Imagine hating America so much that you’re happy to do away with the most fundamentally American ideals like free speech and due processNot a citizen and doesn't have full constitutional protections. Marco Rubio can remove these people by decree. You guys need to come back and pull for the home team again at some point.
I really don't get it. We aren't arguing that illegals should get free reign and never get sent back. But that they should get due process like is afforded everyone in the constitution.Imagine hating America so much that you’re happy to do away with the most fundamentally American ideals like free speech and due process
You have to realize that it's not really hating America, it's loving Trump. He's all about the constitution when Trump isn't involved. Remember how Biden tried to forgive student loans and the SCOTUS shut that down and said Biden was out of his lane? Cheers all around! I wonder what they'd have said if Biden just came back and said... well, it's already done... too bad so sad. Growlz would have been getting the pitchforks and torches ready and rightfully so. But when Trump does it, it's fine. Remember when Trump posted on setting aside the constitution to get him back in the White House? Crickets. Trump running for a 3rd term? Nothing. Trump just saying he can't get that deported dude back? Not a problem.Imagine hating America so much that you’re happy to do away with the most fundamentally American ideals like free speech and due process
We’re not even talking about illegals anymore. They literally arrested a dude who was here legally, has been here legally for a decade, and was on the cusp of being granted citizenship - they’ve said over and over again that they just want immigrants to do it “the right way” and this dude has and they’ve arrested him for the sole purpose of him using speech they don’t like. They aren’t even hiding it.I really don't get it. We aren't arguing that illegals should get free rein and never get sent back. But that they should get due process like is afforded everyone in the constitution.
Little Marco finally getting to think he's a big man.Not much. Rubio sending them packing and that's a fact.
Are you against deporting illegal immigrants? Unfortunately that law was signed into place (Expedited Removal) in 1996. It’s not against the law for ICE to deport people without due process if they meet certain criteria. That’s the actual law. Thats not a Trump or Maga thing. That’s just enforcing the current laws.Sorry but it’s just what the constitution says. They are afforded due process. Full stop. Not all services, not all benefits. They don't get to vote, and many other rights only afforded citizens. But due process is every person. I agree the courts are a mess. Was an absolute key piece of the bipartisan immigration law that Trump killed. More judges etc to speed things along. I would be open to many ideas. But removing due process, allowing the government to sweep people up, claim they are a gang member and ship them to a prison camp without a chance to defend themselves isn't one of them.
Due process is given to legal people in this country. Also no charges have been given to this man. You are fine with that why?Are you against deporting illegal immigrants? Unfortunately that law was signed into place (Expedited Removal) in 1996. It’s not against the law for ICE to deport people without due process if they meet certain criteria. That’s the actual law. Thats not a Trump or Maga thing. That’s just enforcing the current laws.
Expedited Removal is the law I mentioned. If you don’t like the law, change it. I don’t know enough about this particular case, this is generally speaking. I don’t hate the constitution and hope you are this passionate about the first and second amendments as well.Due process is given to legal people in this country. Also no charges have been given to this man. You are fine with that why?
Also, you are fine with US citizens being sent to other countries to serve their prison sentence?
Why do you hate the constitution so much?
Are you against deporting illegal immigrants? Unfortunately that law was signed into place (Expedited Removal) in 1996. It’s not against the law for ICE to deport people without due process if they meet certain criteria. That’s the actual law. Thats not a Trump or Maga thing. That’s just enforcing the current laws.
Expedited Removal is the law I mentioned. If you don’t like the law, change it. I don’t know enough about this particular case, this is generally speaking. I don’t hate the constitution and hope you are this passionate about the first and second amendments as well.
- Any noncitizen who arrived at a port of entry, at any time, and is determined to be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lacking proper entry documents and
- Any noncitizen who entered without inspection (by land or sea), was never admitted or paroled, is encountered anywhere in the United States, and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for the two years preceding the immigration officer’s determination that they are inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lack of proper entry documents.
Yeah this has nothing to do with the situation. Now run off to twitter to find a new reason to be ok with a person of legal status being removed but not charged of any crime.Expedited Removal is the law I mentioned. If you don’t like the law, change it. I don’t know enough about this particular case, this is generally speaking. I don’t hate the constitution and hope you are this passionate about the first and second amendments as well.
- Any noncitizen who arrived at a port of entry, at any time, and is determined to be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lacking proper entry documents and
- Any noncitizen who entered without inspection (by land or sea), was never admitted or paroled, is encountered anywhere in the United States, and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for the two years preceding the immigration officer’s determination that they are inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lack of proper entry documents.
Yeah this has nothing to do with the situation. Now run off to twitter to find a new reason to be ok with a person of legal status being removed but not charged of any crime.
Go back and read my posts. I have not commented on any of that. I asked @UrHuckleberry a question for clarification. You guys are relentless. Just sit around waiting to pounce and liking each others posts lol at this.Except when the Supreme Court rules that they broke the law and need to get the guy back?
They have admitted that they wrongfully sent the guy back. The display in the Oval with Trump and Bikele was disgusting. This is a man with kids who was sent wrongfully to a concentration camp in another country. How do you defend that?
And then to act as if it was funny? Dude, where is any sort of empathy?
Those items don’t have to be mutually exclusive as you suggest.I try with MTTiger, because he seems to actually want to have a real discussion. He just seems to not do any sort of reading before he screams wrongfully at the clouds.
Check out the thread where he claimed he was massively overtaxed and the federal government should fix his roads and schools.
To be fair you are completely misrepresenting my point. My point was that if a portion of tax dollars are being spent on waste and fraud then I am in fact taxed too much. And my second point was that if we have money for wars and trans Sesame Street why do I have to drive on horrible roads and shit like that. That’s probably a pretty common feeling. You come off as an elitist.I try with MTTiger, because he seems to actually want to have a real discussion. He just seems to not do any sort of reading before he screams wrongfully at the clouds.
Check out the thread where he claimed he was massively overtaxed and the federal government should fix his roads and schools.
Disingenuous. That’s been the theme from most of the tolerant left in here lol.Those items don’t have to be mutually exclusive as you suggest.
I want a more efficient government that prioritizes schools and roads over someone’s skin Color (DEI)
I have repeatedly said I am not against deporting illegals. In this very thread. Will be my last response, you win.Are you against deporting illegal immigrants? Unfortunately that law was signed into place (Expedited Removal) in 1996. It’s not against the law for ICE to deport people without due process if they meet certain criteria. That’s the actual law. Thats not a Trump or Maga thing. That’s just enforcing the current laws.
It was a ridiculous question though.Go back and read my posts. I have not commented on any of that. I asked @UrHuckleberry a question for clarification. You guys are relentless. Just sit around waiting to pounce and liking each others posts lol at this.
I think this is all up for debate. Does a green card holder have full constitutional protections? I don't know. Has SCOTUS ruled on this before. Isn't it the host country's fault for allowing the person in. You've already spoken on his/her fitness to immigrate.Not a citizen and doesn't have full constitutional protections. Marco Rubio can remove these people by decree. You guys need to come back and pull for the home team again at some point.
There it is..."only a matter of time.." money quote.Yep, for sure. We've got ICE agents showing up in unmarked cars, wearing masks and literally pulling people (granted... suspected of being illegal immigrants) off the street and taking them 100s of miles away from there and refusing to tell where they are. That's the way the US does business now. Donald Trump won and this is who we are as a country.
To respond to the question of constitutional rights to non citizens. In the past we did give them the same protections we gave citizens. Not because we HAD to, but because that was the way we did business. Our constitution was who we were and what we aspired to give to the entire world. That's what made us special and part of what made us the greatest country in the world. God knows this country isn't perfect and we've done some bad things over our history, but we tried to do the right thing most of the time and providing constitutional protections and due process even to non citizens was part of that. We used to strive to be the "Good Guys". Yes, we failed at that sometimes, but we were trying and IMHO we mostly did a pretty good job of it.
No more. We are in the process of remaking ourselves in Donald Trump's image. We look out for number 1, period. We threaten our allies with us taking them over b/c that would be good for us. We use our position as the number 1 economy to bully other countries into giving us great deals or we'll crush them economically. That's just the way we roll now b/c that's the way Donald Trump rolls. And his supporters love it. Just face it. We aren't the good guys any more. We are now just like everyone else.
Everyone in the US is under the constitution. Different people or statuses are treated differently within however.I think this is all up for debate. Does a green card holder have full constitutional protections? I don't know. Has SCOTUS ruled on this before. Isn't it the host country's fault for allowing the person in. You've already spoken on his/her fitness to immigrate.
