The question I'd like to put out for discussion is, has the response to the violations of law always been part.....

[BluesLegend]

Lawfare.

Autopen Joe was the most lawless president in modern history and the Dems cheered his every move.

 

[Kondor3]

...Judge Boasberg was originally nominated to be a judge by Shrub.

Boasberg is a Liberal judge appointed by a President known to be very "soft" on Illegal Immigration...

The Trump Administration managed to get those planes in-the-air and out of US airspace before the order became operative...

Excellent...

 

[westwall]

He ignored the court order ans sent them anyway.

As he should have. The Court order was illegitimate.

 

[mudwhistle]

The court says this country doesn't operate on guilty without your day in court.

Sadly it does too often but on occasion we see our values get upheld in the courts.

Do you think our values are to ignore immigration laws to intentionally allow criminal aliens to set up shop in our cities? Mexico illegally helped them get here, so I see no reason why we should be the only idiots to act like Dudley Doright to allow our bureaucracy to keep them here till the midterms.

Trump got rid of these criminals because he knows that waiting on Obama judges to punish them is pretty much a lost cause.

They're El Salvador's problem now.

 

[pknopp]

He ignored the court order ans sent them anyway.

And I support the right of everyone to ignore the laws.

 

[pknopp]

I did address it, whether YOU support it or not, the left has broken all the laws allowing them to come here.

Under their plan, well have millions per year coming over, and the system will be so back logged they will never have a court date, even if they show up for the court hearing.

Which has nothing to do with Trump ignoring due process.

 

[Nostra]

And I support the right of everyone to ignore the laws.

You have failed to prove he violated any law, Simp.

 

[mudwhistle]

Which has nothing to do with Trump ignoring due process.

I wish you felt the same way about Trump when he his home was raided.
I can think of plenty of examples of MAGA that never received the due-process you want to reserve for criminal illegals.
Let's try to be consistent, shall we.

Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.”


In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president’s tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of “expedited removal,” which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.


“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” Sanders said.


Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?

The administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy and the recent surge in family separations at the border -- a practice President Donald Trump ended through executive order -- has called attention to the legal rights of immigrants under U.S. law.

www.pbs.org

 

[Nostra]

And I support the right of everyone to ignore the laws.

Proof?

 

[pknopp]

I wish you felt the same way about Trump when he his home was raided.

Go back and see what I said about that. I noted that it was unfair unless Biden's was raided and he was charged also.

But you just have to mindlessly lash out.

I can think of plenty of examples of MAGA that never received the due-process you want to reserve for criminal illegals.
Let's try to be consistent, shall we.

Then you have to spin. I support due process for all. That's our law and Constitution.

 

[fncceo]

any planes that had departed the United States with immigrants under the law needed to return

Guess they forgot to radio the pilots with the recall code.

 

[mudwhistle]

Go back and see what I said about that. I noted that it was unfair unless Biden's was raided and he was charged also.

But you just have to mindlessly lash out.




Then you have to spin. I support due process for all. That's our law and Constitution.

I did an update in this post to show that these illegals were given due process under the expedited removal clause in an immigration reform act created in 1996.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.


"The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.


Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.


“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.


Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.


“In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said."

 

[pknopp]

I did an update in this post to show that these illegals were given due process under the expedited removal clause in an immigration reform act created in 1996.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.


"The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.


Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.


“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.


Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.


“In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said."

I did an update in this post to show that these illegals were given due process under the expedited removal clause in an immigration reform act created in 1996.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.


"The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.


Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.


“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.


Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.


“In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said."

If they are this dangerous it will only be a few days to return. If they are this dangerous, prison is where they should be.

 

[mudwhistle]

If they are this dangerous it will only be a few days to return. If they are this dangerous, prison is where they should be.

Hahahaha. They aren't going to come back.

They've been thrown into a maximum security prison in El Salvador. What to know about El Salvador's mega-prison after Trump sent hundreds of immigrants there

 

[pknopp]

Hahahaha. They aren't going to come back.

They've been thrown into a maximum security prison in El Salvador. What to know about El Salvador's mega-prison after Trump sent hundreds of immigrants there

They aren't going to throw people into prison for illegally entering the United States.

 

[mudwhistle]

They aren't going to throw people into prison for illegally entering the United States.

These guys didn't just enter illegally. They were assaulting people, stealing from them, extorting money from them, and trafficking and selling drugs. Every one of them has a criminal record a mile long.

 

[pknopp]

These guys didn't just enter illegally. They were assaulting people, stealing from them, extorting money from them, and trafficking and selling drugs. Every one of them has a criminal record a mile long.

If they were assaulting people, why are they not in prison here?

 

[mudwhistle]

If they were assaulting people, why are they not in prison here?

Because they were doing it in Blue cities.

There isn't a Soros judge in the country willing to throw them in prison.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[Crepitus]

And I support the right of everyone to ignore the laws.

I do not.

I obey them.

Everyone should.

That's what makes us civilized.