Supreme Court rules immigrants can be detained indefinitely

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).

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.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Ok lets stop with all the doom porn and pro illegal propaganda and look FACTUALLY at what this ruling is saying

first this SPECIFIC about people being taken into IMMIGRATION custody.
for that to happen you have to have either question about your LEGAL STATUS to be here or if here legally if you have done something to warrant your legal status being removed or your seeking asylum (something EARNED not guaranteed) and in either case DEPORTATION.
this has ZERO to do with LEGAL CITIZENS. Be that citizenship naturalized or born.
now to be fair you can loose your citizenship (be naturalized or born) if you commit a crime that warrants it.
but you would NOT BE ARRESTED by immigration in that case but by FEDERAL law enforcement and due process under FEDERAL COURTS. If convicted and ONLY after serving whatever prison time THEN immigration comes into play to determine where you get deported to.

so this whole cry of "slippery slope/ can hold anyone" is at best buzz words to defend ILLEGALS.
If the government (and it has under SPECIFIC situation of terrorism) is gonna do that it ISNT gonna be immigration taking legal citizens off the street.

Second...anyone arrested and/or detained by immigration DOES GET A HEARING. They also continue (how fast isnt mentioned in all the rants...big surprise) to get hearings.
what they DONT GET is a BOND HEARING.....
this means they have to stay in custody while they (in popular words) "fighting their case"
in short you are not "being held indefinitely" but being held until your case is finished.

this is NO DIFFERENT than those with no bonds and like those that cannot afford bond..

In FACT the person by fighting what could be JUSTIFIED deportation or UNJUSTIFIED asylum that is keeping them in detention.

Third.... why would they not offer them bond?
the REALITY ( inconvenient to the pro illegal immigration supporters ) is that they WANT THEM TO SHOW UP FOR COURT and IF ORDERED DEPORTED THEY OBEY THE COURT ORDER.

The old way they used to do it (and personally seen) is they would initially catch (illegals) or get initial application for asylum. then they would release them with the person promising to show up for their immigration hearings .
well guess what....A VAST MAJORITY would not show up.
those that did when they got deportation judgments against them (that were final) would hide, seek people to shield them (be churches or cities) and in short REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
thus leading to the crys of "poor me", the pitty news stories , ect.

this way they are GUARANTEED to be there for court and if they are found to be here ILLEGALLY or their asylum is NOT JUSTIFIED they can cant refuse to follow THE LAW and be deported.

So lets be honest people this isnt about CITIZENS being held "indefinitely"
It isnt about people not getting their "rights" (be full as citizens or anyone who isnt )

It is about those who are here illegally , those who's legal status is in question, those who are legal RESIDENTS NOT CITIZENS who have some situation that may cause them to loose their legal status, or someone seeking asylum.
It is about making sure they SHOW UP FOR COURT and IF they are by RULE OF LAW determined they are to be deported that THE OBEY A LEGAL COURT ORDER.

Nothing more....nothing less.

Scrounger

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.

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

Are you proud America, this is your belief in action, caging harmless woman & children because of your greed & ignorance.

God will surely forget you.

Women and children detained in ‘freezing cells’ on US border: HRW

Women and children detained by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along the US-Mexico border are regularly held in freezing cells and suffer other harsh treatment, according to a new Human Rights Watch (HRW) report.

www.rawstory.com...

Look at your works, see the fruit of your greed & ignorance, watch the children be treated like animals.

Do you enjoy this, is there some sick depraved desire within you to see others mistreated?
Will watching others suffer make you feel "superior"?

K~

a reply to: aethertek

What are you doing to change it other than being a whiney ass on the internet?

Oh nothing?

Just a rant and a point of your finger.

Just as useless.

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.

Imagine that. They got something so simple so wrong.

Not your fault.

So right wingers talk about how the government is going to become tyrannical and how it's up to them and their Rugers to save all of our asses.... but then right wingers applaud government for this?

Bahahahaha m dumbass Trump supporters for you.

originally posted by: aethertek
Are you proud America, this is your belief in action, caging harmless woman & children because of your greed & ignorance.

God will surely forget you.

Women and children detained in ‘freezing cells’ on US border: HRW

Women and children detained by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along the US-Mexico border are regularly held in freezing cells and suffer other harsh treatment, according to a new Human Rights Watch (HRW) report.

www.rawstory.com...

Look at your works, see the fruit of your greed & ignorance, watch the children be treated like animals.

Do you enjoy this, is there some sick depraved desire within you to see others mistreated?
Will watching others suffer make you feel "superior"?

K~

Sorry. Not an argument.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well, how about we just put them all to hard labor???? Hmmmm?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Didn't say you were, I merely suggested that was the next logical step in your liberal and pathetic lunacy.

a reply to: aethertek

so can i come to your house and jump the fence and set up shop?

a reply to: aethertek

They made that choice for themselves. They knew they were violating the laws of our country, and they are soley responsible

for whatever consequences arise from that deliberate action.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well, how about we just put them all to hard labor???? Hmmmm?

Forced labor camps Eh? Those always look good in history books.

a reply to: FHomerK

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 defense.

article VI of the constitution

Funny, the constitution says all criminals... Not just citizens or immigrants.

But the constitution only matters when it's a part you like?

You can have your opinion on immigrants, but not all of us want to live in a police state.

Sure, give the government more power. It's funny, because usually the concervatives are all about less federal government, less spending, and constitutional rights.... Unless it comes to immigrants.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: FHomerK

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 defense.

article VI of the constitution

Funny, the constitution says all criminals... Not just citizens or immigrants.

But the constitution only matters when it's a part you like?

You can have your opinion on immigrants, but not all of us want to live in a police state.

Sure, give the government more power. It's funny, because usually the concervatives are all about less federal government, less spending, and constitutional rights.... Unless it comes to immigrants.

Sorry for not giving you the full response you so truly deserve, but I've got a Maoist meeting I've gotta get back to

originally posted by: FHomerK

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: FHomerK

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 defense.

article VI of the constitution

Funny, the constitution says all criminals... Not just citizens or immigrants.

But the constitution only matters when it's a part you like?

You can have your opinion on immigrants, but not all of us want to live in a police state.

Sure, give the government more power. It's funny, because usually the concervatives are all about less federal government, less spending, and constitutional rights.... Unless it comes to immigrants.

Sorry for not giving you the full response you so truly deserve, but I've got a Maoist meeting I've gotta get back to

Wouldn't surprise me.... All for indefinite imprisonment without hearing or trial.

Didn't say you were, I merely suggested that was the next logical step in your liberal and pathetic lunacy.

There you are speaking of slippery slopes, but you think that indefinite imprisonment will stop with immigrants? You got some faith in the federal government. Give them an inch...

I think people need to understand the fundamental difference between the US border and the governments responsibility verse those of an individual breaking a law. This is also the reason 4th amendment applications to the border are vastly different than the application away from the border.

When a person enters the US the US government has a right to protect its sovereignty from those who may wish harm to the US, whether it is the US government or US citizens. It is why probable cause is not needed at official border crossings / within a few miles of the border. Before people start screaming on that topic do some research first. The exception applies only at official border crossings and not 100 miles from the border. The moment you get away from the border Immigration / Customs / Border patrol require reasonable suspicion to make contact with you (traffic stop) and they need probable cause to search your vehicle - just like all other Federal, state and local law enforcement.

Given the problems we have had with Mexico since our nations founding and the subsequent drug issues the Supreme Court does allow for the checkpoints to check a persons status away from the border (however, again, same restrictions apply that apply to other law enforcement). So these idiots you see on youtube ignoring those checkpoints can be charged with a crime for doing that. Also this ruling only applies to the US-Mexico border. It does NOT apply to the US-Canada border.

That said the other part people need to educate themselves on is how the Constitution applies to the individual. Due process applies to everyone charged with a criminal offense in the US along with all the amendments that affect it (4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th, etc). When it comes to civil law (as opposed to criminal law) the same amendments apply but do so differently. As an example a person can plead the 5th amendment in civil court proceedings however a judge can order the person to answer the question. If the person refuses / invokes the 5th the jury can infer guilt from that action (where in criminal cases a person cant be forced to answer once the 5th is invoked and juries cannot infer anything from that invocation).

In the case of immigration it all falls under immigration law. Immigration law applies differently and does not have all of the protections criminal / civil law have. The system turns at its own pace (as does criminal and civil cases). People entering the US illegally can go before a immigration judge to plead their case. The Trump admin has made a series of changes to the southern border, including adding more immigration judges and expanding their hours in addition to placing some judges closer to certain areas to decrease the backlog.

If an illegal immigrant commits a crime in the US - like killing a person in San Francisco - they can be investigated, arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced and they have the exact same access to the legal system as a US citizen does, up to and including all constitutional safeguards.

Since entering the US is a violation of immigration law a person can be detained for that crime. Since they are here illegally they do not get a bond hearing and rightfully so. The person will be deported because they are here illegally so releasing them undermines our immigration laws.

Just like in a criminal or civil case, people caught here illegally dont have to challenge their detention and deportation.

If someone wants to bitch about this topic I respectfully suggest people learn about it first before attacking it. I also recommend people learn what the Constitution says and how it applies to the individual.

Just food for thought.