patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

This doesn't mean that the people are not entitled due process..

LOL, it's literally addressing why they don't need judicial review as part of Due Process and the decision of the Executive following a law of Congress is enough.

MolotovCocktail says

Don't continue with his trolling bullshit, AmericanKulak

You're right.

DeficitHawk says

At least AmericanKulak is citing some real SCOTUS rulings in his response which I appreciate, although I can not understand the conclusions he reaches by reading the rulings.

It literally says the Judiciary is to defer to the political branches about who has to go bye-bye, and limits Due Process in immigration unless some other factor was at play (ie ICE beat the deportee to half to death for no reason). Literally that Judges like Boasberg have no authority to review decisions the political branches make based on Foreign Relations and their perception of National Defense. In fact the Judges say they won't debate whether Communism is a threat or not, and that it isn't their job to decide that, and the Political Branches made up their mind and that's that.

HeadSet says

It seems that the 90% of illegals that simply skip their scheduled immigration hearings had their due process but forfeited it.

Yep, and the Obama-Biden Activists will "decide" that voluntarily skipping your due process means you still didn't get it. Not that you voluntarily forfeited your due process.

So illegals will just keep skipping hearings endlessly. "But your honor, Noviamata skipped 5 hearings."
"Well, schedule his 6th. Eventually Noviamata Perrocena should appear to get his due process."
"What if he skips that one?"
"You want a contempt charge, Border Patrol Lawyer? Then you schedule his 7th. Muhahahahahah"

That's the next step if Trump gives one inch. I've seen way too much of this shit.

AmericanKulak says

LOL, it's literally addressing why they don't need judicial review as part of Due Process and the decision of the Executive following a law of Congress is enough.

That's not how I read it at all. That whole section 1 is addressing whether the court should invalidate the Alien Registration Act on the basis of it being outside of congressional authority, or unconstitutional. The plaintiffs tried to argue that permanent residents have a right to remain in the country same as citizens and cant be removed without violating the 5th amendment. But the court didnt agree. The court says "No, we wont invalidate that law. We recognize congresses broad authority in setting immigration laws, and we don't see why this law is unconstitutional.. permanent residents can be deported if congress says so". Section 1 is NOT addressing enforcement procedures or the details of these cases at all. Its just addressing the validity of the law itself.

The next sections 2 and 3 deal with enforcement procedures used in the case, and find that due process was satisfied. The Courts conclusion is that the law is constitutional, and the enforcement in the case met due process standards. It does NOT say courts wont review due process disputes in immigration cases.

I really can not read this and get the same conclusion you got, even after reading it several times.

AmericanKulak says

Yep, and the Obama-Biden Activists will "decide" that voluntarily skipping your due process means you still didn't get it. Not that you voluntarily forfeited your due process.

I dont agree with that at all. Also, Im ok with them being held in detention until a hearing is held if people are worried about them disappearing. If there is cause to believe they are violating immigration laws, then there is justification for them being detained until hearing.

Hearings should be held promptly if possible, so there isnt a huge backlog of detained people.

DeficitHawk says

citing some real SCOTUS rulings in his response which I appreciate, although I can not understand the conclusions he reaches by reading the rulings.

Are you an attorney? Do you even know one closely? You don't know what you're talking about.

Talk about why you think it's okay for an MS-13 gang banger, wife beater and illegal to be in this country? I'd deport Americans that beat women. That's why I was vocal on this site about TurtleDove. 1+1 did not equal 2.

People can think this has turned into a right leaning site. I disagree with a lot of people here. But almost all active users are pretty damn smart in my opinion.

Reality is you came here illegally. Someone likely hired you illegally and they should be fined or jailed. Due process is bull shit. Don't do illegal shit, it's not complicated. Stop talking about laws when people know they're breaking them. Fuck 'em they're gone. I've never gone to jail. It's not difficult to follow laws.

WookieMan says

People can think this has turned into a right leaning site.

Interesting what is now considered "right wing." Most on this site are against the mass import of cheap labor and are for tariffs to protect American jobs. Those are two classic Dem ideas that have been adopted by Trump.

HeadSet says

WookieMan says
People can think this has turned into a right leaning site.

Interesting what is now considered "right wing." Most on this site are against the mass import of cheap labor and are for tariffs to protect American jobs. Those are two classic Dem ideas that have been adopted by Trump.

