• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional

Yeah? So? You do realize it dealt with a black male as a slave, claiming feeedom, in which at the time slaves were recognized as chattel property. The majority opinion was limited to slaves and African Americans. That doesn’t help your point to non-citizens because they are not slaves, are not property, and are people, persons, under the law of the U.S. now.

And the 14th amendment abrogated the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott decision is no longer good law.
The sad thing is, there are far too many posters in this board who see Dred Scott as "the good old days" and long for the clarity of chattel ownership rather than this confusing concept of "equal rights".
 
however, you cannot hold me hostage in your home for the amount of time you decide to...and this is the problem....the US is not something you own....and while we have laws...apparently the president does not know how to follow those laws....nor does ICE for that matter.
The hostage notion is interesting. I suppose I could retain you in isolation until your taxi arrives, in order to ensure you don’t continue to break my rules.
 
I wonder how much of the case you’ve actually read.

I have read the entire case. You aren’t going to outsmart me as to what Dred Scott said, so give it up. Here’s an interesting fun fact from the Dred decision. Dred has been recognized as the earliest use of what is called substantive due process. Do you know which part of the decision this is applicable to? So, don’t play that silly game with me. I have read the decision. If you want to discuss the facts, law, and reasoning of the decision, then do it! Stop the silly game of suggesting I haven’t.

Interesting that you chose not to directly answer my question.

To the contrary, I answered your question. Under the decision, Dred Scott, a black make, and a slave who had made it to free soil, was not a person but chattel property under the law at the time. He was chattel property because laws at the time recognized some people not as a human beings but as chattel property. Your question was answered, and in case you missed it, the answer was Dred and laws at the time recognized some human beings as chattel property. That was my answer.

(I’ll also say CJ Taney reaches the conclusion Dred Scott was not free by taking, at the time, a novel approach to interpreting the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. This novel approach wasn’t the only flaw, as his reasoning elsewhere in the opinion as to why Dred could not claim protections was just as flawed.)

Dred was considered property (a thing) rather than a human being (a person). Bad law? Sure it was, but it shows that men of great scholarly minds can get it wrong. It comes down to interpretation.

And you aren’t making a compelling point here, because not all interpretations are equal. Dred Scott has been properly derided precisely because the evidence is weak and the reasoning was ponderous.

How this relates to your point the word “person” in the BOR is not applicable to non-citizens is a mystery. I see some parallels between your interpretation and Dred. Your argument treats a “person” as not a “person” in the BOR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I have read the entire case. <snip>
And yet even after I quoted a snippet from Taney’s Majority opinion and highlighted the pertinent points to our discussion you chose to ignore them by claiming the case was about a slave. That’s obvious. But what is overlooked is how Taney defined to whom the Constitution pertained and was beneficial to. The citizens of the United States.

Thanks for participating. I see no point in continuing since the conclusion will be the same. You may have the last word.
 
The hostage notion is interesting. I suppose I could retain you in isolation until your taxi arrives, in order to ensure you don’t continue to break my rules.
the problem is, you guys are screaming about immigrants and no rights, etc...the guy was a US citizen. So, does he have less rights, because he is not white?
 
the problem is, you guys are screaming about immigrants and no rights, etc...the guy was a US citizen. So, does he have less rights, because he is not white?
Sorry Clara. Can you remind me of the context? What guy are you referring to?
 
What the US Constitution does is require the US government to enforce all immigration laws to the letter.

And any government employee, appointed judge, or elected official who refuses should be held legally accountable.

The letter can be interpreted differently than what you’re demanding. And if your criteria were met, the Trump admin would have been in violation of so much of it.
 
Justice Antonin Scalia "it is well established, that the fifth amendment entitles aliens to due process of the law."
I disagree with Scalia.

Citizenship (or nationality) was once seen as the essential link between individuals and the law of nations, because states—rather than individuals—were considered the subjects of international law, and it was only through the individual’s relationship to a state that he could enjoy any benefits under the law of nations.1 Statelessness was considered a substantial encumbrance; stateless individuals were essentially at the mercy of all states in whose territories they might find themselves, without the ability to call on the protection of a home state to obtain redress.
Others on the SC have also.
 
you can disagree all you want, person equals anyone inside the US....except those not subject to our laws...diplomats, etc...
If your premise was correct, then we could not even arrest an immigrant.
We can arrest a diplomat. They can claim diplomatic immunity under international law. But even that has limitations.

It’s not just my disagreement. As I’ve been trying to point out men and women of scholarly minds have disagreed. That’s why we have a SC. But even the justices of the SC don’t always agree. That’s why we have a majority opinion and a minority one. On this issue, as with any, I can disagree with the SC’s decision. You do know that, right?
 
Justice Antonin Scalia "it is well established, that the fifth amendment entitles aliens to due process of the law."
It referred to due process in criminal and other legal matters, not violation of immigration law - I.E. being in the USA illegally.
 
It referred to due process in criminal and other legal matters, not violation of immigration law - I.E. being in the USA illegally.
um, no...because the continuation of that was all about immigration. Here is the quote in its entirety...you can find the decision

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
 
We can arrest a diplomat. They can claim diplomatic immunity under international law. But even that has limitations.

It’s not just my disagreement. As I’ve been trying to point out men and women of scholarly minds have disagreed. That’s why we have a SC. But even the justices of the SC don’t always agree. That’s why we have a majority opinion and a minority one. On this issue, as with any, I can disagree with the SC’s decision. You do know that, right?
No, we cannot...we have no jurisdiction to arrest or charge them. They only can be told that they must leave the US...that they are persona non grata.

The police cannot detain them, arrest them, or search or seize their houses and other property. Diplomats cannot be prosecuted or otherwise forced to appear in criminal court. Nor can they be sued in civil courts, except for their personal (non-official) involvement in certain commercial, real-estate, or inheritance-related matters, or for their separate professional activities.
 
A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional


This is why we need constitutionalists and not left wing judicial activists sitting on the federal courts
 
No, we cannot...we have no jurisdiction to arrest or charge them. They only can be told that they must leave the US...that they are persona non grata.

The police cannot detain them, arrest them, or search or seize their houses and other property. Diplomats cannot be prosecuted or otherwise forced to appear in criminal court. Nor can they be sued in civil courts, except for their personal (non-official) involvement in certain commercial, real-estate, or inheritance-related matters, or for their separate professional activities.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
 
No, we cannot...we have no jurisdiction to arrest or charge them. They only can be told that they must leave the US...that they are persona non grata.

The police cannot detain them, arrest them, or search or seize their houses and other property. Diplomats cannot be prosecuted or otherwise forced to appear in criminal court. Nor can they be sued in civil courts, except for their personal (non-official) involvement in certain commercial, real-estate, or inheritance-related matters, or for their separate professional activities.
Then what stops millions of Chinese disembarking in San Francisco, Seattle, and LA, with impunity? If you won’t enforce the border why should they honor it? You have no mechanism to handle it.
 
Then what stops millions of Chinese disembarking in San Francisco, Seattle, and LA, with impunity? If you won’t enforce the border why should they honor it? You have no mechanism to handle it.
You do realize there is a difference between diplomatic immunity and being Chinese, correct? Also, living in a communist country, in and of itself, is not a reason for applying for asylum...so I would assume that is what prevents it.
 
The problem is this: There is a backlog of immigration hearing cases that stretch into years in the future.

So...should a person, say...an illegal alien, be allowed to roam around the country for years before their case comes up for a hearing? I don't think so. Should that person be incarcerated for years before their case comes up for a hearing? I don't think so. (An exception would be in the case of violent criminals. They can rot in jail, for all I care.)

My solution is simple: Give them a court date...even if it is five years in the future...and ship them back to their own country. If they want to appear in court, they can. If not, they can stay where they are.
There is no actual and express, Immigration clause in our federal Constitution. Don't believe in Individual Liberty or Natural Rights?
 
What the US Constitution does is require the US government to enforce all immigration laws to the letter.

And any government employee, appointed judge, or elected official who refuses should be held legally accountable.

Convincing right wingers to be, legal to the laws is quite a challenge. They prefer their hypocrisy and "hate on the Poor", instead. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme Law of the land.
 
I totally get the "Immigration" part but what I don't get is the whole "Illegal Immigration" fiasco.

Deport them immediately if not sooner and declare them forever ineligible for future US Citizenship.

Illegal Immigration will never end until the US secures its borders and induces mass self-deportation.
Only a nanny-State will do for the right wing instead of faithfully executing our own actual and express laws.
 
It could.

In the meantime, we are left with two undesirable options.

Take your pick.
What undesirable options are you referring to?

We should be making money not losing money on foreign nationals in the US. Only the right wing prefers expensive nanny-Statism and losing money even with our Commerce Clause and a central bank.
 
Back
Top Bottom