Trump wants to eliminate Due Process

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 19:35
VIEWED: 21130
PAGE 3 of 13

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

1KIKI

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JJ:
Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)

Detention or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the exclusion or expulsion of Chinese aliens is valid.

The United States can forbid aliens from coming within their borders, and expel them from their territory, and can devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting such persons upon executive or subordinate officials, but when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

1KIKI

Monday, June 25, 2018 9:20 AM

"No, you're just deflecting. We're talking about Trump wanting to eliminate due process."

I'm discussing the TOPIC, which in part is the right to due process and Constitutional protections. How meaningful is that right in general?

If Obama deprives actual US citizens of due process and Constitutional protections, do you think it's a problem?

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, June 25, 2018 1:28 PM

Quote:

As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights.

What ruling was in 1896?
Other than ruling on punishment beyond deportation.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, June 25, 2018 1:55 PM

Quote:

Don’t forget Clark v. Martinez (2005), where Scalia, of all justices, wrote the opinion and reiterated the right to immigrant due process in a 7-2 decision.

More lies?
Clark v. Martinez (and Benitez) clarified limited protections for a limited subsection of Immigrants (Immigrants can be Naturalized Citizens, Admitted Aliens, Inadmissible Aliens, Illegal Aliens, etc.). The ruling clearly stated the Court did NOT grant all Constitutional Rights to Inadmissible Aliens.
Clark v. Martinez also clarified that the Zadvydas ruling had not applied Due Process Right to Inadmissible Aliens.

Instead of your nonpertinent Judicial nonsense, try finding a ruling germane to the topic.
Due Process of Criminal Illegal Aliens.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, June 25, 2018 1:59 PM

Good well thought out points. No meds for me thank you very much.

Back to the topic at hand. Here's the thing, just like the Asylum thing:
which requires the subject to be on American soil for it to take affect;
so too is the Due Process aspect of the Constitution.

Were I to be arguing the case, I would bring that very thing up. We are on
American soil, 2. We are applying American law (hence the misdemeanor:
illegal entry into the US), ergo the above applications would also trigger
due process.

It would stand to reason, that if Trump, in his penchant for being right
irregardless of the law, that he would follow suit in other matters. Who
needs a judge when "I alone can fix it." This is the message that he is sending. Remember who we are dealing with here. A wanna-be dictator.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
And now for something really different, no courts, no DUE PROCESS for immigrants.

Oh, I can't wait for the responses to this. Bring it!

SGG

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-deport-illegal-immigrants-
no-judges-court-cases-2018-6
I wonder where "Due Process" is derived from.
In the original Constitution? Nope.
How about Amendments? There we go. Once in the Fifth Amendment, and then copied in the Fourteenth Amendment - which applies protections from State Governments as duplicates of the protections from Federal Government. Which is the protection afforded under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment is one of The Bill of Rights, which are afforded to CITIZENS of these United States.

Mexico is not one of the States mentioned.
Honduras is not one of the States.
Criminal interlopers are not U.S. Citizens.

SGG has been on quite the rant lately. Except every post he has in his delusional rant he makes a new thread. Some people really should stay on their meds.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, June 25, 2018 2:05 PM

Thank you RF........Jordon shoots, he scores!

That would be Game, Set and Match! Checkmate! Yahtzee!
As Vincent Gambini would say, "I got no more use for this guy!"

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001):

"Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

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.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, June 25, 2018 2:06 PM

RF, once again.....Icing meet cake.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Don’t forget Clark v. Martinez (2005), where Scalia, of all justices, wrote the opinion and reiterated the right to immigrant due process in a 7-2 decision.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, June 25, 2018 2:12 PM

The answer, my Dear Watson, is elementary. It's in his tweet.
They went before a judge. He wants to bypass that little step.

And the barber says...................Next.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, you got me: Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens are entitled to "due process"? If you think they're entitled to some sort of "due process", WHAT process are they entitled to?

I would say that if they are prisoners they're entitled to having their basic human needs met: Food, water, shelter, sleep, sanitation, medical care, protection from harm. I suppose we look to the Geneva Convention on how they recommend treating prisoners of war for guidance on how to treat prisoners in general. There's nothing that says that they should have air conditioning or televisions or psychotherapy.

As far as "asylum" is concerned, I personally think that this is a concept that was stretched FAR beyond its original intent, and DOES NOT include victims of gang violence or domestic violence.

Quote:
The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the refugee) is a person who is outside that person's own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_asylum

However, each nation crafts its own policy on asylum-seekers.

Personally, I think we should keep recognizing and accepting asylum seekers, but stop being cynical and manipulative (like Obama was) and restrict asylum to people who meet the original definition. This would probably exclude 95+% of people currently asking for asylum today.

I return, once again, to FIRST, DO NO HARM. If we stop making other nations such hellholes (by violating a lot MORE rights than those due migrants, starting with right to life) then we won't have such a migrant problem to begin with.

A number of years ago, on this board, I committed to listing every single American "intervention" in foreign nations since about 1900. The list, as I recall, was 70+ long. It was quite an education for me, and disheartening in the extreme. I'll see if I can find those posts, I think it would be an eye-opener.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

1KIKI

Monday, June 25, 2018 2:19 PM

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/case.html

Wong Wing v. United States

The United States can forbid aliens from coming within their borders, and expel them from their territory, and can devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting such persons upon executive or subordinate officials

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, June 25, 2018 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Good well thought out points. No meds for me thank you very much.

Back to the topic at hand. Here's the thing, just like the Asylum thing:
which requires the subject to be on American soil for it to take affect;
so too is the Due Process aspect of the Constitution.

Were I to be arguing the case, I would bring that very thing up. We are on American soil, 2. We are applying American law (hence the misdemeanor: illegal entry into the US), ergo the above applications would also trigger due process.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
And now for something really different, no courts, no DUE PROCESS for immigrants.

Oh, I can't wait for the responses to this. Bring it!

SGG

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-deport-illegal-immigrants-
no-judges-court-cases-2018-6
I wonder where "Due Process" is derived from.
In the original Constitution? Nope.
How about Amendments? There we go. Once in the Fifth Amendment, and then copied in the Fourteenth Amendment - which applies protections from State Governments as duplicates of the protections from Federal Government. Which is the protection afforded under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment is one of The Bill of Rights, which are afforded to CITIZENS of these United States.

Mexico is not one of the States mentioned.
Honduras is not one of the States.
Criminal interlopers are not U.S. Citizens.

SGG has been on quite the rant lately. Except every post he has in his delusional rant he makes a new thread. Some people really should stay on their meds.

Are you even trying to make sense?
What circumstances are you talking about?
If a person has intentionally committed the Federal Crime of Illegally Entering the country, then they are Illegally on American soil. Not a Resident Alien. Not an Admissible Alien. Not any category which is granted Constitutional Right of Due Process.
Or can you not read?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE