patrick.net

Patrick says

"People"?

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

DeficitHawk says

I think he is an excellent showman, and knows how to work the cameras, and find messaging that resonates with his supporters, like the many of the people on Patnet.

Trump supporters are generally liberal or libertarian. Or independent. The left has gone so far left it's insanity. I would not call this a right wing site based on user comments. I'd say most here just don't want illegals here. Get them out. Birth Certificate. Passport. You can't get those as an illegal. That's your due process. End of discussion. Don't have one or the other you're gone which is 100% legal.

I really don't get this story and why you defend it via due process. This guy doesn't get due process. Along with many others.

I like that you fight for your beliefs, but the guy can and was removed legally. Due process isn't bad for American citizens, we'll agree there. He got a free flight home after beating his partner up, what's the problem? Not free as American citizens paid for it, but either way I'm not sure the problem here. Talking in circles at this point.

5th amendment says "No person" and the supreme court has found that this applies to non citizens, INCLUDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, though it differentiates between 'Arriving' and 'Already here' in this regard.

WookieMan says

Don't have one or the other you're gone which is 100% legal.

I really don't get this story and why you defend it via due process. This guy doesn't get due process. Along with many others.

I like that you fight for your beliefs, but the guy can and was removed legally.

Someone earlier in this thread asked why I had dropped off and stopped participating for a while. I said it was because I felt like I was talking to rocks and it was unsatisfying for me.

Wookie, I've cited the laws, supreme court decisions, etc for why what you are saying is not true. But you continue to say it. You have not addressed the laws or supreme court decisions I cited. Those decisions ARE the law. And the supreme court has even ruled that THIS SPECIFIC CASE was not legal and ordered Trump to facilitate his return so the mistake can be corrected. You have not provided any explanation for why you still feel this is legal, despite all of the research and sources I have provided to you. You WANT it to be legal. But it isnt!

You have to do more to justify your position than just wishing it were true and repeating it over and over. You have to acknowledge that there are actual laws, and an actual constitution that has real, defined meaning. Otherwise you are just a rock in this conversation.

I'm done talking to rocks.

@DeficitHawk you do not have the right to evict invaders from your own house, not even from your bedroom.

You must allow them to remain in your bedroom until a court of law can hear the case. Sadly, the courts are quite backed up, so it could be several years.

The police also have no right to intervene on your behalf until due process has been observed.

There is theory, and there is practice. Theory is modified by practice. A prime example is "music theory," or "jazz theory." It's just a synthesis/generalization of practice. Musicians fucking around and creating new shit a hundred years ago. Now people pay $$$$ to study the Cliff's Notes to get a degree in it.

So to with the law. It is a codification of what people agree is necessary to preserve a society and order. When the law fails, practice takes up the slack. Yeah none of it is legal, but it is necessary, and ultimately, the law embraces what is necessary. Call it "meta-law" - it used to be called "common law" until lawyers and judges decided that they, and they alone, knew what "the laws" are.

EDIT: Clausewitz said it best, "War is politics by other means."

DeficitHawk says

I'm done talking to rocks.

I posted a source that is an immigrant activist group. They buried it at the end of their page. Even they admit you can get booted immediately.

Go to Costa Rica. Ex Pats have to do a border run every 6 months, usually to Nicaragua. No other country allows what we do. Is there due process in parking your car at the airport and it gets booted if you don't return? No. They made your property unusable. This happens to US citizens everyday.

Yet you think someone here illegally is allowed due process? I posted a link. Just because precedent was set in a lower court doesn't mean it's law. The government has a right to boot you, even if an asylum seeker. We don't have to accept anyone into this country.

Call us rocks, but I don't want any woman beater in this country. Immigration be damned illegally in this case. I don't want a US citizen woman beater here.

DeficitHawk says

Someone earlier in this thread asked why I had dropped off and stopped participating for a while. I said it was because I felt like I was talking to rocks and it was unsatisfying for me.

As mentioned earlier due process isn't necessary in case of an invasion. Millions of illegals pouring across the border every year certainly qualifies as one. Once we're down to hundreds or a thousand total the US may be able to grant most or all of them a trial

Patrick says

you do not have the right to evict invaders from your own house, not even from your bedroom.

You must allow them to remain in your bedroom until a court of law can hear the case. Sadly, the courts are quite backed up, so it could be several years.

The police also have no right to intervene on your behalf until due process has been observed.

Are you talking about squatters rights? Funny we actually had to deal with a squatter once.

The analogy to squatters rights is sort of true. If someone is invading your house and you deal with it promptly, you can defend yourself, and repel them from your home.. no courts needed. But if you let them take up residence and they are living in your property for a period of time unchallenged or with permission, they gain rights and it becomes harder to remove them. I do'nt know all the laws for squatters, but there is a good analogy there to immigration laws. I've heard of short term rentals where people stay longer than 30 days, and there are a bunch of laws that kick in after 30 days that make eviction hard.

In California, if squatters live in your property for 10 years, and you do not assert your ownership rights against them, they can become the owner of the property. Some people were trying to do this to get houses back during the subprime crisis.

WookieMan says

I posted a source that is an immigrant activist group. They buried it at the end of their page. Even they admit you can get booted immediately.

Were you referring to the "Expedited removal for arriving immigrants" section of the 1996 immigration reform laws?

mell says

As mentioned earlier due process isn't necessary in case of an invasion. Millions of illegals pouring across the border every year certainly qualifies as one. Once we're down to hundreds or a thousand total the US may be able to grant most or all of them a trial

You mean the Alien enemies act? Courts have ruled it can not be used for these deportations because it only applies to an organized military force. I am sure there are more court cases to come on this topic, but as it stands, use of this statue for immigration enforcement is not legal.

Personally I don't think that should be used in peacetime. (I'm not so sure we should have used it in WW2 either).

DeficitHawk says

mell says

As mentioned earlier due process isn't necessary in case of an invasion. Millions of illegals pouring across the border every year certainly qualifies as one. Once we're down to hundreds or a thousand total the US may be able to grant most or all of them a trial

You mean the Alien enemies act? Courts have ruled it can not be used for these deportations because it only applies to an organized military force. I am sure there are more court cases to come on this topic, but as it stands, use of this statue for immigration enforcement is not legal.

Personally I don't think that should be used in peacetime. (I'm not so sure we should have used it in WW2 either).

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump as long as they get notice, they can also challenge it, but don't necessarily need to remain on US soil for that. Or if they do they obviously can be detained for the time being. If you're coming into the country to wreak havoc and partake in organized crime you are de facto an enemy combatant / terrorist. The sheer number of offenders justifies the use of The Alien enemies act (also confirmed by SCOTUS) as combating an invasion.

mell says

The sheer number of offenders justifies the use of The Alien enemies act (also confirmed by SCOTUS) as combating an invasion.

Quoted for troof

I agree as well.

It's obviously an invasion.

mell says

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump as long as they get notice, they can also challenge it, but don't necessarily need to remain on US soil for that.

This is the current status of the case, per SCOTUS and the district courts as far as I know.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf

The supreme court has issued an order not to deport any of the people in this case based on alien enemies act while it is being litigated, and the lower court has ruled that the alien enemies act does not apply. I am sure there will be further appeals.

Do you know of any ruling more recent than this?

Patrick says

I agree as well.

It's obviously an invasion.

But it is worse than that. The Biden Democrats weaponized immigration: ignoring the law, trafficking people, and their facilitation and exploitation of the illegal immegrants is both treasonous and a war crime.

Patrick says

Nice cartoon, but would you like to try to add some correct facts to it?

If you are startled by a burglar in your home and feel threatened, you can use force, including deadly force to defend yourself. You have no duty to retreat and no duty to avoid a confrontation (At least thats true in California)

If you have a tenant, or resident who is residing in your property and you want them out, there are all kinds of eviction hoops to work through and they do have rights.

If you have a squatter who has lived in your property for 10 years, you are at risk of losing ownership rights to them.

It seems like you are conflating a burglar scenario with a tenant rights scenario.

Edit: A better analogy to the "maryland man" case would be if you had a vagrant come in and sit on the couch, and the homeowner DIDNT confront him about it... the homeowner sat down next to him and said 'hey, yeah, whatever". Instead the vagrant stayed in the house for years and years, lived normally, got married, and raised kids in the house... and now the homeowner has decided he wants the guy to leave. But he's become a tenant. The homeowner will have to use eviction proceedings.

If the homeowner had confronted him about it promptly, he had every right to demand the person to leave, and escalate the confrontation to compel the person to leave... But if the homeowner allows the person to stay and turn into a long term tenant, the person gains rights.

Its the same with immigration law. The analogy is reasonable.

DeficitHawk says

A better analogy to the "maryland man" case would be if you had a vagrant come in and sit on the couch, and the homeowner DIDNT confront him about it..