That’s why we have laws tho. He’s showing why the law is the way it is.There it is..."only a matter of time.." money quote.
To be fair you are completely misrepresenting my point. My point was that if a portion of tax dollars are being spent on waste and fraud then I am in fact taxed too much. And my second point was that if we have money for wars and trans Sesame Street why do I have to drive on horrible roads and shit like that. That’s probably a pretty common feeling. You come off as an elitist.
Expedited Removal isn't applicable in any of the instances in question.Expedited Removal is the law I mentioned. If you don’t like the law, change it. I don’t know enough about this particular case, this is generally speaking. I don’t hate the constitution and hope you are this passionate about the first and second amendments as well.
- Any noncitizen who arrived at a port of entry, at any time, and is determined to be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lacking proper entry documents and
- Any noncitizen who entered without inspection (by land or sea), was never admitted or paroled, is encountered anywhere in the United States, and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for the two years preceding the immigration officer’s determination that they are inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lack of proper entry documents.
Of course I do. I was wrong about the percentage of my income that is taxed. Is that an acceptable apology to be allowed to post now? I have yet to see a single poster that I would consider liberal admit to ever being wrong. I had a guy wish my entire family died in a fire, was that wrong? Where’s all my apologies? That seems much crazier than being wrong about a tax bracket.Did you ever admit that you were wrong though? Not trying to beat you up, but you kept trying to argue and seemingly got more and more desperate as you realized that your frustrations, weren't infact accurate?
That's part of the frustration, I love the discussion, I admit when I screw up, which I do all the time lol.
Never said it was. Read what I posted.Expedited Removal isn't applicable in any of the instances in question.
I don’t know. But apparently you don’t either. I’ve cited the law. It is what it is man.I have repeatedly said I am not against deporting illegals. In this very thread. Will be my last response, you win.
I don’t think you understand what due process is. How would you know they met certain criteria otherwise.
I read what was posted, which was why I responded. There’s no reason to even bring up expedited removal because it doesn’t qualify - unless the plan is to obfuscate the facts.Never said it was. Read what I posted.
Yes that’s exactly what i was trying to do. I’ll see myself out. And it most certainly qualifies if an argument is being made to justify due process for any person within our borders.I read what was posted, which was why I responded. There’s no reason to even bring up expedited removal because it doesn’t qualify - unless the plan is to obfuscate the facts.
You mean like the biden infrastructure act that trump halted by executive order? do you think that trump priotitizes schools with his dummy down and brain drain policies and executive orders? ...Those items don’t have to be mutually exclusive as you suggest.
I want a more efficient government that prioritizes schools and roads over someone’s skin Color (DEI)
Please show the part of the constitution that states what you say and then show us some rullings from scotus to back up that interpretation.Sorry but its just what the constitution says. They are afforded due process. Full stop. Not all services, not all benefits. They don't get to vote, and many other rights only afforded citizens. But due process is every person. I agree the courts are a mess. Was an absolute key piece of the bipartisan immigration law that Trump killed. More judges etc to speed things along. I would be open to many ideas. But removing due process, allowing the government to sweep people up, claim they are a gang member and ship them to a prison camp without a chance to defend themselves isn't one of them.
go get em, growls, time to pull out that gateway pundit source ! lolPlease show the part of the constitution that states what you say and then show us some rullings from scotus to back up that interpretation.
Not legal. Wrong Yoshi. Even if they brought this guy back they would just deport him to some other foreign nation. Maybe Siberia? They could work out a deal with Putin as part of the stopping the war.....ohhhh shit yes!!!Neither of those conditions apply to these situations. Both were here legally and had presented themselves. They were literally doing the right things.
If I thought you would see any amount of proof and change your opinion, I may do that. This is the basics of our constitution.Please show the part of the constitution that states what you say and then show us some rullings from scotus to back up that interpretation.
What did scotus state and why?If I thought you would see any amount of proof and change your opinion, I may do that. This is the basics of our constitution.
This case literally just went to the Supreme Court and was won 9-0 and you’re asking for proof from that same Supreme Court. And it’s one of the first five amendments. You don’t even have to get deep into them.
Nah, I’ll just refer to my first sentence there, have a good one TG.What did scotus state and why?
I will take that as a victory.Nah, I’ll just refer to my first sentence there, have a good one TG.