Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Rare but it occurs.American teen mistakenly deported to Colombia returns to Texas | CNNAbsent some representation, a person's status is verified in an adversarial process in which the search for the truth ends at whatever the government says is the truth. Sometimes the result is a deportation of an American citizen.There are actually folks here who don't know that they are citizens, for which we might establish citizenship with a little research that the government has no reason or will to conduct.There are other folks who may have one or more reasons they are technically eligible for removal but which are correctable.More often the result is the removal of a person who may have legal rights to oppose the basis of the removal (which may be past crime or infraction that the government misrepresents as requiring not just removal), or at a minimum to escape a permanent or lengthy barring from returning legally.I am not an immigration attorney, so I cannot present all of the possible issues that might arise at an immigration hearing. Yes, it is true that most cases are black and white. When folks are caught crossing the border and admit to being illegal, there may be little reason for a hearing. But that's not true for all.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sometimes, yes. But your question is a matter for a judge to decide, possibly in a hearing after reading a briefing on the issue filed by the two sides. And once decided there is the opportunity for a post judgement appeal, possibly up to the Supreme Court.Does any of that sound like something that might happen when the defendant is unrepresented?

Sure marc9000. Where "brand new rights" means as established in the 5th and 14th amendments, respectively enacted over 200 and 100 years ago. Nice try though.

Remember that we showed you that the so called Leftist spin on the constitution was also a view held by some of the founding fathers? Your response was that you hated them too.Apparently, haters just hate.

You hate people who disagree with you or who have different opinions and world view than your own. How deserving is that?I appreciate the honesty.

I suppose that this stuff is easily dismissed as just the press lying again. To be fair, Trump's message was a mix of condemnation of Islamic terrorism in very general and strong terms, and praise for Islam as a religion. But there is no escaping that Trump drew a distinction between terrorism as a false practice of Islam and the Islamic religion. I don't expect you to ever do that.I'll note also that Trump said nothing to the Saudi's about human rights violations.Clearly Trump's position as expressed this weekend is somewhere north of your own.

Then you don't express yourself very well. You aim your words at people. You said that you hated some specific founding fathers because of their ideologies. Either you are not telling the truth now, or you didn't tell the truth then.You've also express wishes for ill on folks here. That's not just hate for their ideology.Nobody here hates people more than you do.ABE: Message 589Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your assertion makes no sense, marc9000. The sentence is in there because it expresses a sentiment that at one time when just about everyone except Native Americans and Africans born in the United States had an easy path to citizenship. The Supreme Court had held that despite the words in the 5th Amendment, black folks had no rights and no claim to citizenship. The 14th amendment made it clear, without even mentioning folks of African descent, that the Dred Scott decision was no longer the law.And Now it is clear that the 14th amendment applies to everyone including you. You don't prove your citizenship by tracing your ancestry back to the Mayflower or to some parent who is a naturalized citizen. Instead, you simply show a birth certificate with the details of your own birth. You don't even have to prove that your own parents were citizens.Again, as far as the words of the 14th amendment are concerned, you are questioning something that the Supreme Court resolved back in 1886. All we can take from this is that you don't like the results. To wit: Yeah, but that's the law. If mere financial convenience were enough to overturn the law, then don't complain when your house gets robbed. Quite obviously that is not the law. Honest, eh? I see otherwise.It appears to me that you are not much enamored by the current state of the Constitution. Folks here are not making up a new interpretation of the law; they are instead citing an interpretation that is well over 100 years old, and only a few years older than the 14th amendment is itself.You've already told us the relative disrespect you and your fellows have for the amendments beyond the 11th. Here you show specifically your disrespect for the 14th amendment. No surprise there. Apparently, that state of affairs still exists despite the fact that Democrats are approximately equally numbered. There are lots of reasons for that, and I agree that some of those are because of the democrats stand on immigration. But there are other reasons. For example the US Supreme Court just today overruled NC's attempt to racially gerrymander the state to stack the legislature in a state that is approximately equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.A few years ago folks were predicting the demise of the Republican party; No you assert the end of the Democrats. Both predictions are likely foolish.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Again, the Congress could easily have simply said Africans or colored folks or slaves if the sentence was limited to that. And further, even you use the 14th Amendment to prove your own citizenship despite the fact that you are not of African descent. Again, the interpretation you don't like was not invented by liberals. It is the interpretation that been used by the Supreme Court dating from shortly after the 14th Amendment was written.Can you show me where the Court has ever interpreted the 14th amendment in the way you wish it were? Our forefathers were not the rabid anti-immigrant folks that current wing nuts are. In fact, other than foreign arms trying to occupy this country militarily, the only folks not welcome to immigrate to this country at the time of the 18th amendment were those that white folks had racial animus towards. Immigrants, at least those who were willing to assimilate, were welcome. Other than laws against undesirables like Asians, there were no immigration laws.Yet you would have us believe that the 14th amendment could not apply to anyone except former slaves without naming them in any way. I submit that such a belief is completely unsupportable. At least not without using arguments that you would never use in say a 2nd amendment case. People of all races and of all political persuasions have claimed protection under the 14th amendment. And rightfully so. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : correct grammar plus ABE:

There is a qualifier. All person with its jurisdiction, but even illegal aliens meet that requirement.

Yes it was. You certainly did not get that idea from anything I said.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You've changed, NCE. I sometimes wonder about your new handle. I think I am beginning to understand...

Apparently, President Trump in the course of tweeting about the attacks in London has taken to insisting that his immigration executive order is indeed a Muslim ban.

quote:

---

Trump tweeted several times on the proposed travel ban from six Muslim-majority countries, saying his Justice Department should not have submitted a "watered down, politically correct version" to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has repeatedly tried to distance Trump's comments as President and during the campaign from its case looking to lift a legal ban against his executive order.

---

In previous rulings, both Trumps original order and his modified order have been found unconstitutional based on statements Trump made while campaigning. I had expected that his modified order, because it had been made in response to the original court rulings would get a pass because his lawyers could argue that they had removed the animus attached to the first order. I was wrong about that, but it would seem clear that making new comments about banning Muslims and referring directly to his executive order would be ill-advised.George Conway, husband of Kelly C, and a strong supporter of President Trump said the following:George Conway hits Trump over travel ban tweet | CNN Politics

quote:

---

Later Monday, Conway said Trump hurt his case and made things difficult for the Office of Solicitor General, which argues cases before the Supreme Court.
"These tweets may make some ppl feel better, but they certainly won't help OSG get 5 votes in SCOTUS, which is what actually matters. Sad."

---

My own conclusion is that President Trump is still trying to manage his base even at the risk of trashing his case at the Supreme Court. His base clearly does want a Muslim ban. There was a reasonable chance that he would have lost at the SC even without his comments so maybe he feels that there is nothing left to lose.On the other hand, maybe the man is just a buffoon.

Faith, not blabbing BS about some court case you are involved in is not something unique to politics. Any adult should know better. Trump's advisors certainly know better. You know better. But leave it to you to find some kind of virtue in being a buffoon.Is this Trump's first time being involved in a civil lawsuit? Then what is his excuse? I don't see one. This statement is inane. Trump is posting his idiocy directly to Twitter. Don't you think his opponents in the legal case are going to read the president's posts? There is literally no way to blame anyone but Trump for the foolish things he tweets.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right, but since there is nothing in his remarks acknowledging that Islam= terrorists, then his remarks are ripe for criticism by the regular band of idiots. You know the drill.