CDZ Please explain to me, The term "undocumented" is this a PC term for "illegal immigrant"?

[Vandalshandle]

You will hear a lot of BS from the Right on this, but "Undocumented" simply means someone who can not produce proof that he is in this country legally, BUT, has not yet been convicted of being an "illegal alien" in a court of law. In spite of the Right wanting to skip the person's right to a trial, a person is simply not an "illegal alien", until he has been convicted of that in court.

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

You can parse it anyway you want, but only a court can determine guilt. Until it has, the man is innocent. The problem I am addressing is those who feel that someone can be taken off of the streets and deported without a trial, or his voluntarily agreeing to the deportation. They claim that he has no Constitutional rights, BEFORE he has even been proven to be an alien, much less an illegal alien, by a court of law.

The man is presumed innocent. Big difference.

And being presumed innocent, has exactly the same constitutional rights as you and I, until such time that he is convicted of being an illegal alien.

 

[JoeMoma]

You will hear a lot of BS from the Right on this, but "Undocumented" simply means someone who can not produce proof that he is in this country legally, BUT, has not yet been convicted of being an "illegal alien" in a court of law. In spite of the Right wanting to skip the person's right to a trial, a person is simply not an "illegal alien", until he has been convicted of that in court.

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

You can parse it anyway you want, but only a court can determine guilt. Until it has, the man is innocent. The problem I am addressing is those who feel that someone can be taken off of the streets and deported without a trial, or his voluntarily agreeing to the deportation. They claim that he has no Constitutional rights, BEFORE he has even been proven to be an alien, much less an illegal alien, by a court of law.

The man is presumed innocent. Big difference.

And being presumed innocent, has exactly the same constitutional rights as you and I, until such time that he is convicted of being an illegal alien.

Never said otherwise. That being said, if I know that a specific person is here illegally, I am correct to call that person an ilegal alien. It is also correct to refer to all people in the country illegally as illegal aliens, there is no need to wait for them to be convicted.

Just like it's not the pregnancy test that makes a woman pregnant, it is not the courts that makes a person guilty of a crime. On the flip side, there have been INNONCENT people wrongly convicted of crimes that have served time to be later discovered to be innocent. They were innocent the entire time they were presumed guilty and imprisioned.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You will hear a lot of BS from the Right on this, but "Undocumented" simply means someone who can not produce proof that he is in this country legally, BUT, has not yet been convicted of being an "illegal alien" in a court of law. In spite of the Right wanting to skip the person's right to a trial, a person is simply not an "illegal alien", until he has been convicted of that in court.

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

You can parse it anyway you want, but only a court can determine guilt. Until it has, the man is innocent. The problem I am addressing is those who feel that someone can be taken off of the streets and deported without a trial, or his voluntarily agreeing to the deportation. They claim that he has no Constitutional rights, BEFORE he has even been proven to be an alien, much less an illegal alien, by a court of law.

The man is presumed innocent. Big difference.

And being presumed innocent, has exactly the same constitutional rights as you and I, until such time that he is convicted of being an illegal alien.

Never said otherwise. That being said, if I know that a specific person is here illegally, I am correct to call that person an ilegal alien. It is also correct to refer to all people in the country illegally as illegal aliens, there is no need to wait for them to be convicted.

Just like it's not the pregnancy test that makes a woman pregnant, it is not the courts that makes a person guilty of a crime. On the flip side, there have been INNONCENT people wrongly convicted of crimes that have served time to be later discovered to be innocent. They were innocent the entire time they were presumed guilty and imprisioned.

OT:
It's a damn shame that one must point out that verity is not subject to the vicissitudes of one's advertence or subscription to it. .

 

[sakinago]

No Juan does so by crossing the boarder without permission. Juan evades the legal process himself. Just like in any other country Juan gets deported.

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

No these courts have nothing to do with the constitution. The EOIR was formed in like the 80s and there wasn't any amendment for it. All countries reserve the right to expel without trial, these courts are set up to shut down any claims of human rights violation. Immigrants are deported without trial all the time. If boarder agents catch illegals crossing the boarder they are immediately sent back without trial. They don't apprehend them, take them to a court hearing and then deport them. If it's their second time being deported no trial is necessary. They are not under the 5th amendment. We reserve the right to expel without trial, we choose not to most of the time, this is not to be confused with the 5th. The only part of the constitution about immigration is the enumerated powers, giving federal government control of naturalization, THEY have control in this area.

