what I don't understand on illegal entry and removal?

3,756 Views | 41 Replies | Last: 8 mo ago by Ellis Wyatt
Red Red Wine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:22a, 4/19/25
AG
Why was Biden's EOs to allow all these illegals into the country "legal with no due process", but Trump's EOs to remove them since they are here illegally being blocked by courts.

If it is known/shown these people are here illegally - I would argue they have ZERO rights to have "due process".

We are not the "World's Supreme Court". We are the United States Supreme Court.

Spare the bogus asylum claims drummed up by corrupt NGOs. Declare all applicants under these NGOs as invalid and remove everyone who has that paperwork.

I also understand that the least of us need protections, but so do the most of us. The least of us should be reserved for US citizens in a minority position being harmed by illegal activity. Not for people who flooded here illegally for the past 20 years.

That said: I have long advocated for a "worker ID card". You come to a border entry, take your picture and finger print, receive a US recognized ID that allows you to WORK (not vote!). Employers must pay into SS and Medicaid for these workers, but these workers don't receive US benefits. That money is for US citizens as foreign workers displace US workers and limit funding into these programs today.

They can come and go freely with the card as long as no crimes committed and no gang affiliations. You do NOT get full protection by US Courts. But, you do have regional courts prepared to hear cases of workers losing their ID just to make sure it is legitimate. You break US laws or affiliate with known bad actors and you are out.

Very frustrating to watch how corrupt and the depth of corruption in this country especially the courts. If the court system falls it won't be long for the country to follow.
Reply Quote
39
Burrus86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:35a, 4/19/25
AG
The crime rate was too low and regular American criminals are so "yesterday's news" to the Dems. This gave the world the opportunity to empty their oppressive prisons so that these new criminals could come to America for a fresh start….of raping, killing, trafficking, and theft.
Reply Quote
14
StandUpforAmerica
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 4/19/25
Reply Quote
53
HoustonAg9999
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:29p, 4/19/25
its truly amazing so-called conservatives and cms cant seem to understand this.
Reply Quote
13
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Red Red Wine • 1:29p, 4/19/25
AG
Quote:
Why was Biden's EOs to allow all these illegals into the country "legal with no due process", but Trump's EOs to remove them since they are here illegally being blocked by courts.


Liberals are only capable of critical thought when republicans are involved.
Reply Quote
4
HoustonAg9999
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Funky Winkerbean • 1:30p, 4/19/25
Funky Winkerbean said:
Quote:
Why was Biden's EOs to allow all these illegals into the country "legal with no due process", but Trump's EOs to remove them since they are here illegally being blocked by courts.


Liberals are only capable of critical thought when republicans are involved.
how is literally flying in illegals not against the constitution?
Reply Quote
12
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Red Red Wine • 1:32p, 4/19/25
AG
We used to have the Bracero Program which I thought ran quite well.
Reply Quote
2
TexAgs91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Red Red Wine • 1:42p, 4/19/25
AG
Red Red Wine said:
Why was Biden's EOs to allow all these illegals into the country "legal with no due process", but Trump's EOs to remove them since they are here illegally being blocked by courts.


Because some of these judges are corrupt anti-Americans and should be ignored.

It's like I keep saying, there's no reason some random mid-level judge in the judicial branch should be able to veto the head of the executive branch when it doesn't work that way going the other direction. That's a seriously unbalanced check & balance.
No, I don't care what CNN or Miss NOW said this time
Ad Lunam
Reply Quote
29
1 edit
Funky Winkerbean
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HoustonAg9999 • 4:23p, 4/19/25
AG
HoustonAg9999 said:
Funky Winkerbean said:
Quote:
Why was Biden's EOs to allow all these illegals into the country "legal with no due process", but Trump's EOs to remove them since they are here illegally being blocked by courts.


Liberals are only capable of critical thought when republicans are involved.
how is literally flying in illegals not against the constitution?
It's against his sworn oath of office to follow the laws of the nation.
Reply Quote
4
AggieVictor10
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:54p, 4/19/25
AG
What does the constitution say about due process?
Reply Quote
1
ts5641
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Red Red Wine • 6:22a, 4/20/25
Because Republicans/conservatives don't fight hard enough. It takes a lot to stand up to the left. Most don't have the stomach for it. Republican judges aren't activists. They tend to make rulings based on law and precedent not ideology.
Reply Quote
5
bobbranco
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieVictor10 • 6:51a, 4/20/25
AG
AggieVictor10 said:
What does the constitution say about due process?

