Opinion - At the first whiff of power, these Republicans betrayed the rule of law (1 Viewer)

[Questerr]

Don't need to. It's all computerized.

The law that's written as a companion to implement the Amendment I'm suggesting.

What's to keep them from from not checking it anyway? A huuuuuuge lawsuit.

How are you going to sue ICE from inside CECOT?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Because no one besides Trump worshipping fascists want to eliminate due process for anyone.

The Amendment I suggest doesn't "eliminate due process." It would define the due process to be used, including the means to prove that one is here legally.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Because if my suggestion were adopted, I wouldn't ever be in a Venezuelan prison.

Why not?

The problem with supporters of tyranny is that you guys get way overconfident, and expect to stay in power forever. But that's never how it works.

When it all falls apart, you guys are counting on the rest of us not hating you guys as much as you guys hate immigrants now. And that's not necessarily a bet you should make.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

How are you going to sue ICE from inside CECOT?

If the Amendment and laws I suggest were adopted, I wouldn't ever be inside CECOT or any other prison.

 

[Questerr]

If the Amendment and laws I suggest were adopted, I wouldn't ever be inside CECOT or any other prison.

Then you aren’t really talking about due process.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

The problem with supporters of tyranny is that you guys get way overconfident, and expect to stay in power forever. But that's never how it works.

I don't support tyranny and my proposal would make it immaterial who's in power.

When it all falls apart, you guys are counting on the rest of us not hating you guys as much as you guys hate immigrants now. And that's not necessarily a bet you should make.

Why would my proposal fall apart?

 

[Questerr]

The Amendment I suggest doesn't "eliminate due process." It would define the due process to be used, including the means to prove that one is here legally.

We already have immigration laws. The amendment would be both pointless and micromanaging.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Then you aren’t really talking about due process.

Why not? Does Due Process have to fail in order to be Due Process?

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

If the Amendment and laws I suggest were adopted, I wouldn't ever be inside CECOT or any other prison.

And if the Amendment and laws I suggest were adopted, you'd be shipped off that day.

It's a good thing the neither of our suggestions will ever pass - but the difference between me and you is that I am (at least halfway) joking, and I recognize that my suggestion is fundamentally evil and anti-American.

 

[Questerr]

Why not? Does Due Process have to fail in order to be Due Process?

Due Process is a binary state. You either have it, or you don’t.

 

[Variant]

No, it isn't murder, and I haven't suggested punishing people for doing it. But we've seen the problems of allowing several million unvetted people to enter the country. The costs to the states and cities are huge, for education, health care, housing, food security, etc.

You have as the current punishment being advanced by the administration is indefinite imprisonment in El Salvador without trial.

That is what happens when you remove due process rights.

 

[Variant]

You think due process is a favor we give criminals?

It is actually a right we give them, as opposed to say, disappearing them to the tower of London without trial or recourse as might be done in the old times.

 

[Variant]

I haven't suggested anything that extreme. It would be enough, I think, to simply return them to the point of entry nearest where they crossed to enter the country.

This is not what the administration is doing, they are dumping people, without trial into a prison in a foreign country to be held indefinitely.

That's why I suggest an Amendment to the Constitution, with supporting legislation to define the process(es).

Which would make what the administration is doing legal since they are subverting due process. Why on earth would you want to do that?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

We already have immigration laws

The present laws have shown themselves to be to subject to meddling, depending on the latest election. But, if you'd rather have the problem than a solution, I understand.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Due Process is a binary state. You either have it, or you don’t.

It helps if you know what it is. You appear not to.

 

[Variant]

Don't need to. It's all computerized.

The law that's written as a companion to implement the Amendment I'm suggesting.

What's to keep them from from not checking it anyway? A huuuuuuge lawsuit.

If you are picked up by ICE mistakenly the time you would demonstrate your citizenship would be at a hearing or trial to determine your legal status.

A proper Criminal TRIAL would be required if the United States wants to imprison you in a foreign prison.

That is due process, and it should not be denied. People have now already been imprisoned in El Salvador without a criminal trial.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

You have as the current punishment being advanced by the administration is indefinite imprisonment in El Salvador without trial.

That is what happens when you remove due process rights.

I haven't suggested removing them. I've suggested defining them specifically for immigration, together with the way to make it fair, fast, and as certain as any government process can be.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Which would make what the administration is doing legal

No, it wouldn't. It would make due process a simple. fast process.

 

[Variant]

Why not? Does Due Process have to fail in order to be Due Process?

For due process you have to have a criminal trial and conviction to be imprisoned.

 

[Variant]

No, it wouldn't.

Yes it would. If you strip due process for illegal immigrants than a criminal trial would not be required to imprison them.

 

[Lovebug]

Ok, members who are well versed in everything legal, please explain to me why this doesn't apply to those who so blatantly disregard the oath of office?

https://www.palmettosurety.com/2024...,legal consequences, including felony charges.

What are the options to stop this?

 

[RetiredAtLast]

That is due process, and it should not be denied.

Due Process is what the applicable law(s) define it to be. It is NOT some fixed, divine set of steps.

 

[Variant]

I haven't suggested removing them. I've suggested defining them specifically for immigration, together with the way to make it fair, fast, and as certain as any government process can be.

The simple point you are missing is that we are not just deporting people but imprisoning them without convicting them of any crime.

If you are against that there is no need to change our laws in any way. Illegal immigrants GET due process if they are merely being deported in a safe way.

 

[Variant]

Due Process is what the applicable law(s) define it to be. It is NOT some fixed, divine set of steps.

For cases where people are being imprisoned we have already defined these steps in the constitution.

 

[Variant]

Ok, members who are well versed in everything legal, please explain to me why this doesn't apply to those who so blatantly disregard the oath of office?

https://www.palmettosurety.com/2024/04/is-violation-of-oath-of-office-a-felony/#:~:text=They're not just words,legal consequences, including felony charges.

What are the options to stop this?

Right now? Impeachment.