Posted on 06/28/2018 9:44:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: The only caveat that I could see is in the case of asylum.
As I understand it, there are LAWS for applying for asylum. The law states that you have to apply via an American consulate or embassy in the country you are fleeing from.
Mexico has over 10 consulates where they can apply.
What I would do is put the entire family on a bus to a US embassy on the side of the border from which they crossed. Due process could be conducted there.
No.
But it might require changes in the judiciary.
Yes.
Indeed there are, but we also allow for spontaneous pleas for asylum. I agree with you that they COULD have stopped anywhere along their trek, but those who are rational know that they CHOSE not to. This proves economic and not political/imminent danger and should be rejected prima facie.
You’ve got that right. The man says things that are ignorant half the time. He constantly claims that Trump is wrong when he not wrong, or when no one can tell he’s wrong as in this case.
I will say that he had evidence that Trump was being wiretapped. He was suspended by Fox, and I think he recanted, but he had good info.
I’m also told that Trump has asked the judge’s opioion on matters esp judgeships.
This “argument” is stupid. If I go into Canada and try to come back without a passport or driver’s license, do I find myself in a courtroom or back in the driver seat of my car with orders to drive anywhere except back to that port of entry.
What the judge doesn’t either understand or acknowledge is that illegal invaders are never to be afforded constitutional rights - those are reserved exclusively for legal US citizens!
Here is a thought:
The U. S. Constitution is a contract with the Citizens of the United States.
End of discussion.
“The forced separation by the government of children from their parents without a trial when neither is a danger to the other is child abuse or kidnapping or both.”
Napolitano, you vile, lying corksoaker.
You can’t throw children in cells with adults.
Further, a lot of those children are not with their real parents at all; they were already kidnapped and buttfucked all the way from Nicaragua by scumbags using them to get past the border.
Children are always separated from their parents when the parents are jailed. Always.
These lies are gaining traction. People are believing that the children were mistreated when, in fact, they were only being protected.
These illegals are strongly encouraged by their governments as policy. In that sense, they are an invading force.
Where is the line drawn for such invaders? If they come with the intention of settling Aztlan, are they still entitled to due process? If they are combatants more overtly? Certainly there is a point at which American due process is not due to them.
Therefore I see the only issue as to determining when that point is crossed. The idea that an illegal jumping across the border is due a long trial, taxpayer-provided representation, comfy accommodations throughout, etc., is completely daft — and undoubtedly a perverse reading of the Constitution.
So if a military force {”Persons”} overruns a US embassy (US soil) somewhere in the world, the invaders have to be arrested and tried?
Lawyers will make a fortune off the taxpayers. I’m thinking Harry Reid is doing just that through his ‘foundation’ where he asks for donations to support their defense.
The judge is WRONG.
We should consider them invaders. If they protest saying they have no uniforms, consider them spies and handle them accordingly.
“President Donald Trump argued that those foreigners who enter the United States unlawfully should simply be taken to the border, escorted across it and let go”
Would you like to walk southward 300 yards right away back to Mexico or face a trial in a US court and up to six months incarceration?
Regresen a Mexico inmediatamente, por favor, or you’ll be arrested and made to serve time in jail.
Has deportation always been the term used for illegal aliens, or was there a point when deportation only referred to revoking legal permission to be here and expelling the person?
It seems to me that someone seen crossing the border and apprehended immediately should simply be escorted back. Being in this country for only one minute should not confer the legal right to this country's entire deportation legal proceedings before being sent back.
-PJ
How about if the foreign invaders were wielding guns instead of children as weapons? The child is being used as a weapon to strike at the heart just the same as a gun to shoot through it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.