Will president Trump's jackbooted thugs go door to door searching for illegals?

[Unkotare]

..... Watts '65 and Chicago '68 will look like picnics compared to what people like me are willing to do ......

Who are you kidding? You aren't willing to do anything beyond whining on the internet.

 

[Unkotare]

... Any cases not requiring immediate ambulatory care can be medi-vacced by helo to mexico or flown to their originating nation.
....

And how much would that cost, genius?

 

[Unkotare]

...
12) conduct persistent and relentless workplace raids ....

Oh yeah, cripple OUR economy. Great idea, genius.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you, and you will probably get turned over to USCI. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. Now, if it was determined based on your fingerprints that you were a prior EWI or VO, then they will turn you over to USCIS and they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes.

In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

I would suggest you learn your states laws.

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.



As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.

Any border agent can ask for your passport and proof of citizenship. Any government ICE agent under reports of suspicious activity can ask you for your identification, they are well within their jurisdiction and authority to do so. Try telling a trooper who believes he saw you swerve over a double yellow, that he can't (or has no authority to) see your identification.

 

[Unkotare]

...

1) no admittance of illegals to any school or college....

The Supreme Court has already ruled against that idea.

 

[HenryBHough]

That premise is so silly. They won't have to knock on doors - just tie a string to a welfare check and drag it slowly down the street.

 

[Unkotare]

... no admittance of illegals to any hospital....

Never going to happen.

 

[Unkotare]

...
6) anchor baby mis-reading of 14th amendment repaired - BOTH parents must be citizens for baby to be a US cit....

Good luck with the Constitutional amendment, genius.

 

[Unkotare]

7) must be a citizen/permanent resident to open a bank account, and only they can rent or buy an apartment/house/property
....

Again, this would harm OUR economy, genius.

 

[Unkotare]

...
9) apply all of these retro-actively, so that anchor babies going back to 1950 lose their citizenship...

The law doesn't work that way, genius.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Don't give up your day job to become a lawyer. Nobody can be deported unles:
1. They are convicted in a court of law of being in the country illegally, or
2. They VOLUNTARILY give up that right and agree to be deported without a trial, which means that they are not guilty of any prior offenses the next time they do it.

Love the snide insults from people that think they know what they are talking about, when the reality of it is they only know half of what they think they know. SMFH

Those caught at the border can be returned with a simple fingerprint, photograph and/or a waiver. Those charged with EWI at the border (which is what Obama is doing at the border to increase his appearance of deporting more illegals than any other President in History) can be given a court appearance (see your own link for Operation Streamline) or offered the waiver which is an admission of guilt to which if they cross the border again they can be charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor.

Visa overstays with order of deportation against them have already had their day in court and were denied, that's why they were ordered removed.

Again, illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, they have very, very few.

Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first. Additionally, you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry. But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.

Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides for several types of due process for aliens, depending on their circumstances of arrival and stay. The law does not require that all removals be ordered by an immigration judge.



The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.

In order for an illegal immigrant to be deported, He first must be found guilty of being an illegal immigrant in a court of law.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you, and you will probably get turned over to USCI. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. Now, if it was determined based on your fingerprints that you were a prior EWI or VO, then they will turn you over to USCIS and they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes.

In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

I would suggest you learn your states laws.

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.



As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.

Any border agent can ask for your passport and proof of citizenship. Any government ICE agent under reports of suspicious activity can ask you for your identification, they are well within their jurisdiction and authority to do so. Try telling a trooper who believes he saw you swerve over a double yellow, that he can't (or has no authority to) see your identification.

In America, no law enforcement officer can detained, or search you without probable cause that you have committed a crime.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Love the snide insults from people that think they know what they are talking about, when the reality of it is they only know half of what they think they know. SMFH

Those caught at the border can be returned with a simple fingerprint, photograph and/or a waiver. Those charged with EWI at the border (which is what Obama is doing at the border to increase his appearance of deporting more illegals than any other President in History) can be given a court appearance (see your own link for Operation Streamline) or offered the waiver which is an admission of guilt to which if they cross the border again they can be charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor.

Visa overstays with order of deportation against them have already had their day in court and were denied, that's why they were ordered removed.

Again, illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, they have very, very few.

Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first. Additionally, you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry. But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.

Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides for several types of due process for aliens, depending on their circumstances of arrival and stay. The law does not require that all removals be ordered by an immigration judge.



The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.

In order for an illegal immigrant to be deported, He first must be found guilty of being an illegal immigrant in a court of law.

No he does not. It has been shown to you repeatedly that Administrative and Expedited Removals do not require he be found guilty in a court of law, only that his status is that of non-citizen and non-immigrant. The only time a court of law comes into play is if the illegal is charged with an infamous crime.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you, and you will probably get turned over to USCI. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. Now, if it was determined based on your fingerprints that you were a prior EWI or VO, then they will turn you over to USCIS and they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes. I would suggest you learn your states laws.

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.



As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.

Any border agent can ask for your passport and proof of citizenship. Any government ICE agent under reports of suspicious activity can ask you for your identification, they are well within their jurisdiction and authority to do so. Try telling a trooper who believes he saw you swerve over a double yellow, that he can't (or has no authority to) see your identification.

In America, no law enforcement officer can detained, or search you without probable cause that you have committed a crime.

Border Patrol has the authority under the 4th Amendment to question you at a port of entry and border check point. Local law enforcement can question you and detain you once they come into contact with you, look at your state statutes, as I already linked to them for you.

Everything you are claiming has already been shown to be ignorantly inaccurate.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first. Additionally, you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry. But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.

Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides for several types of due process for aliens, depending on their circumstances of arrival and stay. The law does not require that all removals be ordered by an immigration judge.



The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.

In order for an illegal immigrant to be deported, He first must be found guilty of being an illegal immigrant in a court of law.

No he does not. It has been shown to you repeatedly that Administrative and Expedited Removals do not require he be found guilty in a court of law, only that his status is that of non-citizen and non-immigrant. The only time a court of law comes into play is if the illegal is charged with an infamous crime.

Nope

 

[Vandalshandle]

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.



As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.

Any border agent can ask for your passport and proof of citizenship. Any government ICE agent under reports of suspicious activity can ask you for your identification, they are well within their jurisdiction and authority to do so. Try telling a trooper who believes he saw you swerve over a double yellow, that he can't (or has no authority to) see your identification.

In America, no law enforcement officer can detained, or search you without probable cause that you have committed a crime.

Border Patrol has the authority under the 4th Amendment to question you at a port of entry and border check point. Local law enforcement can question you and detain you once they come into contact with you, look at your state statutes, as I already linked to them for you.

Everything you are claiming has already been shown to be ignorantly inaccurate.

...and nope...

This describes the constitutional process as that are required, without the consent of the detainee.

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

"“As ugly as some people think it is, it’s a bargain for the defendants,” Judge Velasco said in an interview in his chambers. “What we do is constitutional, it satisfies due process. It may not look good, but it does everything the law requires.”

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides for several types of due process for aliens, depending on their circumstances of arrival and stay. The law does not require that all removals be ordered by an immigration judge.



The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.

In order for an illegal immigrant to be deported, He first must be found guilty of being an illegal immigrant in a court of law.

No he does not. It has been shown to you repeatedly that Administrative and Expedited Removals do not require he be found guilty in a court of law, only that his status is that of non-citizen and non-immigrant. The only time a court of law comes into play is if the illegal is charged with an infamous crime.

Nope

So you're going to sit here and deny everything that has been shown to you showing your claims to be asinine and ignorant? LMFAO

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.



As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.

Any border agent can ask for your passport and proof of citizenship. Any government ICE agent under reports of suspicious activity can ask you for your identification, they are well within their jurisdiction and authority to do so. Try telling a trooper who believes he saw you swerve over a double yellow, that he can't (or has no authority to) see your identification.

In America, no law enforcement officer can detained, or search you without probable cause that you have committed a crime.

Border Patrol has the authority under the 4th Amendment to question you at a port of entry and border check point. Local law enforcement can question you and detain you once they come into contact with you, look at your state statutes, as I already linked to them for you.

Everything you are claiming has already been shown to be ignorantly inaccurate.

...and nope...

This describes the constitutional process as that are required, without the consent of the detainee.

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

"“As ugly as some people think it is, it’s a bargain for the defendants,” Judge Velasco said in an interview in his chambers. “What we do is constitutional, it satisfies due process. It may not look good, but it does everything the law requires.”

And those, in your link, at the border are being charged with an infamous crime, EWI. SMFH You can't truly be this inept, can you? Due Process is only required if they are being charged with an infamous crime. If they are not charged, they can be removed via Expedited Removal or Administrative Removal. Do you really not comprehend your own link?

Here's my link that explains the basics to you. When Can Noncitizens Be Removed Without Seeing an Immigration Judge? | Nolo.com

Although legal discussions regarding the removal (or deportation) of noncitizens from the U.S. tend to revolve around immigration court proceedings, the majority of noncitizen removals actually takes place outside this system. Such removals are issued directly by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through summary (or expedited) proceedings and are usually not reviewable by an immigration judge. They may, however, under extremely rare circumstances, be challenged in federal court.

What? No Due Process required? WTF?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Love the snide insults from people that think they know what they are talking about, when the reality of it is they only know half of what they think they know. SMFH

Those caught at the border can be returned with a simple fingerprint, photograph and/or a waiver. Those charged with EWI at the border (which is what Obama is doing at the border to increase his appearance of deporting more illegals than any other President in History) can be given a court appearance (see your own link for Operation Streamline) or offered the waiver which is an admission of guilt to which if they cross the border again they can be charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor.

Visa overstays with order of deportation against them have already had their day in court and were denied, that's why they were ordered removed.

Again, illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, they have very, very few.

Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first. Additionally, you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry. But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.

Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
provides for several types of due process for aliens, depending on their circumstances of arrival and stay. The law does not require that all removals be ordered by an immigration judge.



The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.

In order for an illegal immigrant to be deported, He first must be found guilty of being an illegal immigrant in a court of law.

According to the INA they don't even have to face a immigration judge. Perhaps you can provide some actual legislation you are siting from. I'm just not interested in merely your "opinion" if you can't support it

 

[rhodescholar]

And how much would that cost, genius?

To save you the trouble shitbag, I have you on ignore so don't bother even trying to engage me in conversation - you are trolling dogshit.