Agreed. I'm just saying we have honest discussions and I think most here are smart people. Hawk has been a member since 2011, but comes out of the woodwork when Trump starts doing stuff. Let Trump do his work. Most here will give him shit if he does a bad job. I guess where was he when Biden was running a shit show and destroying our country?

These tariff and some policies are going to be hard to swallow short term. We need to get illegals out of this country though. He's a lame duck and I think the long term play is good. I currently don't know anyone bitching about not having work. I'm not everyone, but if times were tough I'd hear about it from friends. I haven't.

Sending illegals back might be good for their countries as well. They likely learned skills here. If we trade with them transportation is less than China and could be to any destination in 48-72 hours from Mexico at least. Supply chain cuts massive costs and can be changed quickly. Not 2-4 weeks.

Side note, I want American jobs, but Mexico is a massive positive thing for Americans. Border under control. Less costs to American business. Shipping on water is cheap, but time is money and you have a tighter supply chain. Waiting 2 weeks plus for a product and then realize no one is buying it. That's a massive problem. That hurts American business more than getting slave labor.

@AmerikanKulak I think I understand your perspective on some of your points.

Let me try to see if we have consensus on a few things... Tell me if you agree with this:

Immigration and deportation is an administrative process. Immigration courts, immigration judges, immigration hearings, etc.. are all part of the administrative process, and are NOT carried out by the judicial branch. They are part of the DOJ and report to the executive branch. They have their own administrative process to follow, which does not require federal (judicial branch) judges. The federal courts and SCOTUS accept that proper administrative procedure constitutes due process, as long as it is followed. Federal courts will not take an appeal based solely on the premise that the immigrant wanted a judicial branch judge to review the case instead of an immigration judge or administrative proceeding.

Federal courts will get involved if there are constitutional or legal questions such as:
-Is the law being enforced constitutional?
-Are the administrative procedures legal and constitutional, sufficient to ensure due process?
-Were the procedures followed in the case in question?

If the answer to all of those questions is 'yes' then the federal courts won't re-litigate the case. They will accept the outcome of the administrative procedure. If the answer to any of them is 'no', the federal courts will review the case and have authority to intervene.

WookieMan says

Hawk has been a member since 2011, but comes out of the woodwork when Trump starts doing stuff

I come out of the woodwork when I see a topic of interest to me where I think the prevailing attitude on patnet is on the wrong side. I feel motivated to be the contrarian voice when I see people getting a false sense of consensus simply because they are conversing with a like-minded subset of the population in an echo chamber.

Otherwise, I just come here to browse the funny pictures.

WookieMan says

People can think this has turned into a right leaning site.

DeficitHawk says

I feel motivated to be the contrarian voice when I see people getting a false sense of consensus simply because they are conversing with a like-minded subset of the population in an echo chamber.

You have to prove the false sense of consensus. You haven't done that. Binging up one lower case is not consensus at all.

Illegal is illegal. I get due process because I'm a citizen. Illegals don't because they aren't within the realm of the constitution regardless of a lower courts judgement. You gotta get past that.

Why keep arguing? The goal isn't to be persuaded by logic, reason, fact or law. It is to keep hammering the propaganda hoping for a harvest of fools.

.Yipee Ki-Yay!

https://t.me/tribunalsandexecutions/513120

https://rumble.com/v6t6imp-newark-mayor-ras-baraka-arrested-for-trying-to-break-into-illegal-alien-det.html

https://x.com/Slatzism/status/1919501084571455840

Importing men from backwards, misogynistic cultures - the left should, in theory, oppose this.

Importing people hyper-religious conservative countries - the left should, in theory, oppose this.

Importing people who have no respect for the environment or animals - the left should, in theory, oppose this.

The left has a stronger, more logically consistent case against immigration than the right does. That is precisely why being anti-immigration used to be a firmly leftist position.

But today, it will get you excommunicated from any leftist circle. And why? Because George Soros came along in the 80s and brutally raped every single leftist org until they were buckbroken into the perfect, unwitting stewards of global capital.

Now we are stuck listening to shitlibs talk about why it's more important to be “kind” to brown people than it is to stop little girls from getting groomed by Pakistanis.

And this goes back to the stupid cookie drawing. The rich guy with the stack of cookies would NEVER tell you to hate the foreigner.

He’d try to convince you the foreigner is a net benefit to your society. That he brings good food and culture and pizzazz.

And when that stopped working on you, he’d tell you the foreigner is better than you, and that more foreigners are needed because you’re too lazy and stupid to accept a crumb instead of a whole cookie.

Put him/her/zer on ignore.

DeficitHawk says

Immigration and deportation is an administrative process. Immigration courts, immigration judges, immigration hearings, etc.. are all part of the administrative process, and are NOT carried out by the judicial branch. They are part of the DOJ and report to the executive branch. They have their own administrative process to follow, which does not require federal (judicial branch) judges. The federal courts and SCOTUS accept that proper administrative procedure constitutes due process, as long as it is followed. Federal courts will not take an appeal based solely on the premise that the immigrant wanted a judicial branch judge to review the case instead of an immigration judge or administrative proceeding.

Partially.

1. Per the Constitution Immigration is wholly the domain of the elected Legislature. Not just who may come to the US, not just illegal, but also resident aliens, is wholly and solely up to the Political Branches, as multiple SCOTUS rulings have confirmed.
1a. There are also National Defense/Security of the Republic and Foreign Policy reasons cited by SCOTUS to give the Executive and Congress full powers over deportation.
1b. SCOTUS has even allowed denaturalization of naturalized citizens.
1c. SCOTUS has accepted that immigration OFFICERS and OFFICIALS, such as ICE, not only DOJ judges or administrative courts, can deport persons without a full judicial hearing.
1d. SCOTUS has ruled ceaselessly without exception that they never interfere with Foreign Policy reserved to other branches unless serious conflicts with other laws are present. And then, it is only for them to untangle the conflict, not to rule against one Policy or another
2. Congress has determined that membership in ideological organizations such as Anarchist, Communist, or Organized Crime, is an of itself a valid reason for deportation. And the status of such membership can be determined solely and wholly by Immigration Officials and the Executive Branch without a US Federal Judge having a full legal hearing.
2b. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952) explicitly upheld the Smith Act, and determined that the status of aliens, legal or illegal, the 5th Amendment "Due Process" does not require a full judicial hearing unless some other right has been violated, such as allegations of Torture under the No Cruel or Unusual Punishments rubric.
2c. Again, Due Process for Deporting aliens does not require a full legal hearing by a US Judge.
2d. That includes if it happened more than 100 miles from a border crossing.
3. The ACLU and various Pro-Mass Migration Groups are trying to work around the established SCOTUS standard by running a propaganda and judicial activist campaign, misleading the Public, pressuring leadership, and trying to encourage lower Federal Judges to require hearings that was explicitly rejected by the SCOTUS is multiple rulings

WookieMan says

Illegal is illegal. I get due process because I'm a citizen. Illegals don't because they aren't within the realm of the constitution regardless of a lower courts judgement. You gotta get past that.

And because the Constitution places immigration laws and enforcement, along with foreign policy, wholly and solely under Congress and the President. The Judiciary has no powers in those areas. SCOTUS has decided many times that only the commands of the executive following the laws of the legislature are required to deport, not a full legal hearing into the merits of each individual ordered deported. This is well settled law, in fact, SCOTUS has been firm on this since the time of President Addams.

The left-wing and globalists are trying to use Judicial Activism to create right for a full hearing for every single deportee, and more broadly create the FALSE CONCEPTION that the Judiciary is some FINAL REFEREE in any and all matters regardless of domain. From Environment to Immigration to National Defense. Many Leftists honestly believe that Ana Reyes had the right to instruct the Executive on what military readiness includes and excludes.

If you are a member of Tren de Agua, you leave, and that is 100% up to DHS/ICE officials, not judges. There is nothing for a judge to determine, since the Foreign Policy and Immigration powers are outside the scope of the Judiciary entirely. Only if, say, a deportee was beaten senseless and kept in a cell for months would the court have the right to hear the case at all

WookieMan says

Illegal is illegal. I get due process because I'm a citizen. Illegals don't because they aren't within the realm of the constitution regardless of a lower courts judgement. You gotta get past that.

This statement is still wrong. It was wrong the last 99 times you said it, and its still wrong on the 100th. I have cited the cases that established it (in the other Maryland Man thread). You have not even tried to establish a basis in law or fact for this statement... Because there is none. You have to stop repeating a lie.

Illegal immigrants are entitled due process, with the exception of 'arriving' immigrants, who are not.

I support Trump’s efforts to rid America of all immigrant invaders.

AmericanKulak says

If you are a member of Tren de Agua, you leave, and that is 100% up to DHS/ICE officials, not judges

Congress can absolutely pass laws to ban groups of people from immigration. Executive branch can absolutely act in accordance with those laws. Still, administrative process must exist which allows for due process, and the judicial branch CAN intervene if due process is not maintained. Administrative process will be accepted as due process, but only if it is followed. The executive does NOT have a blank check authority to deport anyone they want without due process!

You keep citing the SCOTUS case of Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952). If the judiciary had no jurisdiction to ensure due process was maintained, why did they spend 2 of 3 sections of their opinion analyzing whether due process had been maintained?

In the maryland man case, why do you think SCOTUS ordered the administration to facilitate the return of 'maryland man'?

The executive branch actions on immigration ARE subject to judicial review by the judicial branch if proper procedures to enable due process are not being followed, or if the laws they are enforcing are not constitutional.

If you are saying the executive branch has final authority to deport whomever they choose and is not subject to judicial review on the basis of due process, I disagree, and so does SCOTUS, in the very case you are citing among others.

Legal Sesame Street for the Cloward Piven legal wannabes.

https://t.me/SGTnewsNetwork/92959

Immigration Nationality aCt pdf

DeficitHawk says

Still, administrative process must exist which allows for due process, and the judicial branch CAN intervene if due process is not maintained

Okay, I'm done. SCOTUS has ruled specifically that the decision of executive officials is due process enough, given the total power granted to Executives and Congress to manage foreign relations and immigration and their need for flexibility and that being in the US is a privilege, and revoking that privilege does not require due process in front of a judge. I believe I even quoted the exact remarks above.

Because deportation is a wholly political policy matter, and the Constitution is explicit in this, there is nothing for a judge to rule on.

We're not normalizing giving judges the right to second guess Congress and the Executive in foreign affairs and immigraton.

The Founding Fathers based the US Constitution and Bill of Rights on being the antithesis of what they endured under the British monarchy and based on historic lessons learned from authoritarian governments of Europe.

So its not just criminal in nature, but also administrative such as protection of an individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (which includes ownership of private property).

There should be already processes or regulations to comply with when conducting deportations of those who have been given some level of status by the US federal government.

Or there are no clear cut rules and procedures to follow, so the executive branch has a lot of flexibility with regards to deportations ?

But as we discussed, how do you redress the anarcho-tyranny AND bad faith effects of the Birdbrain Biden administration which granted status without any fair and reasonable vetting of criminal immigrants such as those engaged in gang activities ?

Even if you do have emergency hearings in a 24/7 immigration court, you are likely dealing with a Soros-style immigration judge.
.

So if someone from Venezuela is on temporary protected status (TPS) because they sought asylum from political persecution, what happens if that person is arrested in a night club for being associated with gang activity ?

Does the regulations for TPS state they have to be found guilty in a criminal court to be deported ?

And can they still maintain TPS while they appeal the conviction ?

AmericanKulak says

Okay, I'm done. SCOTUS has ruled specifically that the decision of executive officials is due process enough, given the total power granted to Executives

This is not right. I dont agree. You are confusing the treatment of 'arriving'/'entrant' immigrants with the rights of people already here. They are not the same.

I agree that administrative procedure can satisfy due process, but the executive/congress does NOT have the authority to adopt procedures that abandon due process for immigrants already here. (They can limit due process for the 'Denial of entry on arrival' scenario.)

I've cited the supreme court cases, I'll do it one last time:
Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953):

"It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101 (1903); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 339 U. S. 49-50 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 344 U. S. 598 (1953). But an alien on the threshold of initial entry stands on a different footing: "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned."

Its clearly summarized here, with the prior cases referenced. Illegal aliens, once established inside of the US are entitled due process and the executive may not deprive them of it. Arriving immigrants are different, and may be excluded without meeting the standard of due process.

Your interpretation that the executive has final say, can act without the standards of due process, and is not subject to judicial review for immigrants already here does NOT fit with the straight reading of the SCOTUS decision above.

I don't know why you wont acknowledge that.

Ceffer says

He is wrong. He should read the case I've cited above.

AD says

So if someone from Venezuela is on temporary protected status (TPS) because they sought asylum from political persecution, what happens if that person is arrested in a night club for being associated with gang activity ?

From my reading on these topics, it is pretty clear congress has broad authority to set exclusion standards for classes of immigrants. They can order the removal of people who meet certain standards of gang affiliation, or certain standards of criminal history. That is totally within the power of congress to do, and the executive branch to enforce.

The deportation proceedings may be administrative and conducted by Executive branch personnel, but they still need to meet the standard of due process, and properly evaluate whether the person falls into the exclusion category as well as any other applicable laws. Once they make a determination, they can order and act on deportation.

These cases will only be challenged in federal court if the proceedings fail to meet the due process standard, or if the law itself is unconstitutional.

Even we lefty's (me at least) are not trying to stop the government from enforcing immigration laws, we just don't like to see people justify abandoning due process when due process is entitled. Stephen Millers quote above is clearly trying to normalize executive actions without due process. This should be rejected. The fact that many pat-netters are actively defending this sort of mindset is shameful.

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales.

Ceffer says

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales.

We should end asylum period.

AD says

because they sought asylum from political persecution

For asylum cases, it is important to recognize that congress has passed laws on when people should be given asylum. Asylum is not the result of 'activist judges and birdbrain Biden'... it is the law as passed by congress. If congress also wants to exclude certain categories of people, then congress should make clear what the law is when a person qualifies for both exclusion and asylum at the same time.. which one takes precedence? Congress has the authority to declare the answer to this question.

There is a UN convention on asylum that USA are signatories to... so however the laws get written, they need to comply with that (assuming we don't withdraw from the UN conventions). I think that there is probably latitude for congress to make laws excluding the classes of criminals they want to without running afoul of the UN conventions.

Ceffer says

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales

Congress can make whatever laws they want regarding asylum. There is UN convention on it, so if we wish to remain signatories to the UN conventions, our laws would need to comply with the UN conventions. Within that constraint, congress can make whatever permissive or restrictive laws they want. And we could also chose to withdraw from the UN conventions and then make whatever laws they want unbounded by the UN.

Whatever laws congress passes... that's the laws we should be following. Not just "do whatever Steven Miller wants to do today".

Next, remove 'Habeus Dickus' for trannies.

To satisfy those who are harping about illegals' "due process", fill a stadium with the illegals, bring in a judge and he can read the deportation orders over the PA system.

FUCK them ALL, deport them ALL.

clambo says

To satisfy those who are harping about illegals' "due process",

You are wrong to advocate violating our laws and constitution. I can not agree with you.

You are wrong to advocate the invasion of our country, subversion of the electoral process through the mass of illegal bodies for redistricting and illegal voting, the immense tax burden illegals impose, the competition for housing which prevents Americans from forming families, and the crushing effect on wages for the lower classes of US citizens.

Ceffer says

The concept of 'asylum' has become virtually meaningless through abuse and fraud. If anything, proof should be required before 'asylum' is granted, not by showing up on the border on the basis of self assertion and spun tales.

This is what the Lefties like DeficitHawk and RWSGFY want exploited with a Democrat administration or at least Soros-style immigration judges.

So what do you do when the Birdbrain Biden administration acted in bad faith ? You have to take extreme measures to deport immigrants who should have never been granted status or any protections within the USA. They should have remained in Mexico.

But go back to the debates in 2020 when Birdbrain Biden said he's going to open the border and let them all in who were being held in Mexico.

The "mean Trump tweets" suburban female voter such as in Atlanta voted for Birdbrain Biden regardless of this, or Biden's reckless fiscal and foreign policies.

.

Patrick says

You are wrong to advocate the invasion of our country, subversion of the electoral process through the mass of illegal bodies for redistricting and illegal voting, the immense tax burden illegals impose, the competition for housing which prevents Americans from forming families, and the crushing effect on wages for the lower classes of US citizens.

Yes, how much of the population in California that is counted by the Census Bureau is illegal immigrants ? California is nearly all Democrat as far as Congressional representatives.

Sounds like DeficitHawk is from the same sleeper cell of “Farmer Lost”!
Backed by Jihadi funding and supporting traitors.