ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests, his lawyer says

[Rumpole]

Oh look, not only are you immediately engaging with the “simpleton” after claiming you don’t, you are now also advocating for violent gang members after your long-winded dim-witted spiel about “criminals”.

Get a therapist.

I'm sorry, I don't take fuckwits seriously.

 

[struth]

are you serious? It’s the basic right to not be punished without a fair trial. You might have heard of it. It’s in the Constitution.

you didnt answer my question.

Moreover a green card is a privilege, like a drivers license, it can be lost and revolved, you aren’t entitled to a full trial

But they, show us where in the constitution they it says you are…

 

[Lisa558]

you didnt answer my question.

Moreover a green card is a privilege, like a drivers license, it can be lost and revolved, you aren’t entitled to a full trial

But they, show us where in the constitution they it says you are…

Wonderful point.

These people are guests in our country, and we are under no obligation to continue our hospitality to them if they are harmful to our country or our citizens.

An Islamic terrorist supporter riling up more hate for Jews on a campus already rife with antisemitism is doing harm. The Dept of State has every right to revoke his stay.

BTW, have you noticed that these leftists care more about a HAMAS supporter from Syria than they do for American Jewish kids simply trying to attend class without getting assaulted?

 

[struth]

Wonderful point.

These people are guests in our country, and we are under no obligation to continue our hospitality to them if they are harmful to our country or our citizens.

An Islamic terrorist supporter riling up more hate for Jews on a campus already rife with antisemitism is doing harm. The Dept of State has every right to revoke his stay.

BTW, have you noticed that these leftists care more about a HAMAS supporter from Syria than they do for American Jewish kids simply trying to attend class without getting assaulted?

Yes I’ve certainly noticed it.

 

[Lisa558]

Yes I’ve certainly noticed it.

And what makes it even more ironic is that leftists pride themselves on fighting bigotry and racism.

Except when it comes to Jews. Then they’re out in front, promoting it.

 

[JoeB131]

Wonderful point.

These people are guests in our country, and we are under no obligation to continue our hospitality to them if they are harmful to our country or our citizens.

An Islamic terrorist supporter riling up more hate for Jews on a campus already rife with antisemitism is doing harm. The Dept of State has every right to revoke his stay.

Your argument would make sense if he were still a student on a F-1 visa.

however, he has already graduated and is married to a US citizen on a IR-1 visa.

BTW, have you noticed that these leftists care more about a HAMAS supporter from Syria than they do for American Jewish kids simply trying to attend class without getting assaulted?

Well, maybe they shouldn't walk through a demonstration.

Heck, when I went to college in the 1980's, every year we'd have the annual Palestine vs. Israel event on Israeli Independence Day. Most of us with a lick of sense just avoided the Campus Union that day.

The vast majority of the students who are protesting Zionist Genocide are US Citizens. Do you want to arrest all of them, too?

 

[JoeB131]

And what makes it even more ironic is that leftists pride themselves on fighting bigotry and racism.

Except when it comes to Jews. Then they’re out in front, promoting it.

Because the Jews are engaging in the worst behavior of white people. You know, stuff other white people don't do anymore and are a little embarrassed about.

 

[DonGlock26]

Democrats love Hamas and the Houthis.

 

[JoeB131]

Democrats love Hamas and the Houthis.

NO, just some of us wonder why we keep getting involved in fights in that part of the world because the Zionists dictate what our policies should be.

But an imaginary sky fairy gave the Jews that land, even though he couldn't be bothered stopping the Holocaust.

 

[struth]

And what makes it even more ironic is that leftists pride themselves on fighting bigotry and racism.

Except when it comes to Jews. Then they’re out in front, promoting it.

It’s simple projection the demklan is always been the party of bigotry

 

[Rumpole]

you didnt answer my question.

Moreover a green card is a privilege, like a drivers license, it can be lost and revolved, you aren’t entitled to a full trial

But they, show us where in the constitution they it says you are…

You asked, "What due process is a green card holder losing?"

Why are you asking a question that has nothing to do with what I actually said? I never implied that a green card holder loses due process--quite the opposite. The entire point is that a green card holder has certain due process protections that an undocumented immigrant does not. If you're struggling to grasp the distinction, that’s on you, not me.

 

[Rumpole]

It’s simple projection the demklan is always been the party of bigotry

Struth, you sweet, clueless little history dropout, back again with the intellectual depth of a bumper sticker and the accuracy of a drunk guy recounting a dream. "The DemKlan is always been the party of bigotry"--wow, what a sentence. If English had a restraining order, you’d be violating it right now.

Now, let’s set aside the fact that you write like a malfunctioning chatbot and focus on the sheer stupidity of your claim. Yes, once upon a time, Southern Democrats were the party of segregation. Congratulations, you can Google Dixiecrats. Perhaps it didn't occur to you, but do note that today's Democrats did not descend from the Democrats of the antebellum era. But, aside from that little detail, here’s what your little meme-fed brain keeps tripping over: the party realignment that happened in the mid-20th century. You know, when the civil rights movement forced the bigots to pick a side, and--shock of shocks--they fled into the warm, welcoming embrace of the Republican Party.

Or do you think it was just a coincidence that Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and a whole brigade of racist old dinosaurs left the Democrats and became the conservative vanguard of the GOP? Or that Nixon rolled out the Southern Strategy, explicitly courting white resentment to build Republican power? Or that Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, site of the infamous Civil Rights murders, with a speech about states’ rights?

So spare me your historically illiterate nonsense. The modern GOP isn’t just the new home for the old segregationists--it’s where they built their dream house. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, however flawed, became the one actually fighting for civil rights, voting rights, and equality under the law. You can keep pretending that Lincoln and Frederick Douglass would be sipping tea with Marjorie Taylor Greene, but reality says otherwise.

In short, Struth, if you’re going to pretend to have a political opinion, at least have the decency to learn some basic history first. Otherwise, all you’re doing is slapping together syllables like a malfunctioning Speak & Spell and embarrassing yourself in front of the grown-ups.

 

[Rumpole]

Oh look, not only are you immediately engaging with the “simpleton” after claiming you don’t, you are now also advocating for violent gang members after your long-winded dim-witted spiel about “criminals”.

Get a therapist.

Oh, excuse me, perhaps I made the terrible mistake of assuming that there were persons on this forum of such reasonable intellectual depth that they would read 'engage', given the context, as it was intended to mean, i.e., to engage in a serious discussion or debate, a condition of which, writ large, with the likes of such morons as yourself, has yet to occur. Get a therapist? No, you get some dimensional and contextual reasoning skills which might perforate your impenetrable skull.

 

[struth]

Struth, you sweet, clueless little history dropout, back again with the intellectual depth of a bumper sticker and the accuracy of a drunk guy recounting a dream. "The DemKlan is always been the party of bigotry"--wow, what a sentence. If English had a restraining order, you’d be violating it right now.

Now, let’s set aside the fact that you write like a malfunctioning chatbot and focus on the sheer stupidity of your claim. Yes, once upon a time, Southern Democrats were the party of segregation. Congratulations, you can Google Dixiecrats. Perhaps it didn't occur to you, but do note that today's Democrats did not descend from the Democrats of the antebellum era. But, aside from that little detail, here’s what your little meme-fed brain keeps tripping over: the party realignment that happened in the mid-20th century. You know, when the civil rights movement forced the bigots to pick a side, and--shock of shocks--they fled into the warm, welcoming embrace of the Republican Party.

Or do you think it was just a coincidence that Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and a whole brigade of racist old dinosaurs left the Democrats and became the conservative vanguard of the GOP? Or that Nixon rolled out the Southern Strategy, explicitly courting white resentment to build Republican power? Or that Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, site of the infamous Civil Rights murders, with a speech about states’ rights?

So spare me your historically illiterate nonsense. The modern GOP isn’t just the new home for the old segregationists--it’s where they built their dream house. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, however flawed, became the one actually fighting for civil rights, voting rights, and equality under the law. You can keep pretending that Lincoln and Frederick Douglass would be sipping tea with Marjorie Taylor Greene, but reality says otherwise.

In short, Struth, if you’re going to pretend to have a political opinion, at least have the decency to learn some basic history first. Otherwise, all you’re doing is slapping together syllables like a malfunctioning Speak & Spell and embarrassing yourself in front of the grown-ups.

There was no party realignment

Haha

I get you demklan folks tell yourself that to feel better about you dark history but your party is the same as it’s always been

 

[struth]

You asked, "What due process is a green card holder losing?"

Why are you asking a question that has nothing to do with what I actually said? I never implied that a green card holder loses due process--quite the opposite. The entire point is that a green card holder has certain due process protections that an undocumented immigrant does not. If you're struggling to grasp the distinction, that’s on you, not me.

