SCOTUS Says That Foreign Nationals Has No Rights To Due Process Here
The left has been throwing one hell of temper tantrum since President Trump has stated that illegal immigrants do NOT have the same rights as legal ones. Trump has stated that these illegals should be sent back to their country of origin and not tie up the courts with years of paperwork and hearings. Of course, the left took that and twisted saying that Trump wants to end due process, but in all reality, he is absolutely correct, and the SCOTUS backs him up.
http://dailyheadlines.com/scotus-says-th...cess-here/
Being in this country is a privilege. The only due process illegals should get is incarceration, a hearing, and deportation.
That's the definition of citizenship.
It's a shame so many confused aren't being taught the basics any longer. They know nothing of what it means to be a citizen, and know even less about our government, and how and why it was founded the way it was.
Good stuff in the link but it's not a recent SCOTUS case. SCOTUS has always given the President and Congress very broad authority to let people in or exclude them even if it doesn't seem fair. And where Congress has been vague, SCOTUS generally yields to the President's interpretation.
But remember this cuts both ways. A lot of the stuff Obama did may not have been wise but was also within his authority.
(07-05-2018, 11:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Good stuff in the link but it's not a recent SCOTUS case. SCOTUS has always given the President and Congress very broad authority to let people in or exclude them even if it doesn't seem fair. And where Congress has been vague, SCOTUS generally yields to the President's interpretation.
But remember this cuts both ways. A lot of the stuff Obama did may not have been wise but was also within his authority.
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering, but I don't think the Right ever said it wasn't his authority to do so; they pushed strongly that he was unwise (on most things) and often contradicted the established law by refusing to have his Departments enforce it.
(07-05-2018, 11:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Good stuff in the link but it's not a recent SCOTUS case. SCOTUS has always given the President and Congress very broad authority to let people in or exclude them even if it doesn't seem fair. And where Congress has been vague, SCOTUS generally yields to the President's interpretation.
But remember this cuts both ways. A lot of the stuff Obama did may not have been wise but was also within his authority.
But the fact that these were not recent just makes the case stronger. These were not just some rulings by a currently rightward leaning SCOTUS, these were constitutional decisions by various compositions of the SCOTUS over time.
And these decisions were not about presidential authority; they were about the rights of foreigners who entered the country illegally. Logically, there's not a lot of difference between someone who is blocked at the border and prevented from crossing vs. someone who was caught after succeeding in sneaking across the border.
(07-05-2018, 11:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-05-2018, 11:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Good stuff in the link but it's not a recent SCOTUS case. SCOTUS has always given the President and Congress very broad authority to let people in or exclude them even if it doesn't seem fair. And where Congress has been vague, SCOTUS generally yields to the President's interpretation.
But remember this cuts both ways. A lot of the stuff Obama did may not have been wise but was also within his authority.
Perhaps I'm mis-remembering, but I don't think the Right ever said it wasn't his authority to do so; they pushed strongly that he was unwise (on most things) and often contradicted the established law by refusing to have his Departments enforce it.
Parts of DACA exceeded Obama's authoirty, especially the part where he granted them work permits. "I'm not going to prosecute you," is a risky but permissible statement. "I'm going to give you a piece of paper that says you won't be prosecuted for being here and it says you can work even though Congress said you can't work and should be prosecuted for working" probably crosses over the line.
Plus, remember that Obama also tried to expand DACA to cover more children (specifically those who entered between 2007 and 2012), parents of covered children, but courts stopped him. The judge found that they hadn't allowed the public comment period required under the Administrative Procedure Act. I'm not sure why no one sued the first time around.