Trump on Due Process at the Border

  • Thread starter Thread starter grt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To all those Second Amendment types who claim that the justification for the tens of thousands of gun deaths in America annually is that guns are needed to fight back against a tyrannical government: The current head of our government is calling for an abolition of due process. It’s time to start shooting.
 
How does Australia cope with people who come in by boat and try to land on its shores? It tows the boats back to Indonesia.

Australia is already doing what Trump proposes, yet you don’t hear heaps of condemnation and outrage against Australia.
 
Sarcelle said:
Australia is already doing what Trump proposes, yet you don’t hear heaps of condemnation and outrage against Australia.
Click to expand...
You hear condemnation and outrage if you pay any attention at all. To suggest Australia’s mistreatment of immigrants isn’t widely and loudly condemned is to reveal you aren’t informed about the issue.
 
It’s not of the same magnitude as the outrage heaped on the US.
 
Article on the Internet (Microsoft Edge news) that separated parents can pick up their kids and apply for voluntary deportation. I guess this is another “horror” of the Trump administration, “you can reunite with your kid and go home voluntarily.” Somehow I think the left will come up with how this idea is cruel and inhumane.
 
Bush and Obama justified indefinite detention of foreign nationals by saying the constitution doesn’t apply to them. It worked. Why would anyone who accepted that be outraged by what Trump says?
 
If the illegal border crossers aren’t being prosecuted for crossing the border illegally, sending them back without a trial doesn’t seem like a violation of due process.
 
If someone is trespassing on your land they don’t get to hang out on it until they have a trial. They get removed immediately. The same applies to the country as a whole.
 
What they are saying is that they will get their children back if they abandon their asylum claim.
 
exnihilo said:
If someone is trespassing on your land they don’t get to hang out on it until they have a trial. They get removed immediately. The same applies to the country as a whole.
Click to expand...
t does not. That is not the law.
 
ucfengr said:
If the illegal border crossers aren’t being prosecuted for crossing the border illegally, sending them back without a trial doesn’t seem like a violation of due process.
Click to expand...
That is not our law.
 
dvdjs said:
That is not our law.
Click to expand...
The law says that illegally crossing the border is a crime punishable by jail. If you just send them back, rather than prosecute them, how is due process violated?
 
ucfengr said:
The law says that illegally crossing the border is a crime punishable by jail. If you just send them back, rather than prosecute them, how is due process violated?
Click to expand...
The purpose of a prosecution is to determine that, in fact, someone has committed a crime.
 
lmachine said:
You hear condemnation and outrage if you pay any attention at all. To suggest Australia’s mistreatment of immigrants isn’t widely and loudly condemned is to reveal you aren’t informed about the issue.
Click to expand...
I can’t find anywhere here other than this post that you’ve said anything about Australia’s handling of immigrants. Am I mistaken? Could be it was just a poor search on my part.
 
Steve4321 said:
The purpose of a prosecution is to determine that, in fact, someone has committed a crime.
Click to expand...
That’s one of the purposes, another is to impose penalty. If there is not intention to punish someone who crosses the border illegally, how is due process violated by not having a trial? The Supreme Court has ruled that denying a non-citizen entry into the country is not a violation of due process.
 
ucfengr said:
That’s one of the purposes, another is to impose penalty. If there is not intention to punish someone who crosses the border illegally, how is due process violated by not having a trial?
Click to expand...
To be removed from the country can, in itself, be a penalty. Suppose you were walking down the road near the Mexican border and got scooped up by the Border Patrol. “This ucfengr fellow looks pretty shady to me. No doubt in my mind he’s illegal. Thank goodness we’re not constrained by that pesky 5th Amendment anymore. Let’s send his butt back to Mexico.”

As I think about it, if I got stopped by the Border Patrol I probably couldn’t prove, on the spot, that I’m a U.S. citizen. Luckily, I’m about as WASP-ish as they come. My wife, on the other hand, is a naturalized citizen who looks like she just got off the boat - or just sneaked across the border. She might have a real problem were it not for our constitutional protections.
ucfengr said:
The Supreme Court has ruled that denying a non-citizen entry into the country is not a violation of due process.
Click to expand...
True. But once someone is in the country, all the constitutional protections apply.

All of that said, I admit that I don’t have the answer to the immigration problem. I don’t even know where to start. But I have a pretty good idea of where NOT to start - by taking away due process protections.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top