• 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!

White House border czar suggests ICE can detain people based on ‘physical appearance’

Bonnot

Bonnot

Your Politics Are Boring As F**k
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
3,918
Political Leaning
Other
Bonnot said:
www.msnbc.com

White House border czar suggests ICE can detain people based on ‘physical appearance’

Tom Homan’s comments about ICE agents being able to detain people based on “their physical appearance” will likely make racial profiling concerns worse.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com

Ah, so racial profiling.

Just another example of this physically repulsive looking tumor in a suit being a racist sack of shit and god awful person.
Click to expand...


He's actually correct.

The US constitution applies to citizens and LEGAL residents only.

An "applicant" for entry is neither and can be held indefinitely if there is any suspicion of duplicity. An applicant, at least back in the day, has no rights under the constitution but is only protected by whatever immigration agreement the US has with the host country.

I learned this the hard way with a friend who was born in Puerto Rico but came to Canada as a child. They ran his ID and determined he was an "American" and therefore subject to the draft and was arrested on the spot.

He was in jail for about three months proving he was a naturalized Canadian citizen
 
Fearandloathing said:
The US constitution applies to citizens and LEGAL residents only.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The constitution protects "persons" not just citizens or legal residents. The supremes have consistently held that many constitutional protections extend to all people on US soil, including immigrants and non-citizens. For example, the fifth amendment applies to all persons, including illegal entrants see, e.g. Zadvydas

The fourteenth also applies to all persons "within the jurisdiction" not just citizens.
 
StillBallin75 said:
You mean it was always, transparently, obviously, about racism?

YOU DON'T SAY 🤔

How long have I been arguing that people's "concerns" about "illegal" immigration were always bad-faith xenophobic nonsense? Do we need any more proof?
Click to expand...
This is Joe Arpeio/Russel Pearce level shit.
 
Isidore said:
How does one determine citizenship or legal status based on physical appearance?
Click to expand...
Tho I disapprove of ICE’s actions, let me say a word or two in defense of physical appearances as sometimes indicating legal status —at least in the somewhat distant past. Back in the 1970s when Mexican and US cultures were less homogenized, when working for the farmworkers union, I asked legal farm workers who were complaining about illegals used as strike breakers how they knew the latter were illegal. “Se sabe, Nico,” came the reply. (“One can tell, Nico.”) And after a while I - like the legal farmworkers, was able to tell a bit by the clothes the undocumented wore, and even sometimes by their Spanish phrasing, which didn’t have the “Spanglish” characteristics of Mexican-American Spanish.

Though of Italian descent, when I lived in the border, both US and Mexican border guards mistook me for Mexican because of my darker skin. And until I passed through the highlands of the Mexican state of Jalisco, I doubted the stories Mexicans told me of blond, blue-eyed people living there, so used was I to seeing darker-skinned Mexicans.
 
Fearandloathing said:
He's actually correct.

The US constitution applies to citizens and LEGAL residents only.

An "applicant" for entry is neither and can be held indefinitely if there is any suspicion of duplicity. An applicant, at least back in the day, has no rights under the constitution but is only protected by whatever immigration agreement the US has with the host country.

I learned this the hard way with a friend who was born in Puerto Rico but came to Canada as a child. They ran his ID and determined he was an "American" and therefore subject to the draft and was arrested on the spot.

He was in jail for about three months proving he was a naturalized Canadian citizen
Click to expand...

Do Non-Citizens have Constitutional Rights?​

There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully.
Nowhere in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution is the word “citizen.” Often it is written “The right of the people…” The Bill of Rights protects everyone, including undocumented immigrants, to exercise free speech, religion, assembly, and to be free from unlawful government interference.
www.maniatislawoffice.com

Do Non-Citizens have Constitutional Rights? | Maniatis Law PLLC

There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws ... Immigration
www.maniatislawoffice.com www.maniatislawoffice.com

There are a few exceptions where rights are specifically limited to citizens, such as the right to vote and hold certain public offices.
 
In the United States US law enforcement can detain anyone, US citizen or otherwise, based on "reasonable suspicion" that they may have committed a crime. Unfortunately, established precedent has given them wide latitude with what constitutes "reasonable suspicion," and proving that suspicion was unreasonable after the fact is extremely difficult. When in doubt, courts tend to side with the officer if the only compliant is that someone was "wrongfully detained." Obviously, "dark-skinned" should never constitute reasonable suspicion, but law enforcement are experts at finding something that could justify detainment, and the majority aren't stupid enough to record "looked Mexican" as their justification for meeting the reasonable suspicion standard.

