Should Aliens have constitutional rights?

[Beastdog]

So, did Trump nominate an activist judge?

If they don’t have any rights, can they be shot down in the streets, as some on this board have suggested, with no repercussions?

When your vote no longer matters you'll wish they had been shot in the street.

Oh good grief. Y’all’s hyperbole is too much.

Hyperbole? Give 20 million illegals the vote and the republicans never win another national election in our lives. 

All this sh*t is about elections, everything else is smoke.

Are we talking about the 20 million or are we talking about the say thousand or two violent?

I was speaking of the violent ones specifically as it relates to the AEA

Why can't it be both, bamer?

Personally, I'm more concerned with the voting issue. In the past 4 years, the Democrats attempted to pull off what I consider to be the most evil act I have seen in my lifetime of watching evil federal government behavior. They deliberately attempted to pull into the country as many potential future Democrat voters as possible without a single thought about the ramifications of doing this. It doesn't matter to them, as all they care about is political power at all costs. F*cking pigs, all of then.

If we have to bend the rules a bit to undo this evil act, so be it. You invade my country, you don't get "due process." F*ck off and get the hell out of my country.

[Alabuckeye]

When your vote no longer matters you'll wish they had been shot in the street.

Oh good grief. Y’all’s hyperbole is too much.

Hyperbole? Give 20 million illegals the vote and the republicans never win another national election in our lives. 

All this sh*t is about elections, everything else is smoke.

Are we talking about the 20 million or are we talking about the say thousand or two violent?

I was speaking of the violent ones specifically as it relates to the AEA

Why can't it be both, bamer?

Personally, I'm more concerned with the voting issue. In the past 4 years, the Democrats attempted to pull off what I consider to be the most evil act I have seen in my lifetime of watching evil federal government behavior. They deliberately attempted to pull into the country as many potential future Democrat voters as possible without a single thought about the ramifications of doing this. It doesn't matter to them, as all they care about is political power at all costs. F*cking pigs, all of then.

If we have to bend the rules a bit to undo this evil act, so be it. You invade my country, you don't get "due process." F*ck off and get the hell out of my country.

Because imo you handle it two different ways. 

With the non violent, you enforce laws on business owners who hire them. You enforce laws when they encounter legal situations. You create a pressure for them to self deport. ICE is never gonna pry 20m people out of here. 

With the violent you have to act proactively. Go after them directly. But we can’t respond illegally to illegality. That’s not how a civil society works. It’s how a banana republic or lesser civilization works.  Pursue them, arrest them, hold them, process them and send them back. You have nowhere near the numbers here. Thousands versus millions. It won’t take years if you set up a system to deal with them.

[Beastdog]

I agree with dzone's response to your post, bamer.

[zigbee]

Wrong. How can you be required to show something you aren’t required to have or carry? You have to ID yourself if reasonable suspicion. You say I’m Martin Prince. You don’t have to show or even have a physical ID in the US. Just for certain things like to drive or fly.

Suspicion and circumstances are the keys.  Martin Prince or clark prince it matters none.  If you are involved in something which police shows up as possible crime, and you are questioned the police will require it.  If no ID they may detain, do prints, see if warrant is in out

It’s simple. You have to give your name. You do not have to provide any document/iD. You are not required to have one except when engaging in certain activities. If I’m not carrying one and get swept up because I’m working where illegals work I get some sort of due process. You can’t just send me to an El Salvador prison. So how do you know the person is illegal or a gang member if there  is no process?

Where did I make any of those arguments?  ID will be required based on what is going on and your involvement for suspicious actions.  I’ve said this multiple times.

The other comments I’ve not spoken against other than what is going on with gangs shipped out.  What will due process do essentially, or consist of for each criminal?  What happens in steps?

Well as for that you aren’t required to have or produce ID period.  No matter how suspicious. Again, no actual ID is ever required in the US except for certain activities like driving. I do not have to have any ID. I can’t be required to produce what I don’t have to have. If you walk down the street without your wallet and commit a crime and are arrested do you have to produce ID? No. You are required to say who you are but no physical ID is required.

Last time, DEPENDS of WHERE, WHO, WHAT etc you are with and doing.   You are conflating average schmoe walking on the street with some of these guys like Garcia who are into something SUSPICIOUS or a crime occurring or IN a car with suspicious activity.

[Alabuckeye]

I agree with dzone's response to your post, bamer.

As expected. 

What is unexpected is that folks who claim to be conservatives are so loose with their application of the law. It really goes to show how willing people are to throw away their stands

[zigbee]

So, here is what the Texas judge says:
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in order to deport undocumented migrants without due process is unlawful because the act is predicated on an organized, armed act of war, or other violent action against the United States - none of which are currently happening.

How does this JUDGE KNOW? What are his connections with ICE or other agencies battling these gangs? It is PURE OPINION not basing on facts. He needs to see what is going on in Maryland and Colorado and the number or OD cases around the nation.

[3rdgensooner]

Suspicion and circumstances are the keys.  Martin Prince or clark prince it matters none.  If you are involved in something which police shows up as possible crime, and you are questioned the police will require it.  If no ID they may detain, do prints, see if warrant is in out

It’s simple. You have to give your name. You do not have to provide any document/iD. You are not required to have one except when engaging in certain activities. If I’m not carrying one and get swept up because I’m working where illegals work I get some sort of due process. You can’t just send me to an El Salvador prison. So how do you know the person is illegal or a gang member if there  is no process?

Where did I make any of those arguments?  ID will be required based on what is going on and your involvement for suspicious actions.  I’ve said this multiple times.

The other comments I’ve not spoken against other than what is going on with gangs shipped out.  What will due process do essentially, or consist of for each criminal?  What happens in steps?

Well as for that you aren’t required to have or produce ID period.  No matter how suspicious. Again, no actual ID is ever required in the US except for certain activities like driving. I do not have to have any ID. I can’t be required to produce what I don’t have to have. If you walk down the street without your wallet and commit a crime and are arrested do you have to produce ID? No. You are required to say who you are but no physical ID is required.

Last time, DEPENDS of WHERE, WHO, WHAT etc you are with and doing.   You are conflating average schmoe walking on the street with some of these guys like Garcia who are into something SUSPICIOUS or a crime occurring or IN a car with suspicious activity.

No I am not. No one in this country is required to have an ID. So no one is required to produce one. Even if hanging with gang bangers and arrested. Even if caught red handed committing a felony.

[Alabuckeye]

So, here is what the Texas judge says:
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in order to deport undocumented migrants without due process is unlawful because the act is predicated on an organized, armed act of war, or other violent action against the United States - none of which are currently happening.

How does this JUDGE KNOW?  What are his connections with ICE or other agencies battling these gangs?  It is PURE OPINION not basing on facts.  He needs to see what is going on in Maryland and Colorado and the number or OD cases around the nation.

So, you mentioned the last instance this law was used yesterday…..Germany/WW2. In your mind you see no difference between that and an armed gang running a prostitution ring or pushing drugs on a street corner?  And killing rival gang members or innocents who get in the way?

It feels like you are conflating them, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth

[zigbee]

It’s simple. You have to give your name. You do not have to provide any document/iD. You are not required to have one except when engaging in certain activities. If I’m not carrying one and get swept up because I’m working where illegals work I get some sort of due process. You can’t just send me to an El Salvador prison. So how do you know the person is illegal or a gang member if there  is no process?

Where did I make any of those arguments?  ID will be required based on what is going on and your involvement for suspicious actions.  I’ve said this multiple times.

The other comments I’ve not spoken against other than what is going on with gangs shipped out.  What will due process do essentially, or consist of for each criminal?  What happens in steps?

Well as for that you aren’t required to have or produce ID period.  No matter how suspicious. Again, no actual ID is ever required in the US except for certain activities like driving. I do not have to have any ID. I can’t be required to produce what I don’t have to have. If you walk down the street without your wallet and commit a crime and are arrested do you have to produce ID? No. You are required to say who you are but no physical ID is required.

Last time, DEPENDS of WHERE, WHO, WHAT etc you are with and doing.   You are conflating average schmoe walking on the street with some of these guys like Garcia who are into something SUSPICIOUS or a crime occurring or IN a car with suspicious activity.

No I am not. No one in this country is required to have an ID. So no one is required to produce one. Even if hanging with gang bangers and arrested. Even if caught red handed committing a felony.

Where did I say this?
But if you are involved in some activities you will be asked and if you cannot produce?   They law can and will on many occasions hold you for finger printing, etc.  Its based on suspicion.    How do you think guys who had court dates and warrants out are apprehended for not showing?? Or for possible crimes?  Oh, they just walk by saying you don't need an ID?   That is not how it works.

Yes, hanging out with suspicious folk you will be asked for your ID.   You may be innocent, but you can and many times will be detained if you cannot produce an ID to see if warrants are out on you. Below is EXACTLY what I'm talking about based on SC case:

 
 
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to reveal their identity when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as “stop-and-identify” statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves. https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when...sk-for-id/

[zigbee]

So, here is what the Texas judge says:
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in order to deport undocumented migrants without due process is unlawful because the act is predicated on an organized, armed act of war, or other violent action against the United States - none of which are currently happening.

How does this JUDGE KNOW?  What are his connections with ICE or other agencies battling these gangs?  It is PURE OPINION not basing on facts.  He needs to see what is going on in Maryland and Colorado and the number or OD cases around the nation.

So, you mentioned the last instance this law was used yesterday…..Germany/WW2. In your mind you see no difference between that and an armed gang running a prostitution ring or pushing drugs on a street corner?  And killing rival gang members or innocents who get in the way?

It feels like you are conflating them, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth

IF the executive feels the nation is invaded, which doesn't mean some war going on or declaration of war which was separate from the definition of how to use it, then the executive according to the law has the power to invoke it and complete the execution of it based on those powers granted under this law.   War OR invasion which I pointed our prior.  OR is the key.

This armed gang isn't domestic home grown.  It's from another nation, organized, taking over sectors of cities in different states.  It's organized in distribution of drugs, human trafficking, and other RICO type activities.   Pretty simple stuff to understand.  I think it is an invasion from Venezuela

[Alabuckeye]

So, here is what the Texas judge says:
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in order to deport undocumented migrants without due process is unlawful because the act is predicated on an organized, armed act of war, or other violent action against the United States - none of which are currently happening.

How does this JUDGE KNOW?  What are his connections with ICE or other agencies battling these gangs?  It is PURE OPINION not basing on facts.  He needs to see what is going on in Maryland and Colorado and the number or OD cases around the nation.

So, you mentioned the last instance this law was used yesterday…..Germany/WW2. In your mind you see no difference between that and an armed gang running a prostitution ring or pushing drugs on a street corner?  And killing rival gang members or innocents who get in the way?

It feels like you are conflating them, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth

IF the executive feels the nation is invaded, which doesn't mean some war going on or declaration of war which was separate from the definition of how to use it, then the executive according to the law has the power to invoke it and complete the execution of it based on those powers granted under this law.   War OR invasion which I pointed our prior.  OR is the key.

This armed gang isn't domestic home grown.  It's from another nation, organized, taking over sectors of cities in different states.  It's organized in distribution of drugs, human trafficking, and other RICO type activities.   Pretty simple stuff to understand.  I think it is an invasion from Venezuela

That’s fine that you think that. I’d say that’s the core basis for their logic in using it. 

“ OR by any foreign nation or government“

So, the use of the act would indicate the arguing in court the proof that they have direct ties to the Venezuelan government. I don’t have issue with it being litigated. And frankly have no issue with it being used if their case is proven.

[zigbee]

So, here is what the Texas judge says:
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in order to deport undocumented migrants without due process is unlawful because the act is predicated on an organized, armed act of war, or other violent action against the United States - none of which are currently happening.

How does this JUDGE KNOW?  What are his connections with ICE or other agencies battling these gangs?  It is PURE OPINION not basing on facts.  He needs to see what is going on in Maryland and Colorado and the number or OD cases around the nation.

So, you mentioned the last instance this law was used yesterday…..Germany/WW2. In your mind you see no difference between that and an armed gang running a prostitution ring or pushing drugs on a street corner?  And killing rival gang members or innocents who get in the way?

It feels like you are conflating them, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth

IF the executive feels the nation is invaded, which doesn't mean some war going on or declaration of war which was separate from the definition of how to use it, then the executive according to the law has the power to invoke it and complete the execution of it based on those powers granted under this law.   War OR invasion which I pointed our prior.  OR is the key.

This armed gang isn't domestic home grown.  It's from another nation, organized, taking over sectors of cities in different states.  It's organized in distribution of drugs, human trafficking, and other RICO type activities.   Pretty simple stuff to understand.  I think it is an invasion from Venezuela

That’s fine that you think that. I’d say that’s the core basis for their logic in using it. 

“ OR by any foreign nation or government“

So, the use of the act would indicate the arguing in court the proof that they have direct ties to the Venezuelan government.  I don’t have issue with it being litigated. And frankly have no issue with it being used if their case is proven.

Where does it say this? any foreign nation OR government is not the same.   Central American gov't have collapsed before and rogue strong men have invaded and killed Americans in the past.   Doesn't mean the gov't is behind it OR if there is a gov't in charge.  Want to guess when this happened?

[Alabuckeye]

So, here is what the Texas judge says:
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in order to deport undocumented migrants without due process is unlawful because the act is predicated on an organized, armed act of war, or other violent action against the United States - none of which are currently happening.

How does this JUDGE KNOW?  What are his connections with ICE or other agencies battling these gangs?  It is PURE OPINION not basing on facts.  He needs to see what is going on in Maryland and Colorado and the number or OD cases around the nation.

So, you mentioned the last instance this law was used yesterday…..Germany/WW2. In your mind you see no difference between that and an armed gang running a prostitution ring or pushing drugs on a street corner?  And killing rival gang members or innocents who get in the way?

It feels like you are conflating them, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth

IF the executive feels the nation is invaded, which doesn't mean some war going on or declaration of war which was separate from the definition of how to use it, then the executive according to the law has the power to invoke it and complete the execution of it based on those powers granted under this law.   War OR invasion which I pointed our prior.  OR is the key.

This armed gang isn't domestic home grown.  It's from another nation, organized, taking over sectors of cities in different states.  It's organized in distribution of drugs, human trafficking, and other RICO type activities.   Pretty simple stuff to understand.  I think it is an invasion from Venezuela

That’s fine that you think that. I’d say that’s the core basis for their logic in using it. 

“ OR by any foreign nation or government“

So, the use of the act would indicate the arguing in court the proof that they have direct ties to the Venezuelan government.  I don’t have issue with it being litigated. And frankly have no issue with it being used if their case is proven.

Where does it say this? any foreign nation OR government is not the same.   Central American gov't have collapsed before and rogue strong men have invaded and killed Americans in the past.   Doesn't mean the gov't is behind it OR if there is a gov't in charge.  Want to guess when this happened?

It says what I put in quotes in the act itself. Two clauses in the act

Either: declared war(I.e. Germany in ww2)
Or: "any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government..."

[zigbee]

So, you mentioned the last instance this law was used yesterday…..Germany/WW2. In your mind you see no difference between that and an armed gang running a prostitution ring or pushing drugs on a street corner?  And killing rival gang members or innocents who get in the way?

It feels like you are conflating them, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth

IF the executive feels the nation is invaded, which doesn't mean some war going on or declaration of war which was separate from the definition of how to use it, then the executive according to the law has the power to invoke it and complete the execution of it based on those powers granted under this law.   War OR invasion which I pointed our prior.  OR is the key.

This armed gang isn't domestic home grown.  It's from another nation, organized, taking over sectors of cities in different states.  It's organized in distribution of drugs, human trafficking, and other RICO type activities.   Pretty simple stuff to understand.  I think it is an invasion from Venezuela

That’s fine that you think that. I’d say that’s the core basis for their logic in using it. 

“ OR by any foreign nation or government“

So, the use of the act would indicate the arguing in court the proof that they have direct ties to the Venezuelan government.  I don’t have issue with it being litigated. And frankly have no issue with it being used if their case is proven.

Where does it say this? any foreign nation OR government is not the same.   Central American gov't have collapsed before and rogue strong men have invaded and killed Americans in the past.   Doesn't mean the gov't is behind it OR if there is a gov't in charge.  Want to guess when this happened?

It says what I put in quotes in the act itself. Two clauses in the act

Either: declared war(I.e. Germany in ww2)
Or: "any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government..."

Then why did you not post this instead of direct ties?  Why do you think the founders who pushed this law put in OR?  Is there a difference in nation and government?

[Alabuckeye]

IF the executive feels the nation is invaded, which doesn't mean some war going on or declaration of war which was separate from the definition of how to use it, then the executive according to the law has the power to invoke it and complete the execution of it based on those powers granted under this law.   War OR invasion which I pointed our prior.  OR is the key.

This armed gang isn't domestic home grown.  It's from another nation, organized, taking over sectors of cities in different states.  It's organized in distribution of drugs, human trafficking, and other RICO type activities.   Pretty simple stuff to understand.  I think it is an invasion from Venezuela

That’s fine that you think that. I’d say that’s the core basis for their logic in using it. 

“ OR by any foreign nation or government“

So, the use of the act would indicate the arguing in court the proof that they have direct ties to the Venezuelan government.  I don’t have issue with it being litigated. And frankly have no issue with it being used if their case is proven.

Where does it say this? any foreign nation OR government is not the same.   Central American gov't have collapsed before and rogue strong men have invaded and killed Americans in the past.   Doesn't mean the gov't is behind it OR if there is a gov't in charge.  Want to guess when this happened?

It says what I put in quotes in the act itself. Two clauses in the act

Either: declared war(I.e. Germany in ww2)
Or: "any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government..."

Then why did you not post this instead of direct ties?  Why do you think the founders who pushed this law put in OR?  Is there a difference in nation and government?

I posted that language weeks ago when the administration first used the Act. And I said at that time that I admired the effort and originality but questioned whether they could meet the qualifications set by the act. From there it’s devolved into bashing judges and claiming that the law doesn’t really matter in these matters. 

But I’ve always argued from this basis.