A more correct analogy would be while the homeowner was on vacation for two weeks, a local advocate for the poor gave a vagrant a lock pick, some groceries, and pointed him toward the vacationer's abode. When the vacationer returns the vagrant refuses to leave and the advocate brings in attorneys to press squatter's rights. All laws against breaking and entry are ignored while strict adherence and liberal determination is applied to squatter's rights.

The part where Biden flew at least 320,000 into the country would be analogous to the local sheriff opening the doors to several vacationer's home and then using city attorneys to fight any evictions, Biden giving SS benefits to these flown in illegals is like the sheriff requiring the homeowners to keep paying the utility bills for the squatters.

DeficitHawk says

and the lower court has ruled that the alien enemies act does not apply.

So lower court judges get to rule our country. Not voted in. You're talking about appointed justices. POTUS can do what he wants against illegals. Did you vote for those judges? I didn't. I voted for Trump. Not some random NY or CA judge.

WookieMan says

So lower court judges get to rule our country.

I would guess the administration will appeal and ultimately SCOTUS will have to decide this one. Just my guess.

In the mean time, the ruling from the lower court is the law of the land. (its Texas for this case... tell me you didnt read the ruling without telling me you didnt read the ruling...)

DeficitHawk says

This is the current status of the case, per SCOTUS and the district courts as far as I know.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf

Yes and you're interpreting it wrong to suit your narrative. SCOTUS has given the Trump administration broad rights for deportations without court case, here's a good summary:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=253229

mell says

Yes and you're interpreting it wrong to suit your narrative. SCOTUS has given the Trump administration broad rights to deportations without court case, here's a good summary:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=253229

The SCOTUS ruling in that link is from the 1940's usage of the AEA during WWII. Not the current case. Relevance?

The link i gave is the ruling for the current AEA case, which the court finds is NOT valid because it is NOT a war.
"As for the activities of the Venezuelan-directed TdA in the United States, and as described in the Proclamation, the Court concludes that they do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA"

DeficitHawk says

mell says

Yes and you're interpreting it wrong to suit your narrative. SCOTUS has given the Trump administration broad rights to deportations without court case, here's a good summary:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=253229

The SCOTUS ruling in that link is from the 1940's usage of the AEA during WWII. Not the current case. Relevance?

The link i gave is the ruling for the current AEA case, which the court finds is NOT valid because it is NOT a war.
"As for the activities of the Venezuelan-directed TdA in the United States, and as described in the Proclamation, the Court concludes that they do not fall within the plain, ordinary meaning of “invasion” or “predatory incursion” for purposes of the AEA"

That's a court interpretation, not a ruling. The former case stands and individuals need to bring separate habeas corpus cases for themselves to have any right to challenge, in the meantime they can be deported. Maybe MD will rule in their favor, most red states certainly won't, most will end up where they already are. SCOTUS is not ordering and end of the deportations, only saying individuals may have a case if they challenge separately, any broad (class action style) cases are moot.

That being said, I'm fine with individuals bringing habeas corpus cases for themselves one by one. These cases, if taken up, will take time and allow the Trump administration to finally secure the border, and I expect 80% at least to be rejected anyways. What happened in the past decades, esp. under the xiden administration was a full on invasion and treason. Similar things have been happening in European countries with mixed results in fighting back, but the tide is turning. Luckily the US grants the president broader powers in such cases, and it's clear that a decisive majority of Americans is backing Trump.

HeadSet says

The part where Biden flew at least 320,000 into the country

Are you referring to the humanitarian parole program? Those people were not illegal. They have legal status.

Or what are you referring to?

Well @DeficitHawk, we have a real damn problem don’t we? America that is. And just who is responsible? The responsible party is the one who left the border open. We’re going to have to break a few eggs. So solly. Trump has declared an emergency. We have been invaded for decades and it’s time to do something about it. Political extremism is just getting started over the last 16 years imo. We ain’t seen nothing yet. Get on board and support those who are trying to take out the trash. Don’t get me wrong, I think America is toast no matter what.

DeficitHawk says

yawaraf says

Do you believe that the "Maryland Man" did not receive due process?

I think he did not receive due process. As I understand, he was rounded up and deported without a deportation order from a judge.

I just want people to get a chance to stand in front of a judge and get a judges order before the administration carries out a deportation/incarceration. And the administration should follow the judges order.

It’s an emergency. So solly. Cannot do.

Are you seriously going to act like the us administration didnt want the people we brought them incarcerated and intentionally arrange for that outcome?


Has this assumption been adjudicated?

yawaraf says

DeficitHawk,

I hope you stick around, I appreciate that you answer all pertinent questions.

The courts concluded that he was an illegal alien, but you have pointed out they did not issue a deportation order. I am not at all familiar with immigration laws. Is a deportation order a mere technicality or are there some reasons for which an illegal might not be deported?

If a deportation order must follow after establishing an alien's ineligibility to stay, why was it not issued?

Because political lawfare.

Seriously, the nicest thing I can say about @DeficitHawk is that he/she is a dishonest person.

The worst kind of dishonesty is lying to oneself.

He claims to fear a totalitarian government, a lawless government. But Biden failed to enforce the law, secure the border, and deport illegal immigrants. In other words, for the past 4 years we had a lawless totalitarian government that forced states and cities to deal with an influx of millions of illegal aliens and did he complain. Not to my knowledge.

If he truly feared a lawless and totalitarian government he would have said so years ago.

PeopleUnited says

But Biden failed to enforce the law, secure the border, and deport illegal immigrants. In other words, for the past 4 years we had a lawless totalitarian government that forced states and cities to deal with an influx of millions of illegal aliens and did he complain.

That is why the Left was cynically quick to demonize the label "anarcho-tyaranny" as far right or Nazi speech.

.

Glock-n-Load says

Seriously, the nicest thing I can say about DeficitHawk is that he/she is a dishonest person.

And the nicest thing you could do is urinate on the grass at his grave site.

.

Where was the due process being forced to wear a mask and take your kids out of school during covid? It was illegal. Teachers still got paid and didn't do anything for 2 years. Stop with the due process shit. I'm a citizen, pay massive taxes. I don't give a flying fuck about an illegal that didn't pay taxes, probably got food stamps and other government handouts I'm paying for.

The reality you're living is obscene. Don't give me exact amount. I paid $73k in federal taxes. What did you pay? We just finished tax time so you should know. Illegals should have no rights. They don't pay in SS funds. Medicare. Or anything. I'm cover 4-5 families lives for what? Start throwing in property taxes. Due process is earned through citizenship. I don't care if you felt endangered in your home country. You're a pussy and ran. I don't want those people in my country.

mell says

What happened in the past decades, esp. under the xiden administration was a full on invasion and treason. Similar things have been happening in European countries with mixed results in fighting back, but the tide is turning. Luckily the US grants the president broader powers in such cases, and it's clear that a decisive majority of Americans is backing Trump.

Exactly. Where is our due process as citizens of this country? I know he won't answer the question. Our land is being stolen. People are dying from drugs. Elected officials are not enforcing laws. People are being killed and raped. Let me know when I should give a flying fuck about an illegal that gets a free flight back home. Get out.

They poke the bear enough, there will be violence and it won't be pretty. Hispanics should be a touch worried. I won't do anything violent, but people are getting pissed.

Glock-n-Load says

Seriously, the nicest thing I can say about DeficitHawk is that he/she is a dishonest person.

Well mama always said....

I dont think ive given you any reason to say this.. But whatever, you can have your opinion.

You don't have to trust me, and I dont have to trust you. But we both have to follow the laws of the land. All I am doing here is advocating that we follow the laws of the land. Everyone else here is advocating to break the laws and violate our constitution. Shrug...

WookieMan says

Where is our due process as citizens of this country?

Citizens of the country also get due process. We are entitled a court hearing for crimes. Im not asking for anything different.

Pretty clear I'm talking to rocks at this point.

DeficitHawk says

HeadSet says

The part where Biden flew at least 320,000 into the country

Are you referring to the humanitarian parole program? Those people were not illegal. They have legal status.

Or what are you referring to?

This was an end run by Biden to lower the optics of border crossings. That "Humanitarian Parole" had vetting rules which were promptly ignored along with Covid jab requirements. It was also not designed for mass import but to give the DHS lattitude to grant parole on a case-by-case basis, and then only for a period of one to two years. Again, this parole is temporary, and the parolee is required to leave when the parole expires. DHS has since terminated the program and all such paroles have expired. However, since the rules about paperwork were ignored (along with filing fees, need to be a benefit to the US, and having a financial sponsor) it will be had to locate these parolees.

Same deal. Rules about entering the US are blatantly ignored and even subverted by the government that is supposed to enforce the laws, but somehow the rules about removing the illegals, even the opinions of lower court judges, must be strictly adhered to. It is not about the law, as the law was ignored to allow millions of illegals in, and the only concern is now stopping them from being removed.

"We now can ignore the law because they ignored the law in the past" is not a winning argument in my book. I want the country of laws, period. If the previous admin ignored the law -prosecute, made a lasting example out of the fucks.