Locked and Loaded on the Border...

a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't see where denying entry to a country is deprivation of life, liberty, or property.

Sauce for the goose.

A similar legal doctrine to incorporation is that of reverse incorporation. Whereas incorporation applies the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in reverse incorporation, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause located in the Fifth Amendment.[32] For example, in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), which was a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, the schools of the District of Columbia were desegregated even though Washington is a federal enclave. Likewise, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña 515 U.S. 200 (1995), an affirmative action program by the federal government was subjected to strict scrutiny based on equal protection.

en.wikipedia.org...

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 judge does not agree.

a reply to: Phage

Washington DC is a unique situation. It is not a state, as there was at the time it was constructed a belief that no state should have the inherent advantage over others of housing the seat of the Federal government. Such was a physical necessity until Washington DC was built.

Despite it not being a state, it is a recognized territory of the United States and is populated by citizens of the United States. As it has this in common with states, the laws which apply to states should, IMO, apply to Washington DC as well. It is not the United States itself, however, and thus the fact that Washington DC can be held to answer as a state for some purposes, means those decisions are not necessarily binding on the Federal government itself.

A similar situation exists for Guam and Puerto Rico, without the added concern of them being the seat of the United States government, of course.

The judge does not agree.

That much is obvious. If your purpose is to debate whether or not Judge Tigar agrees with the wording of the 14th Amendment, then there's not going to be much of a discussion.

The point of this thread is not, however, the decision Judge Tigar made, but the implications toward military involvement his decision has necessitated. I do not harbor ill will toward the citizens of any other country, including Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala. Thus, I do not want to see military action against them. At the same time, I believe as a nation built on laws, we have not just a right, but a duty to protect our borders from illegal entry. I have no beef with asylum; I simply want those claiming it to respect our laws and our sovereignty as a condition.

Do you have any thoughts on the escalation of military involvement?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The point of this thread is not, however, the decision Judge Tigar made, but the implications toward military involvement his decision has necessitated.

And yet, this is the first sentence of your OP.

Yesterday Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco signed an injunction blocking President Trump from requiring that undocumented immigrants who illegally crossed the border in locations not designates as ports of entry would not be considered for asylum status.

Better you left that out. No? Because that is in direct conflict with the law and conflicts with existing policy.

This order will transform a now orderly asylum process into the previous disorderly rush to cross the border.

This decision transformed nothing. The president's order violates existing law and alters existing protocols.

a reply to: Phage

And yet, this is the first sentence of your OP.

It's called "background information." I tend to write at a level which requires the reader to read.

This decision transformed nothing. The president's order violates existing law and alters existing protocols.

The decision certainly transformed something. Otherwise why is it even worth reporting?

As for violates existing law, didn't we already cover that in the last three pages? President Trump has full authority to do what he did. One judge in Hawaii simply overstepped his role.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's called "background information." I tend to write at a level which requires the reader to read.

Starting with a false premise does not help to support your narrative. GIGO.

The decision certainly transformed something. Otherwise why is it even worth reporting?

It is worth reporting because it represents the president's attempt to change existing law.

President Trump has full authority to do what he did.

Who makes the laws of this nation?

a reply to: Phage

Starting with a false premise does not help to support your narrative.

Nothing in that first sentence was false.

It is worth reporting because it represents the president's attempt to change existing law.

So, because "orange man bad"?

I have to admit, that mantra is getting very boring. Maybe you can think of a new one? You're a pretty smart fellow.

Who makes the laws of this nation?

constitutionus.com...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Nothing in that first sentence was false.

Except for the implication that it was legal.

So, because "orange man bad"?

I didn't figure you to be a memer. Meemer?

constitutionus.com...

Right. And when the president declares a proclamation in direct violation to the law?

a reply to: Phage

Except for the implication that it was legal.

The implication what was legal? Judge Tigar's injunction?

I didn't figure you to be a memer. Meemer?

And I didn't figure you to be a pundit.

And when the president declares a proclamation in direct violation to the law?

Do we really need to do this again? What law did he violate?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The implication what was legal? Judge Tigar's injunction?

Trump's order.

And I didn't figure you to be a pundit.

Ok.

Do we really need to do this again? What law did he violate?

Heh. That's an interesting question. But in regard to the topic, his proclamation that only those who apply for asylum at a port of entry is in conflict with the law. Hence, illegal.

Law? Has that mattered since 9/11 ? No, we have been under a continuous "state of emergency" since 9/11. Law schmaw! The unitary executive can do whatever it damn well pleases them to do.

Law is a useful illusion and a force to deal with malcontents and enemies, nothing more.
It certainly doesn't exist as remedy for issues arising from The People.

On September 14, 2001 "President" G.W.Bush
declared a national state of emergency pursuant to Section 202 (d) of the
National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.).

Here's an excellent article from (believe it or not) CBS news from
March 1, 2002 when the story broke:

Link - www.cbsnews.com...

This state of emergency has been renewed 7 times since Sept. 14, 2001.

Obama renewed it every year since.
By golly,it looks like president Trump did it too:

earlier this month, President Donald Trump renewed the emergency for the 38th time.

www.lawfareblog.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Asktheanimals


Oh boy.
Obama.

a reply to: Phage

Trump's order.

I implied that? In this sentence?

Yesterday Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco signed an injunction blocking President Trump from requiring that undocumented immigrants who illegally crossed the border in locations not designates as ports of entry would not be considered for asylum status.

I think you're reading things in that are not there. I do believe his Executive Order was legal, but I did not indicate such in that sentence.

That's an interesting question. But in regard to the topic, his proclamation that only those who apply for asylum at a port of entry is in conflict with the law. Hence, illegal.

In order for anything to be in conflict with the law, the law it is in conflict with must be defined.

So again, which law?

(You've got until tomorrow to research, so chin up. I'm calling it a night.)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I do believe his Executive Order was legal, but I did not indicate such in that sentence.

I'm clever. I figured it out. What can I say?

So again, which law?

Done that.

Protecting your own border from illegal entry isn't allowed? imagine that.

A bad decision brought on once again by the 9th Circus.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Posse Comitatus has no application in this process on the border. The federal troops are allowed to use deadly force in defense of BP / NG / Law Enforcement and for self defense.

If I am not mistaken the insurrection law was repealed, reverting back to the original act. Also the use of federal military in certain scenarios falls under an article 15 exemption ( I think thats the right exemption).

The immigrants of past time were adventurous courageous heroes who came here when the US was mostly a wilderness and they came here and built everything.

These immigrants are simply opportunists. There is no risk in coming here like when MY forefathers arrived. When my forefathers arrived, there was no Food Stamps. You had to be friendly to your neighbors because they might be the ones to help you get through a winter. These newcomers know they can just give the finger to everyone and they will still have all their needs taken care of. And they do. They do give the finger to everyone.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

I do believe his Executive Order was legal, but I did not indicate such in that sentence.

I'm clever. I figured it out. What can I say?

So again, which law?

Done that.

Still going on page 4? (directed to both of you) What is this the Clash of the ATS Titans? 😁

I gave Phage a star because I know he is the underdog in this arena and he may be technically correct, i cant be bothered to find out, even though, in spirit, I agree with TheRedneck.

Congress makes the laws.

And I suspect they will be making some laws in the near future. Because this lawlessness at the border has to stop. We cant legally stop people from illegally crossing our border and staying here and that is a problem. Catch and release is just stupid. And there are vigilantes out there doing their own patrols and taking the law into their own hands, beating and killing illegals because they are sick of it, and that has to stop too.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Asktheanimals


Oh boy.
Obama.

And Trump. And Bush.

You failed to answer the claim that being in a State of Emergency changes anything?

a reply to: 3n19m470

The biggest (bigliest?) law we need has already technically been passed: the wall. We just need funding.

The real issue here is not whether or not the undocumented are allowed to apply for asylum; they are. More applications are being taken every day, although I don't expect many will actually receive asylum due to their previous refusal to accept it from Mexico. No, the real issue is the ease of which people can cross our border. That's where the injunction went awry.

Under the old guard, anyone who stepped foot on US soil was treated with kid gloves. They were allowed to remain to fill out the proper forms, given a case number, assigned to a judge, and then allowed to remain in the country while their case was adjudicated. That procedure took several years on average, during which time the undocumented were not even required to maintain contact. They were essentially given de facto citizenship status, especially with the advent of "sanctuary cities" where they were protected from deportation.

With his every move to try and change this horrendously anti-American policy blocked by activist judges, President Trump had to call in the military and make his policy change to disallow asylum requests from anywhere except ports of entry. That did two things: the denial of asylum part made the potential immigrants stop breaking the law, as doing so was an instant disqualifier to their desired pseudo-legal status, and the military assistance kept the peace both through a certain amount of intimidation and extra security on both sides of the ports of entry. It actually worked. The asylum process was fairly orderly until now.

But with his policy effectively removed, he has only one option: use the military fully. Scaredtosleep is right above; Posse Comitatus does not apply in this case. These are now enemy combatants and will be kept out of the country by whatever means is necessary. Considering these folks are well known for acts of violence and vandalism during their trek thus far, that can and likely will result in deadly force being employed. That's not the fault of President Trump, Secretary of Defense Mattis, or the Secretary of Home Security. It's not the fault of the soldiers. It's not the fault of the CBP, ICE, or anyone else... it's the fault of those trying to crash the border.

Trump still has a trump card as well... he has every right to declare a national emergency of his own, giving him extraordinary powers. That would be a tough row to hoe politically, but he isn't dependent on his position as President for his living as most politicians are; he can go right back to Trump Enterprises and never miss a lick.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you very much for this thread. It was like watching Shaq one on one with a 7 year old handicapped child.