Wrong again Sac. And by the way, I live 30 miles from the border. The only people deported without a trial are those that elect deportation without a trail. If they do not voluntarily give up their right for a trial, they are taken to court and given a choice between pleading guilty at their hearing, or go to the slammer and await trial. if they do that, they could stay in jail for weeks, or even months, and they will lose anyway, so almost all of them plead guilty and immediately deported. I have attended these trials. Nobody may be deported against his will without a trial. You can take that to the bank. In fact, the link that I posted covers all of this. Obviously you did not read most of it. Sorry, pal, but even your hero Trump can not bend the Constitution.

AP Explains: How immigrants are detained, deported

See part where illegals caught at boarder are immediately sent back.

Again these courts are not a constitutional protection, but courts set up to counter human rights claims. If they did fall under protection of the constitution, they would get longer than 30 seconds to speak. By all means please find the constitutional protection for illegal aliens for yourself, be my guest. If your assertions were true, than certainly the ones caught at the boarder would be given trials as well.

Not to mention your main argument is moot, which is we do not determine them illegal until after a trial has determined that. That would be like saying a certain city has had 100 bank robberies, we only caught, tried, and convicted 50 bank robbers, therefore there were only 50 bank robberies. If you cross the boarder without permission then you have crossed the boarder illegally.

And I assume from your staunch stance that they are just merely undocumented, that you support sanctuary cities. To which you citing the constitution becomes even more false since cities have no authority over immigration constitutionally. If your going to cite the constitution, you have to be against sanctuary cities as well.

As for the topic in the OP, why they are called undocumented by certain folks, see my first post in this thread.

 

[sakinago]

You're point was we are all illegal citizens if we are not Native American, for that to be true the USG would have to be an illegitimate government...no other way around that.

You don't tell me my point, I tell you. And I'm telling now for the 3rd time, that was not my point. You want to know what my point is, then f'ing ask me!

I'm sorry, I didn't take your point out of context. What was your other point that I was suppose to know through mind reading.

 

[sakinago]

You will hear a lot of BS from the Right on this, but "Undocumented" simply means someone who can not produce proof that he is in this country legally, BUT, has not yet been convicted of being an "illegal alien" in a court of law. In spite of the Right wanting to skip the person's right to a trial, a person is simply not an "illegal alien", until he has been convicted of that in court.

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

You can parse it anyway you want, but only a court can determine guilt. Until it has, the man is innocent. The problem I am addressing is those who feel that someone can be taken off of the streets and deported without a trial, or his voluntarily agreeing to the deportation. They claim that he has no Constitutional rights, BEFORE he has even been proven to be an alien, much less an illegal alien, by a court of law.

The man is presumed innocent. Big difference.

And being presumed innocent, has exactly the same constitutional rights as you and I, until such time that he is convicted of being an illegal alien.

Never said otherwise. That being said, if I know that a specific person is here illegally, I am correct to call that person an ilegal alien. It is also correct to refer to all people in the country illegally as illegal aliens, there is no need to wait for them to be convicted.

Just like it's not the pregnancy test that makes a woman pregnant, it is not the courts that makes a person guilty of a crime. On the flip side, there have been INNONCENT people wrongly convicted of crimes that have served time to be later discovered to be innocent. They were innocent the entire time they were presumed guilty and imprisioned.

OT:
It's a damn shame that one must point out that verity is not subject to the vicissitudes of one's advertence or subscription to it. .

It does pertain to topic of why the word undocumented is preferred by PC proponents over the word illegal. The argument is that they are not illegal until after a court has determined so.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Poor Sac. Just can't seem to brush aside the Constitution's guarantee of a right to a fair trial....


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

No these courts have nothing to do with the constitution. The EOIR was formed in like the 80s and there wasn't any amendment for it. All countries reserve the right to expel without trial, these courts are set up to shut down any claims of human rights violation. Immigrants are deported without trial all the time. If boarder agents catch illegals crossing the boarder they are immediately sent back without trial. They don't apprehend them, take them to a court hearing and then deport them. If it's their second time being deported no trial is necessary. They are not under the 5th amendment. We reserve the right to expel without trial, we choose not to most of the time, this is not to be confused with the 5th. The only part of the constitution about immigration is the enumerated powers, giving federal government control of naturalization, THEY have control in this area.

Wrong again Sac. And by the way, I live 30 miles from the border. The only people deported without a trial are those that elect deportation without a trail. If they do not voluntarily give up their right for a trial, they are taken to court and given a choice between pleading guilty at their hearing, or go to the slammer and await trial. if they do that, they could stay in jail for weeks, or even months, and they will lose anyway, so almost all of them plead guilty and immediately deported. I have attended these trials. Nobody may be deported against his will without a trial. You can take that to the bank. In fact, the link that I posted covers all of this. Obviously you did not read most of it. Sorry, pal, but even your hero Trump can not bend the Constitution.

AP Explains: How immigrants are detained, deported

See part where illegals caught at boarder are immediately sent back.

Again these courts are not a constitutional protection, but courts set up to counter human rights claims. If they did fall under protection of the constitution, they would get longer than 30 seconds to speak. By all means please find the constitutional protection for illegal aliens for yourself, be my guest. If your assertions were true, than certainly the ones caught at the boarder would be given trials as well.

Not to mention your main argument is moot, which is we do not determine them illegal until after a trial has determined that. That would be like saying a certain city has had 100 bank robberies, we only caught, tried, and convicted 50 bank robbers, therefore there were only 50 bank robberies. If you cross the boarder without permission then you have crossed the boarder illegally.

And I assume from your staunch stance that they are just merely undocumented, that you support sanctuary cities. To which you citing the constitution becomes even more false since cities have no authority over immigration constitutionally. If your going to cite the constitution, you have to be against sanctuary cities as well.

As for the topic in the OP, why they are called undocumented by certain folks, see my first post in this thread.

sak, I don't know why you don't understand what I have said, over and over again in the simplest way, possible. i will try one more time.

An "expedited removal" is an option only if the suspect AGREES to be returned to the border without a trial. Under no circumstances can a BP agent pick up Juan, and take him over the border without his agreeing to it. Juan could be documented, with no papers on him. He could be a naturalized citizen. Hell, he could be a Mexican diplomat. If he demands to prove any of those things, he has the right to do so in a court of law. Read the Constitution, for christ sake. Even Trump's Gestapo can't just pick people up off the street and throw them out of the country without due process. Sheriff Joe in Phoenix managed to get his county fined for millions of dollars by the feds for doing a lot less than that.

I have absolutely no idea what the hell you brought "sanctuary cities" in the the discussion for. A "sanctuary city" is not even defined by law, and simply refers to a city which minds it's own business and does not try to enforce federal law. There are almost 300 cities that openly follow that policy. A lot of them had gone on the record saying that the only reason that they don't hold undocumented aliens for ICE is because the Feds do not reimburse them for the cost of their incarceration.

the 6th and 14th amendment to the Constitution guarantee the right to a fair trail in this country. There is nothing in the constitution requiring a minimum amount of time that an attorney must consult with his defendant client. if the constitution did not require a trial, there would BE no Operation Streamline.

 

[JoeMoma]

Damn! I have to keep explaining this. If a man robs a bank and kills someone in the process, he is immediately a robber and a murderer. While it is true that the justice system presumes his innocence until convicted in a court of law, if he did the crime, then he is guilty, convicted or not. And if he is convicted in a court of law, the time of which he became a robber and a murder dates back to when the man first robbed and murdered, not when the judge or jury announces the guilty verdict. Likewise, a person who is in the country illegally is an illegal immigrant from the time he enters the country illegally.

You can parse it anyway you want, but only a court can determine guilt. Until it has, the man is innocent. The problem I am addressing is those who feel that someone can be taken off of the streets and deported without a trial, or his voluntarily agreeing to the deportation. They claim that he has no Constitutional rights, BEFORE he has even been proven to be an alien, much less an illegal alien, by a court of law.

The man is presumed innocent. Big difference.

And being presumed innocent, has exactly the same constitutional rights as you and I, until such time that he is convicted of being an illegal alien.

