AOC

[Jaybird1980]

If only we had a way to know beforehand that a person will commit a crime. Then we could prosecute them before anyone is harmed. Eh. Maybe someday.

View attachment 183535

Maybe sooner than you think.

 

[Flash-hider]

If only we had a way to know beforehand that a person will commit a crime. Then we could prosecute them before anyone is harmed. Eh. Maybe someday.

View attachment 183535

They already have that mapped out. Conservatives, gun owners, Trump supporters, nationalists, climate deniers, Christian's, plus more. Being identified as a participant in any of these groups will get you an automatic "criminal" designation.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The Constitution, as written, does not give the Federal government any authority to control immigration.

Really?
Art 1 Sec 9 seems to disagree.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Me to. No sobriety check points either than right since I don't drink? I know, somebody kills somebody but lets not set up "checkpoints" and just say screw it. Where is the line?

Yep, no sobriety checkpoints.

Due process for illegal aliens is to put them back on the other side of the border. PERIOD. End of story. There`s nothing complex here. We don`t need to waste resources at all.

No. That should be the end result of due process. A person commits a crime, after due process the punishment for said crime can be enacted.

 

[BugI02]

While we're getting rid of CBP random checkpoints and sobriety check points, can we also get rid of being searched and groped by TSGhey as well?

 

[KLB]

While we're getting rid of CBP random checkpoints and sobriety check points, can we also get rid of being searched and groped by TSGhey as well?

Sure. They are probably even more useless

 

[Shadow01]

Really?
Art 1 Sec 9 seems to disagree.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Yep, no sobriety checkpoints.

No. That should be the end result of due process. A person commits a crime, after due process the punishment for said crime can be enacted.

And full containment of those waiting due process should be mandatory until their status has been determined. Sheriff Joe used ”tent” cities and bread and water for years successfully. We should be doing the same along the entire length of the Rio Grande until this issue is resolved.

 

[BugI02]

And months spent in chain-gang detention awaiting adjudication would certainly be a greater deterrent to illegal entry than catch and release

 

[BugI02]

Sure. They are probably even more useless

Thousands Standing Around

 

[KLB]

Thousands Standing Around

I like that one better than the first

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And full containment of those waiting due process should be mandatory until their status has been determined. Sheriff Joe used ”tent” cities and bread and water for years successfully. We should be doing the same along the entire length of the Rio Grande until this issue is resolved.

What does the Constitution and SCOTUS say about bail? You do also realize that US citizens have been detained correct?

 

[Shadow01]

What does the Constitution and SCOTUS say about bail? You do also realize that US citizens have been detained correct?

We have citizens that have been detained in DC without bail and due process now. Many that probably have incorrect charges or even false charges against them. Seems perfectly reasonable we do the same at the border. After all based on the lack of out cry and lack of action by the rest of the citizens, I conclude this behavior is acceptable for the definable future. If it’s not, we can always apologize after the fact and expect forgiveness and understanding in the unintended mistake.

 

[jamil]

Really?
Art 1 Sec 9 seems to disagree.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Yep, no sobriety checkpoints.

No. That should be the end result of due process. A person commits a crime, after due process the punishment for said crime can be enacted.

That's a pretty narrow application though. Courts have ruled that the Constitution implies that congress can make laws regulating immigration though. So I guess it doesn't matter so much what the constitution says. As a practical matter it is what the courts say it is. See Row V. Wade.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

We have citizens that have been detained in DC without bail and due process now. Many that probably have incorrect charges or even false charges against them. Seems perfectly reasonable we do the same at the border. After all based on the lack of out cry and lack of action by the rest of the citizens, I conclude this behavior is acceptable for the definable future. If it’s not, we can always apologize after the fact and expect forgiveness and understanding in the unintended mistake.

I'll disagree they are being held without due process, they have access to their attorneys and the courts. SCOTUS has ruled that someone may be held without bail under certain circumstances and on a case by case basis. No blanket no bail laws.

That's a pretty narrow application though. Courts have ruled that the Constitution implies that congress can make laws regulating immigration though. So I guess it doesn't matter so much what the constitution says. As a practical matter it is what the courts say it is. See Row V. Wade.

Yes and no. The importation is a very narrow application I'll agree, the immigration not quite so much.

 

[jamil]

I'll disagree they are being held without due process, they have access to their attorneys and the courts. SCOTUS has ruled that someone may be held without bail under certain circumstances and on a case by case basis. No blanket no bail laws.

Yes and no. The importation is a very narrow application I'll agree, the immigration not quite so much.

Well, the courts agree with you at least.

 

[gregr]

There is too much wrong in this post to even begin. Fail, totally.

 

[gregr]

Really?
Art 1 Sec 9 seems to disagree.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Yep, no sobriety checkpoints.

No. That should be the end result of due process. A person commits a crime, after due process the punishment for said crime can be enacted.

 

[gregr]

Really?
Art 1 Sec 9 seems to disagree.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Yep, no sobriety checkpoints.

No. That should be the end result of due process. A person commits a crime, after due process the punishment for said crime can be enacted.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Any explanation on the laughter? Or is that the limit of your ability to reply? Or perhaps you are simply unable to refute what I posted but still felt the need to respond?

 

[flatlander]

No. If they know who the criminal is, go get them. No random or blanket stopping people hoping you might catch a bad guy. It's really not that hard to comprehend. I don't want your brand of authoritarianism anymore than I do a progressives brand. Give me my freedoms.

My brand of freedom is stopping the ****ers AT THE BORDER by all means necessary. Do that and you wouldn't need to do much else. Too bad the people lack the willpower to do it.

Until we do that we need to step up on all the companies that employ them as factory workers, construction etc. We need to enforce the laws we have on the books TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. When they are found to be illegal, bus them straight back to the fortified border. We are all paying for it and we shouldn't be.

We talk about what we do when people trespass (illegally) on our property but want to play nice when they enter our country. **** that

 

[KG1]

That's a pretty narrow application though. Courts have ruled that the Constitution implies that congress can make laws regulating immigration though. So I guess it doesn't matter so much what the constitution says. As a practical matter it is what the courts say it is. See Row V. Wade.

Yes and no. The importation is a very narrow application I'll agree, the immigration not quite so much.

Here's an interesting article that I came across that talks about the source of the Federal government's power to regulate immigration granted to them by SCOTUS using their interpretation of Article i and II to establish case law.

The Source of the Federal Government’s Power to Regulate Immigration and Asylum Law | Immigration and Human Rights Law Review

lawblogs.uc.edu

I used this article to form the basis of my thread post about the subject earlier.

Anyway, I thought I would pass it along. It's quite interesting IMO.