Up until Trump, due process did not apply to those here illegally. The legal profession is trying to rewrite the laws, with the assistance of judges, to create more loopholes to insure more $ for their buds.
Reply Quote
4
Blue Chip
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:07a, 4/20/25
I talk with different Democrat Friends. Democrats are not on the same page, some are Left and others have no clue that their Party Left them. I have a hard time getting Lefties to tell me why exactly they want to flood our country with illegals. Even the most left says no one is trying to flood the nation, but he'll try to justify it. My older Democrat Friends just feed off MSNBC, doesn't even know there was a Border Crises.
Reply Quote
2
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobbranco • 3:55p, 4/20/25
AG
bobbranco said:
AggieVictor10 said:
What does the constitution say about due process?

Up until Trump, due process did not apply to those here illegally. The legal profession is trying to rewrite the laws, with the assistance of judges, to create more loopholes to insure more $ for their buds.
Are you sure that there have not been a number of SCOTUS decisions regarding the due process rights of legal and illegal aliens?
Reply Quote
5
AggieVictor10
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobbranco • 5:56p, 4/20/25
AG
bobbranco said:
AggieVictor10 said:
What does the constitution say about due process?

Up until Trump, due process did not apply to those here illegally. The legal profession is trying to rewrite the laws, with the assistance of judges, to create more loopholes to insure more $ for their buds.


Neat. Thanks for the response but what does it say about due process now?
Reply Quote
1 edit
AggieVictor10
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 5:57p, 4/20/25
AG
eric76 said:
bobbranco said:
AggieVictor10 said:
What does the constitution say about due process?

Up until Trump, due process did not apply to those here illegally. The legal profession is trying to rewrite the laws, with the assistance of judges, to create more loopholes to insure more $ for their buds.
Are you sure that there have not been a number of SCOTUS decisions regarding the due process rights of legal and illegal aliens?


To be fair, rulings of that sort seem pretty specific. My question earlier was just what the constitution says; genuine inquiry, as it seems like it would help drive the direction of the discussion.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieVictor10 • 6:53p, 4/20/25
Relevant to Feds:

Quote:
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.

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
Tramp96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 6:58p, 4/20/25
Im Gipper said:
Relevant to Feds:

Quote:
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.


So ANYONE who manages to sneak into our country is automatically afforded these rights, but they don't have these rights if we stop them at the border and turn them away?

So we afford rights to people who break the law, but don't afford them to someone who tries to go through the proper immigration process. Makes total sense.

Breaking the law should not be rewarded.
Reply Quote
10
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02p, 4/20/25
AG
Our court system is corrupted by radical extremists, with a helping of pathetic weak minded soft equivocating enablers. Very simple.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
BBRex
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tramp96 • 7:16p, 4/20/25
AG
Tramp96 said:
Im Gipper said:
Relevant to Feds:

Quote:
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.


So ANYONE who manages to sneak into our country is automatically afforded these rights, but they don't have these rights if we stop them at the border and turn them away?

So we afford rights to people who break the law, but don't afford them to someone who tries to go through the proper immigration process. Makes total sense.

Breaking the law should not be rewarded.


I'd be interested to know how many immigrants we were vetting and sending back in 1787.
Reply Quote
2
FCBlitz
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Blue Chip • 7:25p, 4/20/25
RUGuys4Real said:
I talk with different Democrat Friends. Democrats are not on the same page, some are Left and others have no clue that their Party Left them. I have a hard time getting Lefties to tell me why exactly they want to flood our country with illegals. Even the most left says no one is trying to flood the nation, but he'll try to justify it. My older Democrat Friends just feed off MSNBC, doesn't even know there was a Border Crises.


I have no Democrat friends unless they have demonstrated they are trying to win their party back. They are all emotional charge sheep. Who wouldnt support 1/3 of the things that if they simply applied critical thought. But they dont.
Reply Quote
1
AggieVictor10
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 7:26p, 4/20/25
AG
Im Gipper said:
Relevant to Feds:

Quote:
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.


Thank you!
Reply Quote
1
BTKAG97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 7:30p, 4/20/25
AG
Im Gipper said:
Relevant to Feds:

Quote:
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;
Isn't the deportation process a civil matter?
Quote:
Civil Proceeding:
Deportation hearings are held in immigration courts, which are civil courts, not criminal courts. This means the individual facing removal does not have the same legal protections as someone facing criminal charges.

There was another word - instead of civil - used but I can't think of it right now
Reply Quote
2
4 edits
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BTKAG97 • 7:34p, 4/20/25
Yes, but that "in any criminal case" applies to being a witness against oneself, not the due process clause.

Otherwise, there would be no due process available to you and I in a case by Feds just seeing civil penalties or trying to deny our rights.

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1
Red Red Wine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:36p, 4/20/25
AG
PERSON


Definition in the context of the US Constitution: an individual having legal status as a citizen of United States of America.


Person as defined by liberals: anyone with a pulse.
Reply Quote
5
BTKAG97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 7:39p, 4/20/25
AG
Im Gipper said:
Yes, but that "in any criminal case" applies to being a witness against oneself, not the due process clause.

Otherwise, there would be no due process available to you and I in a case by Feds just seeing civil penalties or trying to deny our rights.
Note the punctuation. You would be correct if there was another semi-colon after "HIMSELF" instead of a comma.

To help, I will re-add the portions separated by semi-colons:
Quote:
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.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BTKAG97 • 7:49p, 4/20/25
So under your reading, the Feds could fine citizens civilly without due process. The really think that's allowed?

You are not going to find any Federal Judge in America that believes due process only applies in a criminal case.


It would need to say:

nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law in any criminal case

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
valvemonkey91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 7:52p, 4/20/25
AG
eric76 said:
We used to have the Bracero Program which I thought ran quite well.


It ran extremely well as did Operation ***back
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
BTKAG97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 8:01p, 4/20/25
AG
Im Gipper said:
So under your reading, the Feds could fine citizens civilly without due process. The really think that's allowed?

You are not going to find any Federal Judge in America that believes due process only applies in a criminal case.

It would need to say:

nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law in any criminal case
My comments and questions are only regarding what was specifically quoted on this thread.

My oppinion on how civil issues should be handled are not pertainable, though in cases such as deportation, "due process" should not be as rigorous as that for criminal cases.
Reply Quote
Red Red Wine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBRex • 8:05p, 4/20/25
AG
1787?

Your vetting was to survive an ocean going vessel that was just as likely to sink as make it here.

Plus, even you would agree that until the US fully expanded from East to West shorelines immigration was essential to fuel Westward expansion.


But, once we were done expanding so too mass immigration is done.

It would be like owning a hotel and every room is occupied, then the govt decides in the middle of the night to flood your hotel with more guests that you have to pay for their welfare and give them a place to sleep. Where do you put them? How do you make it fair to those with a reservation and paying for their meals and rooms?


It is quite as simple as that. We simply can't afford anymore people illegally entering the country. You may be ok with it since they aren't in your house. But what happens when they are?
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BTKAG97 • 8:07p, 4/20/25
It's relevant because based on how you say the amendment should be read, it means NO due process for anyone in a civil case brought by the government. I know you don't think that's what the law is.


I'll tell you this much, you won't see any one from the Trump administration making that argument that due process requires a criminal proceeding.

Due process requires in deportation proceeding is much different than for a criminal cases and for good reason!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
2
BTKAG97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 8:17p, 4/20/25
AG
Im Gipper said:
It's relevant because based on how you say the amendment should be read, it means NO due process for anyone in a civil case brought by the government. I know you don't think that's what the law is.

I'll tell you this much, you won't see any one from the Trump administration making that argument that due process requires a criminal proceeding.

Due process requires in deportation proceeding is much different than for a criminal cases and for good reason!
That portion of the Constitution only refers to due process for criminal cases. While there should be due process for civil cases, that portion of the Constitution does not guarantee that right.

Until Saturday morning, when SCOTUS interfered in the deportation process, due process was handled by Civil Administrative Courts which simplified the legal process that you would normally see in a Federal court. The fear, as posted several times on this forum, is if deportation courts have to go through a more rigorous form of due process to be equivalent to Federal courts then the entire system will overload and collapse.
Reply Quote
1
Tramp96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BBRex • 8:27p, 4/20/25
BBRex said:
Tramp96 said:
Im Gipper said:
Relevant to Feds:

Quote:
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.


So ANYONE who manages to sneak into our country is automatically afforded these rights, but they don't have these rights if we stop them at the border and turn them away?

So we afford rights to people who break the law, but don't afford them to someone who tries to go through the proper immigration process. Makes total sense.

Breaking the law should not be rewarded.


I'd be interested to know how many immigrants we were vetting and sending back in 1787.


You do realize that we've passed a number of immigration laws since 1787, don't you?

Someone here illegally should not be afforded citizen's rights.
Reply Quote
1
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BTKAG97 • 8:30p, 4/20/25
Quote:
That portion of the Constitution only refers to due process for criminal cases.


You should call Pam Bondi. They aren't aware it this.

Quote:
While there should be due process for civil cases, that portion of the Constitution does not guarantee that right.


So your position is the constitution's due process clause does not apply to a Civil action by the Feds against a citizen? The only other due process clause applies to states in 14th amendment

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:33p, 4/20/25
Quote:
The fear, as posted several times on this forum, is if deportation courts have to go through a more rigorous form of due process to be equivalent to Federal courts then the entire system will overload and collapse.


That's not going to be the end result. And that's a great thing!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.