Trump 47

No, you absolutely DID NOT.
Absolutely DID.

"One of MPI's principal findings is that the deportation system has dramatically changed over the past 19 years – moving from a judicial system prior to 1996, where the vast majority of people facing deportation had immigration court hearings, to a system today of nonjudicial removals, where 75 percent of people removed do not see a judge before being expelled from the U.S."
 
Absolutely DID.

"One of MPI's principal findings is that the deportation system has dramatically changed over the past 19 years – moving from a judicial system prior to 1996, where the vast majority of people facing deportation had immigration court hearings, to a system today of nonjudicial removals, where 75 percent of people removed do not see a judge before being expelled from the U.S."
Due to congressionally passed law. What law is Trump following that allows expedited deportation anywhere in the country with any immigrants who have been here long term?
 
No, you absolutely DID NOT.
I don't even think he read the article he linked. It is the ACLU complaining that the Obama Admin should give Due Process to all Illegals No matter how long.... even though the UNITED STATES LAW says under 2 weeks and under 100 Miles they don't have too

The article he linked is the SAME argument the ACLU has against Trump RIGHT NOW.....all illegals should get due process in the US before removal


So to use that as an example that no one cared "when Obama did it" is proof of nothing more than the ACLU holding the SAME exact ground against Trump they Did with Obama.
 
I don't even think he read the article he linked. It is the ACLU complaining that the Obama Admin should give Due Process to all Illegals No matter how long.... even though the UNITED STATES LAW says under 2 weeks and under 100 Miles they don't have too

The article he linked is the SAME argument the ACLU has against Trump RIGHT NOW.....all illegals should get due process in the US before removal


So to use that as an example that no one cared "when Obama did it" is proof of nothing more than the ACLU holding the SAME exact ground against Trump they Did with Obama.
I read every article before I post it. Do you?🤣
I didn't say "no one cared" I said "YOU didn't care."

Keep spinning.
 
I don't even think he read the article he linked. It is the ACLU complaining that the Obama Admin should give Due Process to all Illegals No matter how long.... even though the UNITED STATES LAW says under 2 weeks and under 100 Miles they don't have too

The article he linked is the SAME argument the ACLU has against Trump RIGHT NOW.....all illegals should get due process in the US before removal


So to use that as an example that no one cared "when Obama did it" is proof of nothing more than the ACLU holding the SAME exact ground against Trump they Did with Obama.
He also doesn't understand following law.

The ACLU was challenging the constitutionality of the law and if they won the law would have been struck down.

They are essentially challenging Trump going beyond the same law now.
 
Due to congressionally passed law. What law is Trump following that allows expedited deportation anywhere in the country with any immigrants who have been here long term?
Why does it matter how long someone has been here ILLEGALLY?
 
Some of you folks really need to meet this guy
1746040079886.png

This "Bill Guy" in 1996 did a Tour of Congress and was passed and signed into Law by POTUS Bill Clinton. That Law said

1746040122793.png

Are immigration officials allowed to stop people in places wholly inside the U.S.?​

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency tasked with patrolling the U.S. border and areas that function like a border, claims a territorial reach much larger than you might imagine. A federal law says that, without a warrant, CBP can board vehicles and vessels and search for people without immigration documentation “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” These “external boundaries” include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline.

What is a “reasonable distance”?​

The federal government defines a “reasonable distance” as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S. So, combining this federal regulation and the federal law regarding warrantless vehicle searches, CBP claims authority to board a bus or train without a warrant anywhere within this 100-mile zone. Two-thirds of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region, according to the 2010 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.

Are there limitations to immigration officials’ power?​

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area. Furthermore, as a general matter, these agents’ jurisdiction extends only to immigration violations and federal crimes. And, depending on where you are in this area and how long an agent detains you, agents must have varying levels of suspicion to hold you.

We will examine specific scenarios where one might encounter CBP in more depth, but here are your key rights. These apply to every situation, outside of customs and ports of entry.

  • You have the right to remain silent or tell the agent that you’ll only answer questions in the presence of an attorney, no matter your citizenship or immigration status. You do not have to answer questions about your immigration status. You may simply say that you do not wish to answer those questions. If you choose to remain silent, the agent will likely ask you questions for longer, but your silence alone is not enough to support probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest, detain, or search you or your belongings.
    A limited exception does exist: for people who do have permission to be in the U.S. for a specific reason and for, usually, a limited amount of time (a “nonimmigrant” on a visa, for example), the law does require you to provide information about your immigration status if asked. While you can still choose to remain silent or decline a request to produce your documents, people in this category should be aware that they could face arrest consequences. If you want to know whether you fall into this category, you should consult an attorney.
  • Generally, an immigration officer cannot detain you without “reasonable suspicion.” Reasonable suspicion is less robust than probable cause, but it is certainly not just a hunch or gut feeling. An agent must have specific facts about you that make it reasonable to believe you are committing or committed, a violation of immigration law or federal law.
    If an agent detains you, you can ask for their basis for reasonable suspicion, and they should tell you.
  • An immigration officer also cannot search you or your belongings without either “probable cause” or your consent. If an agent asks you if they can search your belongings, you have the right to say no.
  • An immigration officer cannot arrest you without “probable cause.”
    That means the agent must have facts about you that make it probable that you are committing, or committed, a violation of immigration law or federal law.
  • Your silence alone meets neither of these standards. Nor does your race or ethnicity alone suffice for either probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Other important factors to keep in mind:

  • If an agent asks you for documents, what you need to provide differs depending on your immigration status. U.S. citizens do not have to carry proof of citizenship on their person if they are in the United States. If you have valid immigration documents and are over the age of 18, the law does require you to carry those documents on you. If you are asked by an immigration agent to produce them, it is advisable to show the documents to the agent or you risk being arrested. If you are an immigrant without documents, you can decline the officer’s request. An agent may likely ask you more questions if you decline a request. No matter what category you fall into, never provide false documents to immigration officials.
  • People who have entered the U.S. without inspection by an immigration official may be subject to expedited removal from the U.S. Expedited removal is a summary deportation that bypasses an immigration judge. The federal government says that it will only attempt to apply expedited removal to individuals who have entered the United States without inspection in the last 14 days, have been encountered by an immigration officer within 100 miles of the border, and meet certain other criteria. If you are told that you are subject to expedited removal but do not fall within that category, you should let the agents know. Also, if you fear persecution if returned to your country of origin, you should immediately inform the agents of your fear.
 
Why does it matter how long someone has been here ILLEGALLY?
Prior to 1996 when THIS law Passed and added a 2 week time period where No Due Process was needed to be removed

what do you think the LEGALLY defined period was for an illegal immigrant to be removed from the US without Due Process was prior to that ?
 
I'll give him a hint... it didn't have one. EVERYONE would have gotten due process..
Winner Winner.

The SCOTUS has held several cases on it and each time cited the Constitution saying it protects Illegal Aliens and provides Due Process to Aliens as well as US Citizens

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the rights of noncitizens in the United States. The Court ruled that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry or presence in the U.S. This case highlighted the legal protections afforded to immigrants and established that detention of immigrants is not a criminal punishment, thus contributing to a separate system of government bureaucracy for immigrants

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants… (2001)


So there is VERY clear precedence in the US for the following

1. Illegal Aliens are offered the same protections under the US Constitution as Citizens...Including Due Process
2. Illegal Aliens can NOT be detained indefinitely as a means to circumvent providing Due Process
3. In 1996 US Congress passed a law stating any Illegal immigrant caught within 100 miles of the border and less than 2 weeks in the country could be deported without Due Process. The ACLU challenged the Law and it was Upheld and is still law


So PROVE to me that Trump is following that law and deporting only people in the US less than 2 weeks and captured less than 100 miles from the border and then I will happily agree he is following the law.

However, we know this guy has ALREADY deported at LEAST 4 AMERICAN citizens AND can't tell anyone the NAMES of the People the have Deported OR in same cases know the name but can't tell you where they Deported them.
 
Last edited:
Not defending him, I'm calling out on your inability to give a crap about POTUS actually following US law.
joel mchale pitchfork GIF by NETFLIX
 
Where was all the outrage when Obama deported illegals with no due process?
President Trump to ABC News’ Terry Moran on undocumented migrants and their right to due process: “If people come into our country illegally, there's a different standard.” #Trump100TheInterview


Where is Polds' "outrage" in his post? I see no outrage. Its a link to an article talking about due process and how Trump isn't following it.
 
Back
Top