Trump: Deport Illegal Immigrants Immediately Without Court Hearings

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It's already out. Has been for years.

What's your point? The Constitution depends on how much it costs?

I'm sorry, but I agree with Trump up to a point.

If a person is already here, and was not seen crossing the border immediately before apprehension, then yeah, he has the right to a hearing in front of a judge. There's a reason for that: he might be an American citizen! We have quite a few citizens who are Mexican/South American by birth... heck, just go to Texas sometime. I have seen people who looked like they just stepped out of a cantina walk up and say, in a strong Texas drawl, "Howdy! Mah name's Tom. Good to meetcha!"

But if someone is spotted crossing the border illegally, then no. There's no magic in US soil. If they can't get across without being seen, they aren't "in America" yet. In that case, toss 'em in a paddy-wagon and deport their happy little butts back across the border.

This ain't football. Whether or not you succeed in making a goal does not depend on how much of your foot broke the plane of the field. The interpretation that says once someone touches US soil they have legal protection makes no logical sense... why not just say anyone close to the border has legal protection? After all, they are not subject to arrest until they touch US soil, and then they have legal protection anyway, right? So everyone is entitled to legal protection any time they want it, regardless of where they are, because they can demand it by an action that cannot be legally prevented.

This is just another in a long and growing list of excuses for an open border. Nope, can't deport them because they get US legal protection. Nope, can't enforce Federal immigration law because it only applies to naturalization and not to immigration; immigration is a states' rights issue.

You're not fooling anyone. All of these cockamamie ideas are just a way to say you want open borders. If that is the case, at least be adult enough to state what you want. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look silly.

TheRedneck

(Sorry, I mistakenly replied to Phage, when this was intended as a general reply.)

a reply to: links234

Police officers are the judges servants, they can kick aliens out at whim. Holding cell, paperwork filed, signed by judge, gone. That is due process, never seen by a judge. The alien can file his complaint with the paperwork, any evidence that he is not illegal, Judge can declare if the case is worth a hearing/trial, if not, gone. Case closed. Bureaucracy done within 2-3 days max.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It's already out. Has been for years.

What's your point? The Constitution depends on how much it costs?

The constitution says nothing about paying the living expenses of illegal immigrants or the cost of their due process. Obviously, every little thing could not be written into the document, but if there is no specific allowance for that kind of expense, it doesn't exist. So if they want to come illegally, let them bring their own money to pay for themselves and the due process. Otherwise, all the bitching and moaning liberals can pay for it personally.

When people came to North America, as little as 75 years ago, they didn't get welfare, free money, phones, medical insurance, etc. They got nothing and they survived. Do it that way again or, the libs/dems can pay for it from their own pockets.

Don't expect people who don't believe in or agree with insane liberal ideologies to foot the bill. But watch how the illegals turn on you if you cut off their funding sources, crime will skyrocket.

Cheers - Dave

Glad someone in the Western world is trying to address the insanity of being swamped with illegals.

The criticism Trump is getting from liberals in the UK is beyond absurd, talking about stopping his state visit.

Gangs involved in smuggling people across borders should be hunted down relentlessly and shot on sight.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

When people came to North America, as little as 75 years ago, they didn't get welfare, free money, phones, medical insurance, etc.

I don't think anyone did, 75 years ago. Not phones or medical insurance anyway. You can talk to FDR about that other stuff.

But I think you might be misleading yourself about what illegal and/or undocumented residents are able to receive in the way of public assistance.
econofact.org...

Well, they skipped the legalization hearing, so what's the difference?

You get caught and want to complain you're not receiving the process you tried to sidestep in the first place????

originally posted by: JackPoontaint
a reply to: links234

Police officers are the judges servants, they can kick aliens out at whim. Holding cell, paperwork filed, signed by judge, gone. That is due process, never seen by a judge. The alien can file his complaint with the paperwork, any evidence that he is not illegal, Judge can declare if the case is worth a hearing/trial, if not, gone. Case closed. Bureaucracy done within 2-3 days max.

I know border agents can immediately extridite someone if they lie to them. No court date required. In fact most countries work that way.

a reply to: JackPoontaint

Not police officers, but border officials do have options (unless they are seeking asylum). But it's better to detain them, take their kids away, and charge them. I guess. You know, zero tolerance. It sounds better. Gets the base fired up. Good for the mid-terms.


en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: CJCrawley

The criticism Trump is getting from liberals in the UK is beyond absurd, talking about stopping his state visit.

It’s funny how easy it is to be critical of the immigration policies of another country when you live on an island.

They come right back. It requires obfuscation and deterrence beyond what is now.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JackPoontaint

"...But it's better to detain them, take their kids away, and charge them. You know, zero tolerance."

So, don't detain them, don't separate them, and don't charge them, you know, zero accountability???

Hillary must be president in your dimension.

a reply to: EternalShadow

So, don't detain them, don't separate them, and don't charge them, you know, zero accountability???

I didn't say that.

What I did say is that there are laws on the books to do (in a practical sense) exactly what Trump is talking about. But it has to be all about him. Right?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It requires a real set of immigration laws. Not a bandaid. Not a wall. Not political arm waving.

a reply to: Phage

Please describe what a real set would be compared to the, is it fake set, currently in place.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I mean an immigration policy which reflects the reality of the situation. The fact that there are several millions of undocumented or illegal residents in the country and that they are contributing members society and have families which include US citizens. The fact that there are millions of now adults who were brought into this country as children and for whom the US is really the only home they have ever known. The fact that there really is no practical way to remove them all.

I mean an immigration policy "with heart." Huh. That seems like a familiar phrase, doesn't it?

a reply to: Phage

I think its mostly about expediting the process some hope to choke with appeals. Which in turn, would possibly make the president look ineffective.

Some are hoping for that regardless of what the president proposes, no?

a reply to: EternalShadow

I think its mostly about expediting the process some hope to choke with appeals.

I do not believe there is such a thing as an appeal in immigration court.

Some are hoping for that regardless of what the president proposes, no?

Is that why Miller and Sessions pressed the zero tolerance thing? The plug the system further? Yeah. I agree. And the base loves it.

a reply to: dragonridr

Extradite is not the correct term.

a reply to: Phage

Sounds like you're talking about a Resident Aliens Policy.

But what about the Open Border Policy?