Should Aliens have constitutional rights?

[wydileie]

There was always going to be a fight about this, and Trump's team will need to prove that TdA is sanctioned by the Venezuelan government as some sort of attack on us. Given that Venezuela refuses to take them back, I would personally say that counts as some kind of incursion on the US by a foreign government. They may, or may not, have directed them to come here, but by refusing to take them back they are actively working against the US.

[zigbee]

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.

I'm not concerned with those you argue with on bashing judges.  I simply stating the law grants OR concerning a foreign nation vs a gov't.   There is a difference as I pointed out.   Again, this has happened before in similar fashion.   Declaration of war is not the same as being invaded from a foreign nation.   Was France under a gov't when the revolution roared in the 1790s?   No, it was split into factions and committees.   Rogue groups could form to attack neighboring countries sans any type of organized gov't.   Venezuela is a mess and under dictatorship and of course there is no declaration of war but that doesn't mean there cannot be invasion by gangs when Biden doesn't secure the border and IF caught gang members released on parole.   Once released these gangs coalesce to organize on crimes to commit.  Use of this law vs this is exactly right to send back this criminals so the courts are not tied up for years, money wasted, and deterrence established.

[zigbee]

There was always going to be a fight about this, and Trump's team will need to prove that TdA is sanctioned by the Venezuelan government as some sort of attack on us. Given that Venezuela refuses to take them back, I would personally say that counts as some kind of incursion on the US by a foreign government. They may, or may not, have directed them to come here, but by refusing to take them back they are actively working against the US.

 Not sure they have to prove this.   The number of gang members caught, the crimes, the areas they worked in across the nation point to invasion.

[Alabuckeye]

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.

I'm not concerned with those you argue with on bashing judges.  I simply stating the law grants OR concerning a foreign nation vs a gov't.   There is a difference as I pointed out.   Again, this has happened before in similar fashion.   Declaration of war is not the same as being invaded from a foreign nation.   Was France under a gov't when the revolution roared in the 1790s?   No, it was split into factions and committees.   Rogue groups could form to attack neighboring countries sans any type of organized gov't.   Venezuela is a mess and under dictatorship and of course there is no declaration of war but that doesn't mean there cannot be invasion by gangs when Biden doesn't secure the border and IF caught gang members released on parole.   Once released these gangs coalesce to organize on crimes to commit.  Use of this law vs this is exactly right to send back this criminals so the courts are not tied up for years, money wasted, and deterrence established.

Ok….but there are specifics here. 

Venezuela is the nation/government in question. 
Is there a government in control?  Yes 
Since there is, it would seem that legally to use this act, proof must be shown that the gangs are working as an arm or in correlation with that established government. 

Same with any here from Iran or China.

[3rdgensooner]

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.

It is an interesting idea. There is no way this wouldn't go to SCOTUS though. I actually look forward to reading the decision. Personally, I think it should be OK to use but they need to have some guardrails so that it can't be used frivolously.

[zigbee]

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.

I'm not concerned with those you argue with on bashing judges.  I simply stating the law grants OR concerning a foreign nation vs a gov't.   There is a difference as I pointed out.   Again, this has happened before in similar fashion.   Declaration of war is not the same as being invaded from a foreign nation.   Was France under a gov't when the revolution roared in the 1790s?   No, it was split into factions and committees.   Rogue groups could form to attack neighboring countries sans any type of organized gov't.   Venezuela is a mess and under dictatorship and of course there is no declaration of war but that doesn't mean there cannot be invasion by gangs when Biden doesn't secure the border and IF caught gang members released on parole.   Once released these gangs coalesce to organize on crimes to commit.  Use of this law vs this is exactly right to send back this criminals so the courts are not tied up for years, money wasted, and deterrence established.

Ok….but there are specifics here. 

Venezuela is the nation/government in question. 
Is there a government in control?  Yes 
Since there is, it would seem that legally to use this act, proof must be shown that the gangs are working as an arm or in correlation with that established government. 

Same with any here from Iran or China.

Where does it say in this law a connection must be made to show the gov't is connected?  It says.... AGAIN...........Gov't OR nation.   I've presented to you TWO TIMES instances where a gov't is NOT in charge but rogue groups invaded or could invade.  Is it that hard to grasp?  We have groups in this nation who could invade Mexico without Trump blessing or connection.  No where in that law does it state BOTH gov't and nation.  OR is the key.   Your interjection of IT WOULD SEEM is where you are wrong.  If you can prove this I'm more than interested to read more and learn more from you.

[Alabuckeye]

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.

I'm not concerned with those you argue with on bashing judges.  I simply stating the law grants OR concerning a foreign nation vs a gov't.   There is a difference as I pointed out.   Again, this has happened before in similar fashion.   Declaration of war is not the same as being invaded from a foreign nation.   Was France under a gov't when the revolution roared in the 1790s?   No, it was split into factions and committees.   Rogue groups could form to attack neighboring countries sans any type of organized gov't.   Venezuela is a mess and under dictatorship and of course there is no declaration of war but that doesn't mean there cannot be invasion by gangs when Biden doesn't secure the border and IF caught gang members released on parole.   Once released these gangs coalesce to organize on crimes to commit.  Use of this law vs this is exactly right to send back this criminals so the courts are not tied up for years, money wasted, and deterrence established.

Ok….but there are specifics here. 

Venezuela is the nation/government in question. 
Is there a government in control?  Yes 
Since there is, it would seem that legally to use this act, proof must be shown that the gangs are working as an arm or in correlation with that established government. 

Same with any here from Iran or China.

Where does it say in this law a connection must be made to show the gov't is connected?  It says.... AGAIN...........Gov't OR nation.   I've presented to you TWO TIMES instances where a gov't is NOT in charge but rogue groups invaded or could invade.  Is it that hard to grasp?  We have groups in this nation who could invade Mexico without Trump blessing or connection.  No where in that law does it state BOTH gov't and nation.  OR is the key.   Your interjection of IT WOULD SEEM is where you are wrong.  If you can prove this I'm more than interested to read more and learn more from you.

You are making a distinction which I don’t believe applies to this specific case. Venezuela is not a failed nation. It is not a failed government. So the distinction you are trying to draw imo is invalid. 

As such, the language of the law…it would seem, to this reasonably intelligent mind that is not trained legally…..would require that the connection to the government of or the nation of Venezuela be made to apply the law in this case.

[zigbee]

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.

I'm not concerned with those you argue with on bashing judges.  I simply stating the law grants OR concerning a foreign nation vs a gov't.   There is a difference as I pointed out.   Again, this has happened before in similar fashion.   Declaration of war is not the same as being invaded from a foreign nation.   Was France under a gov't when the revolution roared in the 1790s?   No, it was split into factions and committees.   Rogue groups could form to attack neighboring countries sans any type of organized gov't.   Venezuela is a mess and under dictatorship and of course there is no declaration of war but that doesn't mean there cannot be invasion by gangs when Biden doesn't secure the border and IF caught gang members released on parole.   Once released these gangs coalesce to organize on crimes to commit.  Use of this law vs this is exactly right to send back this criminals so the courts are not tied up for years, money wasted, and deterrence established.

Ok….but there are specifics here. 

Venezuela is the nation/government in question. 
Is there a government in control?  Yes 
Since there is, it would seem that legally to use this act, proof must be shown that the gangs are working as an arm or in correlation with that established government. 

Same with any here from Iran or China.

Where does it say in this law a connection must be made to show the gov't is connected?  It says.... AGAIN...........Gov't OR nation.   I've presented to you TWO TIMES instances where a gov't is NOT in charge but rogue groups invaded or could invade.  Is it that hard to grasp?  We have groups in this nation who could invade Mexico without Trump blessing or connection.  No where in that law does it state BOTH gov't and nation.  OR is the key.   Your interjection of IT WOULD SEEM is where you are wrong.  If you can prove this I'm more than interested to read more and learn more from you.

You are making a distinction which I don’t believe applies to this specific case. Venezuela is not a failed nation. It is not a failed government. So the distinction you are trying to draw imo is invalid. 

As such, the language of the law…it would seem, to this reasonably intelligent mind that is not trained legally…..would require that the connection to the government of or the nation of Venezuela be made to apply the law in this case.

Venezuela is NOT a failed nation?  HUH?
https://www.thearticle.com/venezuela-fro...iled-state
https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/public...-country-0
You are wrong again.

There is no part of this law, and it very easy to read and understand, that connects gov't and nation as one in the same.  That is why the conjunction of OR is used.

Proof of invasion is in activities, crimes, arrests, numbers of people arrested.   There is a lot of proof.  

Are you saying these gangs randomly just wandered across the border and suddenly said, hey, it would be great to kill people, rape people, distribute drugs to kill people..........take over sectors or cities and be planted in many states......???   That there is no organized effort to bring in all these criminals?   Please, it's so obvious.

[Alabuckeye]

I'm not concerned with those you argue with on bashing judges.  I simply stating the law grants OR concerning a foreign nation vs a gov't.   There is a difference as I pointed out.   Again, this has happened before in similar fashion.   Declaration of war is not the same as being invaded from a foreign nation.   Was France under a gov't when the revolution roared in the 1790s?   No, it was split into factions and committees.   Rogue groups could form to attack neighboring countries sans any type of organized gov't.   Venezuela is a mess and under dictatorship and of course there is no declaration of war but that doesn't mean there cannot be invasion by gangs when Biden doesn't secure the border and IF caught gang members released on parole.   Once released these gangs coalesce to organize on crimes to commit.  Use of this law vs this is exactly right to send back this criminals so the courts are not tied up for years, money wasted, and deterrence established.

Ok….but there are specifics here. 

Venezuela is the nation/government in question. 
Is there a government in control?  Yes 
Since there is, it would seem that legally to use this act, proof must be shown that the gangs are working as an arm or in correlation with that established government. 

Same with any here from Iran or China.

Where does it say in this law a connection must be made to show the gov't is connected?  It says.... AGAIN...........Gov't OR nation.   I've presented to you TWO TIMES instances where a gov't is NOT in charge but rogue groups invaded or could invade.  Is it that hard to grasp?  We have groups in this nation who could invade Mexico without Trump blessing or connection.  No where in that law does it state BOTH gov't and nation.  OR is the key.   Your interjection of IT WOULD SEEM is where you are wrong.  If you can prove this I'm more than interested to read more and learn more from you.

You are making a distinction which I don’t believe applies to this specific case. Venezuela is not a failed nation. It is not a failed government. So the distinction you are trying to draw imo is invalid. 

As such, the language of the law…it would seem, to this reasonably intelligent mind that is not trained legally…..would require that the connection to the government of or the nation of Venezuela be made to apply the law in this case.

Venezuela is NOT a failed nation?  HUH?
https://www.thearticle.com/venezuela-fro...iled-state
https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/public...-country-0
You are wrong again.

There is no part of this law, and it very easy to read and understand, that connects gov't and nation as one in the same.  That is why the conjunction of OR is used.

Proof of invasion is in activities, crimes, arrests, numbers of people arrested.   There is a lot of proof.  

Are you saying these gangs randomly just wandered across the border and suddenly said, hey, it would be great to kill people, rape people, distribute drugs to kill people..........take over sectors or cities and be planted in many states......???   That there is no organized effort to bring in all these criminals?   Please, it's so obvious.

Then it should be a slam dunk in the courts. I’ll be watching.

[davebucknut]

Back to the thread title.

Some folks think that illegal aliens have MORE rights than US citizens.

100% free housing, medical, food, and college tuition.

Plus a lifetime get out of jail free card.

Oh but the due process!

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[ScarletHayes]

Every time a lawyer for a J6 defendant hears the violins over “due process” for illegals they probably find themselves throwing up a little bit in their mouths.  Good gravy, give me a friggin break with the theatrical drama.

[3rdgensooner]

Every time a lawyer for a J6 defendant hears the violins over “due process” for illegals they probably find themselves throwing up a little bit in their mouths.  Good gravy, give me a friggin break with the theatrical drama.

They all got due process and got off easy. Eff their scumbag lawyers and the J6 traitors.

[TroyKidd]

100 aliens should. 15 million can’t

[ScarletHayes]

Every time a lawyer for a J6 defendant hears the violins over “due process” for illegals they probably find themselves throwing up a little bit in their mouths.  Good gravy, give me a friggin break with the theatrical drama.

They all got due process and got off easy. Eff their scumbag lawyers and the J6 traitors.

In pre trial jail for an indefinite long azz time for walking around inside the Capitol?  Got off easy?  For what?  J6 was a joke that coincided with a mini riot started by who knows who.  The traitors inside the Capitol are far more likely members of our government, not someone taking a selfie near a statue.   

I want Bondi, et al to blow the lid off this thing once and for all.  Liz Cheney should hire a lawyer… yesterday.

[3rdgensooner]

Every time a lawyer for a J6 defendant hears the violins over “due process” for illegals they probably find themselves throwing up a little bit in their mouths.  Good gravy, give me a friggin break with the theatrical drama.

They all got due process and got off easy. Eff their scumbag lawyers and the J6 traitors.

In pre trial jail for an indefinite long azz time for walking around inside the Capitol?  Got off easy?  For what?  J6 was a joke that coincided with a mini riot started by who knows who.  The traitors inside the Capitol are far more likely members of our government, not someone taking a selfie near a statue.   

I want Bondi, et al to blow the lid off this thing once and for all.  Liz Cheney should hire a lawyer… yesterday.

Rioted and stormed the Capitol to stop certification of an election. They got off easy. Traitors, trash, and scum. Not a one of them would be missed by society.