Due Process

[AUFAN78 3,943]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It was stupid to the extent it played into Trump's hand.  And it was stupid.  But it existed at all because Trump has created such an extreme, divisive atmosphere.  And at least Waters is not POTUS:

 

Donald J. Trump

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!

 

 

 

So I am not a Trump voter, nor necessarily a Trump guy although I support our president as always. But the guys words just don't offend me the way they do the overly sensitive and emotional distraught person. IIWII. 

[AUFAN78 3,943]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not like it is now.  This is worse than Viet Nam.

IMO that is due to social media and MSM. They could stop the anti-Trump campaign today and things would progress rapidly.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

12 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The divide is growing. Trump has kicked it into a higher gear. 

He has a lot of help. 

[HVAU 673]

27 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think there is plenty of rhetoric on both sides I would categorize as "not a good thing right now." Look no further than Maxine's latest. Love to hear ones thoughts on her stupidity. 

I haven't read them yet, but I will.

Not defending what I haven't read, but the POTUS can move markets with words, can damage global and domestic stability with words.  A POTUS that uses words cavalierly is one that diminishes the importance and seriousness of the office.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

4 hours ago, bigbird said:

Just a question.

Do you(general) believe that non US citizens should be afforded the protection and rights guaranteed by our constitution?

The Constitution specifically guarantees them due process. That’s the issue here. Not voting rights.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

Agreed, but once identified, should they continue to be protected by our constitution?

The 14th Amendment draws the distinction between citizens and all persons. All have due process and equal protection rights:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We have asylum laws. There’s the right to be heard.

[bigbird 60,580]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The Constitution specifically guarantees them due process. That’s the issue here. Not voting rights.

Who said anything about voting rights?

[AUDub 11,204]

54 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

IMO that is due to social media and MSM. They could stop the anti-Trump campaign today and things would progress rapidly.

Right. I’m sure if the folks on the left were nicer, the pedophile pizza parlor horse hockey would go away. 

[AUFAN78 3,943]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Right. I’m sure if the folks on the left were nicer, the pedophile pizza parlor horse hockey would go away. 

Good grief. Here is an example I hope you can digest.

 

[TexasTiger 13,136]

10 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Who said anything about voting rights?

You posed this question:

Just a question.

Do you(general) believe that non US citizens should be afforded the protection and rights guaranteed by our constitution?

I was just drawing the distinction between the rights they are afforded and an example that demonstrated they don’t have all the same rights.

Pardon me for wasting my time engaging you. Carry on slapping your head and killing brain cells, Coach.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I support due process for illegal immigrants. Even illegal immigrants have a right to a fair trial; however, due process in the span of 20 days in order to avoid family separation is absurd. But the only other option besides separating families after 20 days is the failed catch and release policy. I support due process but putting a 20 day limit on it is just not practical.

When you have over 40,000 people apprehended at the border in one month, you can't expect due process for all 40,000 in the span of 20 days. Our courts and legal system is already burdened with U.S. citizens who commit crimes but now we're trying to give due process in a 20 day span to 40,000 illegal immigrants at the southern border in order to avoid separating families and creating media outrage.

But instead of getting tougher on illegal immigration, most simply want to give in and reward illegal immigrants with handouts and offer them multiple programs to help them......... Gee, you think incentivising illegal immigration by giving in and rewarding bad behavior will stop or curb illegal immigration?  Before you  quote me and respond, that's a rhetorical question. But the answer that seems to given by those on the left is that we need to show compassion and just give them what they want and continue the this cycle of immigration because "That's who we are as a country".

I agree we can still show compassion to those who are already here that have resided in the U.S. illegally for years. I wouldn't have a problem with grandfathering those already here into the system but at some point we need a cut off point to stop rewarding illegal immigration. We can't continue to embrace failed policies that continue to not fix our immigration system and compound them by rewarding illegal immigration with no cut off point/sunset. 

Instead what we need to do going forward is incentivize legal immigration and reward those who come here legally. If you want to benefit from our country's resources then you need to do it the legal route. I hope we make it easier for legal immigrants to be rewarded and get things like scholarships, government assistance with housing, food, etc...... 

I just wish we could have this discussion without emotional arguments being the prevailing argument that gets made. I have emotions too, I don't disregard them but I don't let my emotions govern me. We still have to have laws and a legal system that doesn't reward bad behavior/breaking the law. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Sorry for the delay@HVAU. Deportation proceedings, in general, should conform to the requirements of procedural due process, i.e., elements of fairness, however, due process in this context does not place upon the government any obligation to utilize the least burdensome means to accomplish its goal.  Nonetheless, an alien subject to said proceedings should be afforded a fair hearing, consistent with the Fifth Amendment. In theory, to deny the opportunity to present opening statements/closing arguments in such proceedings could constitute a due process violation. 

However, deportation proceedings are not criminal proceedings and the entrapments of procedural guards afforded to the criminally accused are not necessarily required for deportation proceedings. In the same vein, lack of notice/opportunity to be heard does not necessarily give rise to a due process violation, ESPECIALLY when there's a lack of injury to the alien party involved. Reason being, deportation proceedings are more analogous to administrative law than they are criminal law.

This is where the rubber meets the road - When the government violates rules/regulations that govern deportation, it may constitute a denial of due process re the deportee. But in order to establish  a denial of due process in a deportation proceeding, it must be shown that the deportee was prejudiced by a particular deficiency. Why is this? Because a mere procedural error does not constitute an actionable want of due process. Courts have found prejudice when such defects may have resulted in a deportation that otherwise would not have occurred. 