Never said otherwise. That being said, if I know that a specific person is here illegally, I am correct to call that person an ilegal alien. It is also correct to refer to all people in the country illegally as illegal aliens, there is no need to wait for them to be convicted.

Just like it's not the pregnancy test that makes a woman pregnant, it is not the courts that makes a person guilty of a crime. On the flip side, there have been INNONCENT people wrongly convicted of crimes that have served time to be later discovered to be innocent. They were innocent the entire time they were presumed guilty and imprisioned.

OT:
It's a damn shame that one must point out that verity is not subject to the vicissitudes of one's advertence or subscription to it. .

It does pertain to topic of why the word undocumented is preferred by PC proponents over the word illegal. The argument is that they are not illegal until after a court has determined so.

Yes, but that's not the real reason for the term. The real reason is to change the term so that it doesn't convey that the people are breaking the law by being here (illegally). If the reason were because people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, then we could add the word "alleged" as we do with other people that stand trial for breaking other laws.

 

[sakinago]

These aren't jury trials genius, it's a different type of court. The article admits that, it's for show. They are not citizens under this constitution. Enemy combatants do not go through a jury trial either, at least up until recently, because they are not citizens. If you cross the boarder without permission you do so illegally.

Totally wrong, Sac. It is a trial, and a trial is required by the Constitution before anyone in US territory can be convicted of being an illegal alien and deported, unless they voluntarily give up that right. We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here, Sac. The reason that those guys are in Guantanamo is so that they can be held without regard to US constitutional rights. if Juan is apprehended in the US, only a court can take away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Before the trial, he is "undocumented". If found guilty in the trial, he is "illegal".

No these courts have nothing to do with the constitution. The EOIR was formed in like the 80s and there wasn't any amendment for it. All countries reserve the right to expel without trial, these courts are set up to shut down any claims of human rights violation. Immigrants are deported without trial all the time. If boarder agents catch illegals crossing the boarder they are immediately sent back without trial. They don't apprehend them, take them to a court hearing and then deport them. If it's their second time being deported no trial is necessary. They are not under the 5th amendment. We reserve the right to expel without trial, we choose not to most of the time, this is not to be confused with the 5th. The only part of the constitution about immigration is the enumerated powers, giving federal government control of naturalization, THEY have control in this area.

Wrong again Sac. And by the way, I live 30 miles from the border. The only people deported without a trial are those that elect deportation without a trail. If they do not voluntarily give up their right for a trial, they are taken to court and given a choice between pleading guilty at their hearing, or go to the slammer and await trial. if they do that, they could stay in jail for weeks, or even months, and they will lose anyway, so almost all of them plead guilty and immediately deported. I have attended these trials. Nobody may be deported against his will without a trial. You can take that to the bank. In fact, the link that I posted covers all of this. Obviously you did not read most of it. Sorry, pal, but even your hero Trump can not bend the Constitution.

AP Explains: How immigrants are detained, deported

See part where illegals caught at boarder are immediately sent back.

Again these courts are not a constitutional protection, but courts set up to counter human rights claims. If they did fall under protection of the constitution, they would get longer than 30 seconds to speak. By all means please find the constitutional protection for illegal aliens for yourself, be my guest. If your assertions were true, than certainly the ones caught at the boarder would be given trials as well.

Not to mention your main argument is moot, which is we do not determine them illegal until after a trial has determined that. That would be like saying a certain city has had 100 bank robberies, we only caught, tried, and convicted 50 bank robbers, therefore there were only 50 bank robberies. If you cross the boarder without permission then you have crossed the boarder illegally.

And I assume from your staunch stance that they are just merely undocumented, that you support sanctuary cities. To which you citing the constitution becomes even more false since cities have no authority over immigration constitutionally. If your going to cite the constitution, you have to be against sanctuary cities as well.

As for the topic in the OP, why they are called undocumented by certain folks, see my first post in this thread.

sak, I don't know why you don't understand what I have said, over and over again in the simplest way, possible. i will try one more time.