What due process rights are those? They both get a deportation hearing, the burden of proof is still the same

So tell us

 

[Rumpole]

What due process rights are those? They both get a deportation hearing, the burden of proof is still the same

So tell us

I've already explained it to you, in great detail, you ******* idiot, review the entirety of our conversation until you achieve an epiphany. Here, I'll help you out since you are ******* clueless, ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests, his lawyer says

 

[Rumpole]

What due process rights are those? They both get a deportation hearing, the burden of proof is still the same

So tell us

If you did your homework, you'd know this, but I guess I have to hold your gawd

What due process rights are those? They both get a deportation hearing, the burden of proof is still the same

So tell us

If you did your homework, you'd know this, but I guess I have to do it for you:

The distinctions between green card holders and undocumented immigrants, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, are derived from constitutional interpretation, federal law, and court rulings. Here’s how:

1. Text of the Constitution vs. Interpretation and Application:
   
   • The Constitution itself does not differentiate between lawful and unlawful immigrants in explicit terms.
   • However, key constitutional provisions such as the Fifth Amendment (due process) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) apply to “persons,” meaning that both documented and undocumented immigrants have some protections.
   • The Plenary Power Doctrine, established through Supreme Court rulings, gives Congress broad authority over immigration policy, allowing for distinctions in how laws apply to different categories of noncitizens.
2. Statutory Law and Congressional Authority:
   
   • Congress has enacted immigration laws (e.g., the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) that define different immigration statuses and the rights associated with them.
   • Green card holders are granted more rights because they have been formally admitted as permanent residents under statutory law.
   • Undocumented immigrants do not have lawful status, which means they are subject to removal proceedings under the INA and do not qualify for many of the legal protections afforded to lawful residents.
3. Supreme Court and Federal Court Rulings:
   
   • Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional protections apply to all “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction, not just citizens. This case is often cited to support the notion that undocumented immigrants still have some constitutional rights.
   • Zadvydas v. Davis (2001): The Court ruled that even undocumented immigrants are protected by due process and cannot be detained indefinitely without justification.
   • Mathews v. Diaz (1976): The Court explicitly held that Congress has broad power to distinguish between different classes of noncitizens, meaning that it is constitutional to provide green card holders with more rights and benefits than undocumented immigrants.
   • Plyler v. Doe (1982): The Court ruled that states cannot deny undocumented children access to public education, reinforcing that equal protection applies to all persons, not just citizens or legal residents, but still acknowledging that distinctions in rights can exist.
4. Derivation from Constitutional Text:
   
   • The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process to “any person,” meaning both legal and undocumented immigrants are entitled to basic legal protections.
   • The Fourteenth Amendment ensures equal protection under the law, but not all laws have to treat everyone identically. This has allowed for legal distinctions between different classes of noncitizens.
   • Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 grants Congress power over naturalization and immigration, which has been interpreted as allowing Congress to define different legal categories of noncitizens with differing rights.

Conclusion:​

The distinctions between green card holders and undocumented immigrants are not explicitly stated in the Constitution but are derived from a combination of:

1. Constitutional interpretation (e.g., due process and equal protection apply, but not necessarily equally).
2. Federal immigration statutes (which provide different rights and statuses to different classes of immigrants).
3. Supreme Court precedents (which affirm Congress’s authority to make distinctions between different noncitizen groups).

In other words, while the actual words of the Constitution provide the foundation, the distinctions themselves arise from statutory law and judicial interpretation.

 

[struth]

I've already explained it to you, in great detail, you ******* idiot, review the entirety of our conversation until you achieve an epiphany. Here, I'll help you out since you are ******* clueless, ICE arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University protests, his lawyer says

No you didn’t, you talked about things that aren’t Constitutional protections, and nothing to do with due process, such as worker rights

It’s clear you have no idea what due process is

 

[el midgetron]

Oh, excuse me, perhaps I made the terrible mistake of assuming that there were persons on this forum of such reasonable intellectual depth that they would read 'engage', given the context, as it was intended to mean, i.e., to engage in a serious discussion or debate, a condition of which, writ large, with the likes of such morons as yourself, has yet to occur. Get a therapist? No, you get some dimensional and contextual reasoning skills which might perforate your impenetrable skull.

Trump derangement syndrome is real and very serious. A therapist can help you.

The “context” is your delusional tirade which was all over the road like a drunk driver. You want a discussion? Choose a point, articulate it concisely. Save your tantrums for you birthing person.

 

[el midgetron]

You asked, "What due process is a green card holder losing?"

Why are you asking a question that has nothing to do with what I actually said? I never implied that a green card holder loses due process--quite the opposite. The entire point is that a green card holder has certain due process protections that an undocumented immigrant does not. If you're struggling to grasp the distinction, that’s on you, not me.

How do you know these terrorists have green cards?