The intermingling of hearing and investigative functions in one particular officer in deportation proceedings does not constitute a denial of due process either, absent a showing that said officer is disqualified by personal bias or prejudice. The BOP is extremely high. With that said, failure obo the Board of Immigration Appeals to exercise discretion in determining whether an application for suspension of deportation should be granted is a denial of due process, thus constituting an actionable want of due process. 

If you have any follow up questions re anything I've said, I am happy to provide you with citations. 

Does this answer your question? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The 14th Amendment draws the distinction between citizens and all persons. All have due process and equal protection rights:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We have asylum laws. There’s the right to be heard.

The 14th Amendment only obligates states, not the federal government. But, the Fifth Amendment does. See what I said to HVAU though. Due process applications to deportation proceedings are operatively different than said applications in criminal proceedings. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

22 hours ago, AUDub said:

The rights that the constitution guarantees are, in general, guaranteed to all persons, not to all citizens, and thus apply to anyone who is a person, regardless of whether or not they are citizens. 

The procedural rights guaranteed to the accused in criminal proceedings, as expounded upon judicially under the 5th Amendment, do not apply in full force to all proceedings, including deportation proceedings.

Seriously, immigration law is its own animal... including procedure. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Sorry for the delay@HVAU. Deportation proceedings, in general, should conform to the requirements of procedural due process, i.e., elements of fairness, however, due process in this context does not place upon the government any obligation to utilize the least burdensome means to accomplish its goal.  Nonetheless, an alien subject to said proceedings should be afforded a fair hearing, consistent with the Fifth Amendment. In theory, to deny the opportunity to present opening statements/closing arguments in such proceedings could constitute a due process violation. 

However, deportation proceedings are not criminal proceedings and the entrapments of procedural guards afforded to the criminally accused are not necessarily required for deportation proceedings. In the same vein, lack of notice/opportunity to be heard does not necessarily give rise to a due process violation, ESPECIALLY when there's a lack of injury to the alien party involved. Reason being, deportation proceedings are more analogous to administrative law than they are criminal law.

This is where the rubber meets the road - When the government violates rules/regulations that govern deportation, it may constitute a denial of due process re the deportee. But in order to establish  a denial of due process in a deportation proceeding, it must be shown that the deportee was prejudiced by a particular deficiency. Why is this? Because a mere procedural error does not constitute an actionable want of due process. Courts have found prejudice when such defects may have resulted in a deportation that otherwise would not have occurred. 

The intermingling of hearing and investigative functions in one particular officer in deportation proceedings does not constitute a denial of due process either, absent a showing that said officer is disqualified by personal bias or prejudice. The BOP is extremely high. With that said, failure obo the Board of Immigration Appeals to exercise discretion in determining whether an application for suspension of deportation should be granted is a denial of due process, thus constituting an actionable want of due process. 

If you have any follow up questions re anything I've said, I am happy to provide you with citations. 

Does this answer your question? 

Me trying to understand this

 

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

49 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

When you have over 40,000 people apprehended at the border in one month, you can't expect due process for all 40,000 in the span of 20 days

 

28 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Seriously, immigration law is its own animal... including procedure. 

Nola, is the figure 91 correct? I saw WP article saying upward.  How do we deal these numbers?

Could the supporters of "catch and release" or "open borders"  post bond on the illegal immigrants until Due Process ran its course. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

How do we deal these numbers?

We build a wall.

9 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Could the supporters of "catch and release" or "open borders"  post bond on the illegal immigrants until Due Process ran its course. 

In theory, if illegal immigrants had a bond set, then sure. Likewise, the same supporters want to pay more in taxes, for example, they can do that per free will also.... but it aint gonna happen.  

[AUDub 11,204]

47 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The procedural rights guaranteed to the accused in criminal proceedings, as expounded upon judicially under the 5th Amendment, do not apply in full force to all proceedings, including deportation proceedings.

Seriously, immigration law is its own animal... including procedure. 

Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Hell, I’m well aware expedited removal is a thing. They can expedite proceedings all they want, but as long as crossing is an offense they must give the barest minimum due process.

[AUDub 11,204]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

We build a wall.

A wall is 2000 miles of security theater. Billions down the drain for symbolism and nothing more. 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Hell, I’m well aware expedited removal is a thing. They can expedite proceedings all they want, but as long as crossing is an offense they must give the barest minumun due process.

Crossing border illegally is not crime against the United States, and thus the following proceeding isn’t a criminal proceeding. When most people think of 5th amendment, they are thinking in context of criminal procedure. I think that’s where many get confused.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

A wall is 2000 miles of security theater. Billions down the drain for symbolism and nothing more. 

 

But it answered the question 

[AUDub 11,204]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But it answered the question 

How good of an answer is it if it’s not really a solution?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, AUDub said:

How good of an answer is it if it’s not really a solution. 

We would no longer have 40k people apprehended at the border a month. He didn't ask about financing or whether democrats would be happy. 

[SaltyTiger 7,908]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

How good of an answer is it if it’s not really a solution?

Maybe it is a bad solution or decision. Hell, even a bad decision better than nothing. Obvious that previous administrations have sat on their ass and done nothing or we would not be discussing. Kudos to President Trump on the new "crisis".

[homersapien 11,513]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

So I am not a Trump voter, nor necessarily a Trump guy although I support our president as always. But the guys words just don't offend me the way they do the overly sensitive and emotional distraught person. IIWII. 

That sounds like something a psychopath might say.