And for the love of all that is good in the world WHERE ARE THE CONSERVATIVES WHO KEPT SAYING WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION ALL THESE YEARS?
9 Likes
Perhaps partying in Charleston, SC, celebrating the dissolution of the Union for the sake of preserving their peculiar institution, the one that most mattered to them (and perhaps in its purely economic rather than property form still does?).
2 Likes
I’ve stated before that I, me, now understand better what Rule of Law, based on the Constitution means.
Vs rule by a Strongwoman’s whim.
Before Trump, I was a freeloader, just riding on Superwoman’s cape.
And, Now, I better understand tariffs. N trade agreements. “Free trade” n “Fair trade” are different. Whose definition is used, matters.
Trump is a harsh school mistress.
ralph
OT: I whistled, for Google, a tune that randomly popped into my head. Here’s what Google says I created:
1 Like
If you look at the deportation numbers done under Clinton, Bush and Obama, I really doubt if everyone was given “due process”. But I’m sure some here will justify the difference.
1 Like
Ummm… how about those people were deported to home countries. Whereas Trump is sending them to foreign prisons… HUGE DIFFERENCE.
5 Likes
You could say that about Bush because Republicans have always been trying to limit the Constitution to people they deem not worthy. But you can’t say that about Obama who reinstated the rights to everyone.
** What was Attorney General Mukasey’s agenda as it pertains to immigrants is still unclear (at least to some), however, what is evident is the simple fact that he believed that the Constitution and its protections does not extend to immigrants. That is why the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) welcomed the restoration of due process in the Immigration Court system when Attorney General Eric Holder withdrew the decision issued by former Attorney General Mukasey in Matter of Compean. This decision by Attorney General Holder did not come as a surprise. He had stated during his confirmation process that he would review the Mukasey decision and that he disagreed with its reasoning. And, while Attorney General Holder did not issue a substantive decision outlining his reasoning (he simply noted in the reversal that the constitutional issues relied on by Attorney General Mukasey were not necessary to the decision in the case), AILA on behalf of all of our members’ immigrant clients, is grateful for this restoration of a basic constitutional principle—Due Process, in the immigration court system.**
7 Likes
I had totally forgotten about that luminary. I remember Ashcroft, and the scene were he was arguing over the phone with the POTUS, from his hospital bed, because the POTUS wanted to do something entirely unconstitutional. And I remember Gonzales.
I do remember, the #43 regime insisting that the bill of rights only applies to citizens. Now, I know where that came from.
Steve
5 Likes
I do understand the constitution applies equally, but as I enumerated earlier, due process is different for different situations. The due process of a civil trial and a criminal trial are different. The due process for getting deported is different for a US citizen than for a tourist or a non-citizen, such as a person on student visa or an illegal immigrant. If the State Department issues a visa, it is with restrictions and caveats. The State Dept due process can constitutionally be “we allowed you in, we can kick you out, goodbye”
So, if I, as a US citizen, commit some heinous and get deported, that is unconstitutional and the SCOTUS will say so. I cannot be deported under any circumstance. A tourist, or visa holder or immigrant does not have the same due process I do. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional to deport anyone under any circumstance. Am I wrong?
Incorrect.
However, the judge did grant him “withholding of removal,” which is a form of relief for migrants who fear persecution, as explained by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Such a ruling prevents deportation to a person’s home country and allows that person the right to remain in the U.S. and work legally, but according to the American Immigration Council, “the government is still allowed to deport that person to a different country if the other country agrees to accept them.”
Now, off to watch Miami screw up the draft once again.
But only under specific circumstances, at least that is the way it used to be. That is why the Trump administration is revoking visa’s saying that people lied to them, by not telling them they liked Palistinians or by protesting peacefully in support of Hamas. While I do not like Hamas, I don’t think that is sufficient for anybody to be kicked out of the country. It would be the same if they started kicking people out because they supported Israil.
But that wasn’t what we were talking about Pete. What we were talking about is sending someone to a max security prison without due process. Locking someone up that hasn’t committed a crime. That is what is most egregious. Sending someone back to their home country isn’t the problem.
6 Likes
They are spinning those thought and speech crimes as 'pro-terrorist" and “anti-semitic”. Revoking someone’s visa and deporting them, is one thing. Shipping them off to a prison, for an indeterminate time, without legal due process, is an entirely different thing.
Steve
5 Likes
I think you are confusing the outcomes with the process.
Anyone located within the United States has the right to a certain level of process before the government can take actions against them. You are correct that the specific type of process that needs to occur can be different for different classes of people located in the country, but it is not correct to say that an immigrant does not have the same due process you do.
If the government tried to deport you or a visa holder, you both would have a right to appear before an immigration judge and assert defenses against their efforts to obtain a deportation order. You would assert that you can’t be deported because you are a U.S. citizen; the visa holder would assert something different.
As for Abrego Garcia, I think you’re also a bit mistaken. Like most people who are physically located in the country (absent certain exceptions not relevant to his case), he can’t be deported without a deportation order. The government sought a deportation order to send him to El Salvador, and that was denied, with the immigration judge ordering he couldn’t be deported to El Salvador.
That does not preclude the government from seeking a deportation order to send him somewhere else - but they still have to seek and obtain that second deportation order. They can’t just throw him out of the country without going through the process again. He might have defenses against being deported to the new country. The facts relevant to his immigration status might have changed since the 2019 hearing. The laws may have changed since 2019. He was entitled to an opportunity to present arguments to a judge before the new deportation efforts could be carried out.
9 Likes
What about deporting him to a safe place like a Maximum Security Prison in another country. Say El Salvador or Guantanamo Bay. Would that be acceptable without going before a judge?
1 Like
Of course not, as you know. Well, certainly not El Salvador.
If someone’s properly in detention in U.S. custody, they probably can be moved from one facility to another without having to get a judge’s permission for it. I don’t know if moving them to Gitmo, which is possibly still U.S. jurisdiction and might not technically be “another country” for these purposes, is permissible.
4 Likes
Yet they moved them all out of Gitmo because of the reasons you stated. Also the reason Gitmo was used in the beginning is because it wasn’t on U.S soil. A black op site they said.
1 Like
The Fifth Amendment says:
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.
Putting someone in prison is deprivation of liberty, regardless where the prison is. So, unless SCOTUS agrees that non-citizens have no protection in Shiny-land, or that the regime’s excuse that providing due process would take too long or cost too much, no-one can be tossed in prison, without due process.
Steve
6 Likes
Supporting someone to the extent of allowing them to break the law makes you culpable and only brings your character into question. There is a reason we have the rule of law.
A judge has been arrested for “interfering” with a deportation action. Reading between the lines a bit, seems the person in question is facing a battery charge, so the local judge wants the guy tried.
Steve
2 Likes
All those thousands of students who were going to be deported, for some trivial, or imagined, infraction? Nevermind.
Steve
6 Likes
Gotta give credit when it’s due. The dude clearly knows what can happen when you don’t pull out soon enough. I think Don Jr. and Eric probably taught him that lesson.
3 Likes
Federal jurisdiction supersedes local jurisdiction. When the judge found out that ICE was there, she took the defendant and his lawyer to her private chambers and tried to let them out the back door. That is actively obstructing justice. Meanwhile, the two people he had beat severely enough to go to the hospital, we left in the court watching their assailant being whisked away to safety. Odd juxtaposition there.
It seems there is a desire here to not talk about the past and “whatabouts”, but if you can throw someone in jail for trespassing in the capital, even if videos showed they were peaceful, caused not harm and even waved at the capitol police stationed in the halls, then it seems it is ok to arrest someone actually obstructing justice. (Yes, there were people that should have been punished severely for Jan 6, but a lot should have been let go with a warnings. Guess people need to send strong signals).
As I noted, with a reference", a judge gave a deportation order with the restriction that he could not be sent to El Salvador, but he can still be deported elsewhere without a second due process. I will agree that he should not have been sent there and that Trump could easily get him back. They should get him, deport him to GITMO or elsewhere.
1 Like