An "expedited removal" is an option only if the suspect AGREES to be returned to the border without a trial. Under no circumstances can a BP agent pick up Juan, and take him over the border without his agreeing to it. Juan could be documented, with no papers on him. He could be a naturalized citizen. Hell, he could be a Mexican diplomat. If he demands to prove any of those things, he has the right to do so in a court of law. Read the Constitution, for christ sake. Even Trump's Gestapo can't just pick people up off the street and throw them out of the country without due process. Sheriff Joe in Phoenix managed to get his county fined for millions of dollars by the feds for doing a lot less than that.

I have absolutely no idea what the hell you brought "sanctuary cities" in the the discussion for. A "sanctuary city" is not even defined by law, and simply refers to a city which minds it's own business and does not try to enforce federal law. There are almost 300 cities that openly follow that policy. A lot of them had gone on the record saying that the only reason that they don't hold undocumented aliens for ICE is because the Feds do not reimburse them for the cost of their incarceration.

the 6th and 14th amendment to the Constitution guarantee the right to a fair trail in this country. There is nothing in the constitution requiring a minimum amount of time that an attorney must consult with his defendant client. if the constitution did not require a trial, there would BE no Operation Streamline.

Quoting from the article I posted earlier, this is not the same as the form signed to waive off your trial that you are referring to. There is no option of a form to sign here.

"EXPEDITED REMOVALS

Under current policies, immigrants who are detained within 100 miles of the border and who have been in the country less than 14 days can be deported immediately, without being processed through the immigration courts. If an individual caught along the border makes a claim for asylum, he or she will have their claim reviewed by an asylum officer with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. If the claim is approved, the individual goes through the immigration court process. If not approved, that person joins the other immigrants caught along the border who are usually immediately returned to. . ."
Note that in this process above there is no signing of anything to waive a trail. The form signed by illegals is for those who have been in the country longer who waive their right to a trial. Not the same as the process above, which to put simply, if your caught in the act, you are immediately deported back, unless you claim asylum, for which you are granted a hearing.

Your citing of the 14th amendment further tanks your argument even more since the 14th amendment defines citizenship, which is defined as "a right to have rights." And if you are not a citizen then you no longer fall under the protection of the constitution, e.g. the 5th and 6th amendments.

Citizenship of the United States - Wikipedia

And I was guessing you agreed with sanctuary cities, of which many have stated their reasoning to be because they disagree with the federal policy. For which they have zero constitutional standing, wether or not they claim lack of reimbursement, it is federal law granted by the enumerated powers in the constitution.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Sak, there are people who will not learn, and you are one of them. I invite you to come down here to Tucson, and attend Operation Streamline courts. They are in session every working day of the year, and anyone can attend. I have. One of the things that I would hope that you would learn is that nobody can pick people off the streets and take them across the border without due process of law. No one can even search my car at a border patrol checkpoint without probable cause, without my permission. No one can demand your papers without probable cause. No city is required by law to enforce federal law. This is the reason that I knew that Trump was full of shit 2 years ago when he promised to deport 12 million illegals within 2 years. This is a nation of laws, not NAZI Germany or North Korea. Educate yourself. I'm done trying to do that for you.

 

[sakinago]

Sak, there are people who will not learn, and you are one of them. I invite you to come down here to Tucson, and attend Operation Streamline courts. They are in session every working day of the year, and anyone can attend. I have. One of the things that I would hope that you would learn is that nobody can pick people off the streets and take them across the border without due process of law. No one can even search my car at a border patrol checkpoint without probable cause, without my permission. No one can demand your papers without probable cause. No city is required by law to enforce federal law. This is the reason that I knew that Trump was full of shit 2 years ago when he promised to deport 12 million illegals within 2 years. This is a nation of laws, not NAZI Germany or North Korea. Educate yourself. I'm done trying to do that for you.

I'm originally from Texas. Yet you don't see me making an appeal to authority over where I've been, or how many EOIR court hearings I've been. I'm stating the law correctly. You have not, starting with you citing the constitution as protection over illegal immigrants. They are not protected under the constitution. They can be deported without an option for trial. Crossing the boarder IS probable cause, and you are asked for papers, ESPECIALLY when your doing it outside of an authorized boarder crossing. If I were to fly in from out of the country, I can't tell them I do not give permission to see my passport. Same thing at the boarder. I wouldn't be allowed to cross.