

As a US citizen you don't apply to vote, you register.

Semantics. Can I fill out the appropriate forms and sent them in to the Hawaiian Registrar's office?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Not sure what this has to do with applying for asylum but...
all you need to know, and more.
elections.hawaii.gov...

a reply to: Phage

I didn't ask for a link; I asked you.

Yes, I can apply (or register if it makes you feel better). You can apply (or register, if it makes you feel better) to vote in Alabama. Both of us would be rejected, because neither of us are citizens of the respective states. But we can still apply (or register if it makes you feel better).

Now, there's a job opening for a cardiac surgeon close to me. I have never had any training in medicine whatsoever, and do not hold an MD. Heck, I don't like the sight of blood, and I have never held a scalpel in my life. Can I apply?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But we can still apply

Yes. And your application can be denied.

And the law says that anyone who is in the US can apply for asylum. Right?

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

Trump's proclamation is in direct conflict with that law. Right?

a reply to: Phage

So what is going to happen if an illegal immigrant decides to say the words "I want to apply for asylum"? Is the the big mean orange guy going to shut down his vocal cords?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is the the big mean orange guy going to shut down his vocal cords?

Doesn't matter.
The judge says that the asylum seeker must be allowed to apply.

Quite rightly.

a reply to: Phage

It does matter. If the asylum seeker can say those words and fill out the forms, they can apply for asylum.

How does President Trump propose to stop that?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

How does President Trump propose to stop that?

He can't.
That's the point. His proclamation is legally worthless.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, that is the point. It is not possible to prevent someone from applying. Judge Tigar just issued a proclamation against an impossibility. It is possible to say they will not be considered.

Does CBP have to approve all applications according to this judge?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It is possible to say they will not be considered.

Not without coming up against that pesky 14th amendment. Once they are within the US. Due process. Pesky.

Does CBP have to approve all applications according to this judge?

Nope.

a reply to: Phage

Not without coming up against that pesky 14th amendment. Once they are within the US. Due process. Pesky.

You're good with links. Care to point out where due process is required in this case?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I know you are familiar with at least one of the amendments. Here's another.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Are you going to try to argue that the United States can summarily deny an application without due process?

a reply to: Phage

Yes, I am familiar with a lot of them. Including this part:

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.

When did the United States become a state?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

When did the United States become a state?

So the US Government can deny due process? Interesting theory. I don't think you'll find that it will get you very far.

a reply to: Phage

That's not what I said. Your excerpt says no state shall... when did the United States become a state?

It's a simple question.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The United States is not a state.

That's not what I said.

So, what are you saying?

a reply to: Phage

The United States is not a state.

Ah! We agree then! The 14th Amendment does not apply.

Don't feel bad... we have plenty of other amendments that do apply to the Federal government... almost all of them, as a matter of fact. Care to find one that says foreign citizens on US soil get due process at the border?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ah! We agree then! The 14th Amendment does not apply.

I know you hold to a reactionary view of the Constitution, but you can't go back without a reversing decision. The Court has ruled that the 14th applies to the US Government.


Apart from that, unless the current law is stricken, the president's order is in direct conflict.

Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry.

It says they may only "avail themselves" of the system at a port of entry. What do you think that means? How can one avail oneself without applying?

a reply to: Phage

The Fifth would seem to cover it as well.

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.

Source: constitutionus.com...

I don't see where denying entry to a country is deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Life and property certainly do not apply, and claiming liberty as something deprived of one for illegal entry would seem to invalidate all immigration laws.

It says they may only "avail themselves" of the system, at a port of entry. What do you think that means? How can one avail oneself without applying?

I would say it means they can apply with some potential for acceptance, as opposed to applying at an illegal point of entry where there will be no chance of acceptance. The point of applying is to hopefully be accepted. I see it as no different than me applying for that cardiac surgeon position: yes, I can apply, but I have zero chance of getting the position. My application would hit the trash can as soon as someone looked at it.

Would you not consider that a reasonable position?

TheRedneck