That said, "detain" just means stop and question. An officer with "reasonable suspicion" can require any individual to remain in the area, and they can ask the individual any questions they want to. They can even put them in handcuffs and put them into a police car. There's no requirement that any of their questions be answered, nor that the detained individual say anything at all. The detained individual doesn't even need to provide the officer with identification unless they are driving a vehicle, in which case they must provide a driver's license and proof of insurance.

The best course of action if you are detained by any law enforcement officer, ICE or otherwise, is to follow any instruction they give you and keep your mouth shut until they leave. Either the officer or officers will release you and leave, or they will arrest you for committing some crime, in which case the next step is to contact a lawyer.
 
Fearandloathing said:
He's actually correct.

The US constitution applies to citizens and LEGAL residents only.

An "applicant" for entry is neither and can be held indefinitely if there is any suspicion of duplicity. An applicant, at least back in the day, has no rights under the constitution but is only protected by whatever immigration agreement the US has with the host country.

I learned this the hard way with a friend who was born in Puerto Rico but came to Canada as a child. They ran his ID and determined he was an "American" and therefore subject to the draft and was arrested on the spot.

He was in jail for about three months proving he was a naturalized Canadian citizen
Click to expand...

There are numerous court findings that your first sentence is flat out false. Justice Scalia - no friend to libs and leftists - even wrote a decision to that effect.
 
Fearandloathing said:
He's actually correct.

The US constitution applies to citizens and LEGAL residents only.

An "applicant" for entry is neither and can be held indefinitely if there is any suspicion of duplicity. An applicant, at least back in the day, has no rights under the constitution but is only protected by whatever immigration agreement the US has with the host country.

I learned this the hard way with a friend who was born in Puerto Rico but came to Canada as a child. They ran his ID and determined he was an "American" and therefore subject to the draft and was arrested on the spot.

He was in jail for about three months proving he was a naturalized Canadian citizen
Click to expand...
what does appearance have to do with legal status? Sorry, but you are also wrong about Constitutional protections....due process applies to everyone inside the US.
 
StillBallin75 said:
There are numerous court findings that your first sentence is flat out false. Justice Scalia - no friend to libs and leftists - even wrote a decision to that effect.
Click to expand...


..........................so all those deportations?????

Sorry, but I've seen real life. And I've seen people hauled off and held without charge for hours and hours.

I was held at the Buffalo crossing for five hours in 1969. They mistook me for a draft dodger, said my birth certificate was 'forged'.

And you can't say "forget it..." and turn around.

Since then I have kept an up-to-date passport.
 
When we have no money being used to develop the nation forward. We get things like this. Like, hey! Stop stealing public funds for you to coast through life without ever worrying about economic instability.
 
Nickyjo said:
Tho I disapprove of ICE’s actions, let me say a word or two in defense of physical appearances as sometimes indicating legal status —at least in the somewhat distant past. Back in the 1970s when Mexican and US cultures were less homogenized, when working for the farmworkers union, I asked legal farm workers who were complaining about illegals used as strike breakers how they knew the latter were illegal. “Se sabe, Nico,” came the reply. (“One can tell, Nico.”) And after a while I - like the legal farmworkers, was able to tell a bit by the clothes the undocumented wore, and even sometimes by their Spanish phrasing, which didn’t have the “Spanglish” characteristics of Mexican-American Spanish.

Though of Italian descent, when I lived in the border, both US and Mexican border guards mistook me for Mexican because of my darker skin. And until I passed through the highlands of the Mexican state of Jalisco, I doubted the stories Mexicans told me of blond, blue-eyed people living there, so used was I to seeing darker-skinned Mexicans.
Click to expand...


Recognition is one thing.

But your actions would NOT stand in court. What you're on about is "impressions" which are based on YOUR previous exposure to various groups.
 
LOL! They openly edit out that he also said "location, the occupation, their actions" in the same breath, and you lefties just accept it and run with it!

They are still trying to find a limit to how much they can lie to your face, right out in the open, and you lefties still just bend over and take it. Hitler could only dream of that level of compliance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom