Criminal Aliens Released In US

[Jroc]

These people have got to go.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDYGa5BxayU]Napolitano silent on alternatives while criminal aliens released in US - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Ropey]

These people have got to go.

Napolitano silent on alternatives while criminal aliens released in US - YouTube

There's a serious disconnect here Jroc. The population of America is declining. There are undocumented workers serving in the military, and in war zones who are putting their life on the line for America, however are not fine for picking fruit, crops, etc? Now if they are "illegal" then why does America allow these "illegals" to volunteer for active military duty?

It's a real conundrum Jroc. This issue is more of a call to the base than it is a call to change imo.

 

[Jroc]

These people have got to go.

Napolitano silent on alternatives while criminal aliens released in US - YouTube

There's a serious disconnect here Jroc. The population of America is declining. There are undocumented workers serving in the military, and in war zones who are putting their life on the line for America, however are not fine for picking fruit, crops, etc? Now if they are "illegal" then why does America allow these "illegals" to volunteer for active military duty?

It's a real conundrum Jroc. This issue is more of a call to the base than it is a call to change imo.

Ropey the thread is about illegals who commit crimes being released when they should be deported. It's not about law abiding people serving in the military. What’s to stop a terrorist from crossing the border illegally? Are you saying we should not know who’s is crossing the border? Are you saying we should not attempt to seal the boarders then provide an easier more controlled way for people to immigrate? I don't see the "conundrum"

 

[Mad Scientist]

If you're fully awake you realize that the US gov't isn't working for Americans.

 

[Ropey]

These people have got to go.

Napolitano silent on alternatives while criminal aliens released in US - YouTube

There's a serious disconnect here Jroc. The population of America is declining. There are undocumented workers serving in the military, and in war zones who are putting their life on the line for America, however are not fine for picking fruit, crops, etc? Now if they are "illegal" then why does America allow these "illegals" to volunteer for active military duty?

It's a real conundrum Jroc. This issue is more of a call to the base than it is a call to change imo.

Ropey the thread is about illegals who commit crimes being released when they should be deported. It's not about law abiding people serving in the military. What’s to stop a terrorist from crossing the border illegally? Are you saying we should not know who’s is crossing the border? Are you saying we should not attempt to seal the boarders then provide an easier more controlled way for people to immigrate? I don't see the "conundrum"

I'm saying that the population of America is declining, and not by a small degree. America needs to define their entire immigration policies imo. There has not been any momentum on either side of the divide to actually effect legislation regarding the border immigration with Mexico. Until the US defines a strict legislated policy, there will be no change and there is no momentum that I see. If the US can't even deport illegal immigrants who have broken the law, then the issue is not the border imo. See? The US needs to define the legislation regarding all immigration.

That's the quandary I see Jroc.

 

[Jroc]

There's a serious disconnect here Jroc. The population of America is declining. There are undocumented workers serving in the military, and in war zones who are putting their life on the line for America, however are not fine for picking fruit, crops, etc? Now if they are "illegal" then why does America allow these "illegals" to volunteer for active military duty?

It's a real conundrum Jroc. This issue is more of a call to the base than it is a call to change imo.

Ropey the thread is about illegals who commit crimes being released when they should be deported. It's not about law abiding people serving in the military. What’s to stop a terrorist from crossing the border illegally? Are you saying we should not know who’s is crossing the border? Are you saying we should not attempt to seal the boarders then provide an easier more controlled way for people to immigrate? I don't see the "conundrum"

I'm saying that the population of America is declining, and not by a small degree. America needs to define their entire immigration policies imo. There has not been any momentum on either side of the divide to actually effect legislation regarding the border immigration with Mexico. Until the US defines a strict legislated policy, there will be no change and there is no momentum that I see. If the US can't even deport illegal immigrants who have broken the law, then the issue is not the border imo. See? The US needs to define the legislation regarding all immigration.

That's the quandary I see Jroc.

I agree for the most part, but the first order of business should be to seal the boarder without that being done first, the rest cannot be addressed. At least Bush did start the fence but Obama canceled all that

 

[Ropey]

Ropey the thread is about illegals who commit crimes being released when they should be deported. It's not about law abiding people serving in the military. What’s to stop a terrorist from crossing the border illegally? Are you saying we should not know who’s is crossing the border? Are you saying we should not attempt to seal the boarders then provide an easier more controlled way for people to immigrate? I don't see the "conundrum"

I'm saying that the population of America is declining, and not by a small degree. America needs to define their entire immigration policies imo. There has not been any momentum on either side of the divide to actually effect legislation regarding the border immigration with Mexico. Until the US defines a strict legislated policy, there will be no change and there is no momentum that I see. If the US can't even deport illegal immigrants who have broken the law, then the issue is not the border imo. See? The US needs to define the legislation regarding all immigration.

That's the quandary I see Jroc.

I agree for the most part, but the first order of business should be to seal the boarder without that being done first, the rest cannot be addressed. At least Bush did start the fence but Obama canceled all that

Nothing is happening though, and from my Canadian eyes, the Reps could have pushed on creating legislation. There's enough agreement on both sides to get some work done at least. A moribund legislature is not a good plan for the next term or two.

 

[Amelia]

Maybe she's trying to make conservatives mad enough to do something stupid so that she will be justified in claiming that it was legitimate to consider us potential domestic terrorists for caring about issues like illegal immigration.

I'm a freaking RINO according to some and she has me sooooooo mad, I can only imagine what is going on in the minds of the real hardcore conservatives here.

I want to go do some damage now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

These people have got to go

Rep Adams and her ilk? Yes, they do indeed need to go.

If a person can not be deported because his home country refuses to accept that deportee, then he may not be held indefinitely per the case law cited, that would be a violation of due process. DHS has no other choice but to release such individuals:

In answering that basic question, the habeas court must ask whether the detention in question exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal. It should measure reasonableness primarily in terms of the statute’s basic purpose, namely assuring the alien’s presence at the moment of removal. Thus, if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute. In that case, of course, the alien’s release may and should be conditioned on any of the various forms of supervised release that are appropriate in the circumstances, and the alien may no doubt be returned to custody upon a violation of those conditions.

ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS

Whether or not DHS has reported countries that refuse to take their citizens subject to deportation to the AG and State is another matter altogether, having nothing to do with the issue of detention and release of those subject to deportation. It is an example of a partisan House member playing politics.

Ropey the thread is about illegals who commit crimes being released when they should be deported.

Actually, intended or not, the thread is about the OP’s ignorance of the law and Zadvydas vs. Davis (2001), where, again, the Court held that deportees may not be held indefinitely, as that would be a violation of due process.

 

[Jroc]

These people have got to go

Rep Adams and her ilk? Yes, they do indeed need to go.

If a person can not be deported because his home country refuses to accept that deportee, then he may not be held indefinitely per the case law cited, that would be a violation of due process. DHS has no other choice but to release such individuals:

In answering that basic question, the habeas court must ask whether the detention in question exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal. It should measure reasonableness primarily in terms of the statute’s basic purpose, namely assuring the alien’s presence at the moment of removal. Thus, if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute. In that case, of course, the alien’s release may and should be conditioned on any of the various forms of supervised release that are appropriate in the circumstances, and the alien may no doubt be returned to custody upon a violation of those conditions.

ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS

Whether or not DHS has reported countries that refuse to take their citizens subject to deportation to the AG and State is another matter altogether, having nothing to do with the issue of detention and release of those subject to deportation. It is an example of a partisan House member playing politics.

Ropey the thread is about illegals who commit crimes being released when they should be deported.

Actually, intended or not, the thread is about the OP’s ignorance of the law and Zadvydas vs. Davis (2001), where, again, the Court held that deportees may not be held indefinitely, as that would be a violation of due process.

Did you watch the vid genus? I don't think you did. Pay close attention to the "Sanction countries" part

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - he allowin' dem Hispexican drug dealers to come up here an' blast their bass-boost car stereos all hours o' the day an' night with dat God-awful mariachi music...

Obama's Immigration ‘Policies Are at Odds with the Rule of Law’
November 3, 2011 – Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Thursday that the Obama administration's immigration polices are contrary to the rule of law.

“It’s well past time that the administration come to its senses and realize that their policies are at odds with the rule of law that our country was founded on,” Grassley said. “They must wake up and change their ways before it’s too late.” Grassely also said it was “unfortunate” that the Senate Judiciary Committee learned about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) new policy of curbing routine checks for illegal aliens at transportation hubs along the northern border from an Associated Press news story. “This is a serious situation that has been ignored by the secretary” of DHS, Grassley said at a Judiciary Committee session on Thursday, noting that he thought it was necessary to divert from the planned agenda to discuss DHS’s policy change.

DHS is headed by Secretary Janet Napolitano. The AP reported last month that Customs and Border Protection agents, who asked to remain anonymous, told the news agency that they had been instructed by DHS to stop routinely checking buses, trains and airports for suspected illegal aliens. While agents said the practice was “effective,” immigrant rights groups have criticized it as “racial profiling.” The National Border Patrol Council, the AFL-CIO union representing border patrol agents, issued a statement on Oct. 27 criticizing the decision by DHS.

“In yet another move aimed to handcuff the effectiveness of Border Patrol agents, orders have been sent out from Border Patrol headquarters in Washington, D.C. to Border Patrol sectors nationwide that checks of transportation hubs and systems located away from the southwest border of the United States will only be conducted if there is intelligence indicating a threat,” the statement said. “Stated plainly, Border Patrol managers are increasing the layers of bureaucracy and making it as difficult as possible for Border Patrol agents to conduct their core duties,” the statement said. “The only risks being managed by this move are too many apprehensions, negative media attention and complaints generated by immigrant rights groups.”

Grassley said the agency charged with protecting the homeland is instead putting the public safety at risk. “This administration appears to be absolutely intent on turning a blind eye to people coming to this country illegally, thereby playing with the safety of the public,” Grassley said. “This committee deserves answers,” Grassley said. “Will this committee just simply stand by while the department thumbs its nose at the United States Senate?” Grassley noted that while DHS is relaxing policing of the U.S. border with Canada, the Department of Justice is suing states for enforcing immigration law. To date, the DOJ has filed suit to stop state immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama and, most recently, South Carolina.

Source