(04-30-2025, 08:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 07:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]How do you know they're guilty if there's no trial?
Do you really believe we've deported anyone we shouldn't have?
A bunch of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have recently considered that question, and their answer is YES.
So I suspect the answer is yes!
(04-30-2025, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 08:59 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really believe we've deported anyone we shouldn't have?
A bunch of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have recently considered that question, and their answer is YES.
So I suspect the answer is yes!
So here's the thing...they're wrong. So suspect all you want, the facts remain that an activist judiciary is still one of the gravest threat to America.
(04-30-2025, 01:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]A bunch of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have recently considered that question, and their answer is YES.
So I suspect the answer is yes!
So here's the thing...they're wrong. So suspect all you want, the facts remain that an activist judiciary is still one of the gravest threat to America.
There it is.
You say the people who apply the law are activists who must be ignored, which, in effect, places the President and Congress above the law.
Trump appointed many of these folks himself! But they're wrong. Only Trump is right.
(04-30-2025, 07:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-29-2025, 11:00 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, if undocumented people come here to avoid prison time in their countries for crimes they committed there they need to be deported and face whatever system of justice that country has in place. I don't care if their countries don't hold trials like we do. That's not our problem. If they're guilty, they pay. Asylum is for refugees of war and political prisoners; not gang members, rapists, murderers, drug cartels, human trafficking, etc.
If they commit crimes here they need to be deported. Our justice system is not for them. It can't even handle its own citizens. The 5th and 14th amendments are limited. Look it up.
How do you know they're guilty if there's no trial?
They committed a crime the moment they stepped into this country with no just cause (legitimate asylum seekers are not part of this group) and they should absolutely get their day in court.
The man Judge Dugan squirreled away was back in court as a repeat offender. Domestic battery. A nice guy! I'm sure he just had a bad day.
Stop being obtuse.
How many hearings were held for the 350,000 migrants Obama deported?
(04-30-2025, 03:29 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]How many hearings were held for the 350,000 migrants Obama deported?
Probably at least 350,000.
(04-30-2025, 07:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 06:51 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Probably at least 350,000.
Are you sure?
Until you find and link me to a clear case of the Obama administration deporting somebody without a hearing, I'm going to go with that assumption, yes.
(04-29-2025, 10:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-29-2025, 09:49 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]1. Thanks for the clarification, your definitions tend to be somewhat fluid. Where in the US are people being imprisoned without trial?
2. Sneaking into the country without declaring to authorities is NOT textbook political asylum, it's illegal immigration. They didn't come here claiming oppression. I have friends who fled Czechoslovakia before you could just book a flight on Priceline. I know what they sacrificed and risked getting here and there's a huge difference.
3. Who said anything about El Salvador? You set the discussion parameters asking a philosophical question about principles, not specific cases. Perhaps "fluid" is an inadequate descriptive.
4. The powers and rights of the Constitution do not extend to foreign countries any more than the laws of foreign governments are apply in the U.S. Is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" unclear to you?
1. We agree on terms. I don't believe anyone is being imprisoned in the US without a trial currently. However it seems we sent 200 to 300 people to El Salvador, without giving them a trial here, and it seems they won't get a trial there. I ask you for the second time, please answer directly the direct question, should we, without having any trial under our law, send people to countries that will imprison them without trials under their law? Is there a group of people who somehow deserve to be in prisoned without ever having trials?
2. We don't know If Albrego Garcia turned himself in or not at any point. We do know that he appeared in front of judges multiple times, and those judges said that he should not be returned to El Salvador, because his life was in danger there. In fact, Trump administration officials themselves initially admitted that they did not mean to send him back, that they were unaware of these previous rulings. How do you square that with their current claim that they did the right thing?
3. This philosophical conversation, like any other, would be pretty useless if we did not try to apply it to current salient cases.
4. There is such a thing as international law, some of which has been ratified by the US Senate in the form of treaties over the centuries. When a treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes law in the United States, this is in the Constitution. This includes the ideas of political asylum that we are discussing.
(04-29-2025, 09:50 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]The guy was here illegally from El Salvador. He has made the decision to tattoo on his knuckles "MS-13". He was pulled over driving without a license, a known human trafficker's auto carrying 5 or 6 illegals North. His wife filed domestic abuse on him. Other MS-13 members have said he was a higher up in the organization. He was returned to El Salvador where he is a citizen. Where he goes in their country is not the business of anyone here. They put him where they wanted to. You have an issue go there and break him out.
All of these are fact claims that could and should be brought up at a trial, So the man can get an opportunity to contest them
1. Now you're just regurgitating the Leftist rhetoric. What do you want to charge them with here and what should they be charged with in El Salvador, or whatever country to which they're deported?
To answer your question, if they entered the US illegally and are caught hiding from law enforcement, then they should be deported to their country of origin.
2. Again, you're trying to defend Garcia. If he had turned himself in, don't you think the liberal media would be trumpeting it in an effort to elicit sympathy for his case?
3. LOL. Moving the goalpost again to support your argument of the moment.
4. This discussion is not, and never has been, about individuals seeking political asylum. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all those who fled truly oppressive regimes. Picture a bunch of Cubans clinging to a raft a hundred miles from land or an East German caught in the razor wire on the Berlin Wall and tell me again how politically oppressed this guy was.
The whole point 149 is making is that we don't HAVE to give them a trial. If they're here illegally, we can save the time and expense and simply deport them. They're NOT US citizens, and therefore DON"T have the same rights.
(04-30-2025, 07:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 07:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Are you sure?
Until you find and link me to a clear case of the Obama administration deporting somebody without a hearing, I'm going to go with that assumption, yes.
Is it just me, or does anyone else perceive a somewhat Left-leaning bias here?
(04-30-2025, 07:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 07:15 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Are you sure?
Until you find and link me to a clear case of the Obama administration deporting somebody without a hearing, I'm going to go with that assumption, yes.
How long would it take to hold 350,000 hearings? Years?
(04-30-2025, 08:18 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 07:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Until you find and link me to a clear case of the Obama administration deporting somebody without a hearing, I'm going to go with that assumption, yes.
Is it just me, or does anyone else perceive a somewhat Left-leaning bias here?
Well here is what the ACLU has to say about the de porter in chief Obama.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rig...horrifying
3 million deported. so no I would say not.
Also, we can take a poll but until you come up with a link showing they each had a hearing we will go with they did not. You can fantasize whatever you want. lol
(04-30-2025, 08:37 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 07:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Until you find and link me to a clear case of the Obama administration deporting somebody without a hearing, I'm going to go with that assumption, yes.
How long would it take to hold 350,000 hearings? Years?
Well, Obama had 8 years, with roughly 500 immigration judges, so that's roughly 100 hearings per judge per year?
(04-30-2025, 08:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (04-29-2025, 10:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1. We agree on terms. I don't believe anyone is being imprisoned in the US without a trial currently. However it seems we sent 200 to 300 people to El Salvador, without giving them a trial here, and it seems they won't get a trial there. I ask you for the second time, please answer directly the direct question, should we, without having any trial under our law, send people to countries that will imprison them without trials under their law? Is there a group of people who somehow deserve to be in prisoned without ever having trials?
2. We don't know If Albrego Garcia turned himself in or not at any point. We do know that he appeared in front of judges multiple times, and those judges said that he should not be returned to El Salvador, because his life was in danger there. In fact, Trump administration officials themselves initially admitted that they did not mean to send him back, that they were unaware of these previous rulings. How do you square that with their current claim that they did the right thing?
3. This philosophical conversation, like any other, would be pretty useless if we did not try to apply it to current salient cases.
4. There is such a thing as international law, some of which has been ratified by the US Senate in the form of treaties over the centuries. When a treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes law in the United States, this is in the Constitution. This includes the ideas of political asylum that we are discussing.
All of these are fact claims that could and should be brought up at a trial, So the man can get an opportunity to contest them
1. Now you're just regurgitating the Leftist rhetoric. What do you want to charge them with here and what should they be charged with in El Salvador, or whatever country to which they're deported?
To answer your question, if they entered the US illegally and are caught hiding from law enforcement, then they should be deported to their country of origin.
2. Again, you're trying to defend Garcia. If he had turned himself in, don't you think the liberal media would be trumpeting it in an effort to elicit sympathy for his case?
3. LOL. Moving the goalpost again to support your argument of the moment.
4. This discussion is not, and never has been, about individuals seeking political asylum. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all those who fled truly oppressive regimes. Picture a bunch of Cubans clinging to a raft a hundred miles from land or an East German caught in the razor wire on the Berlin Wall and tell me again how politically oppressed this guy was.
The whole point 149 is making is that we don't HAVE to give them a trial. If they're here illegally, we can save the time and expense and simply deport them. They're NOT US citizens, and therefore DON"T have the same rights.
An illegal immigrant deserves a
hearing not a trial. Trials are for people who are going to be sentenced to prison. Hearings are for people who are in less serious trouble.
If an illegal immigrant is arrested, we need to have a hearing to double-check their identity, that they don't have the proper visa, that they don't qualify for asylum, then we deport them. Just a hearing. Not a trial. If we didn't have a hearing, we might have the wrong guy and not realize it. Once we're sure we have the right person, we send them back to their country, to live as a free person there.
But if that country is going to imprison them, without any trial, we shouldn't send them there. Albrego Garcia wasn't tried here, and he wasn't tried in El Salvador, yet he is in a prison in El Salvador.
Any country that imprisons its own citizens without trial is another North Korea or Cuba. Don't let the lack of Marxist propaganda confuse you. Lawlessness is lawlessness. Dictators are dictators.
(04-29-2025, 10:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1. We agree on terms. I don't believe anyone is being imprisoned in the US without a trial currently. However it seems we sent 200 to 300 people to El Salvador, without giving them a trial here, and it seems they won't get a trial there. I ask you for the second time, please answer directly the direct question, should we, without having any trial under our law, send people to countries that will imprison them without trials under their law? Is there a group of people who somehow deserve to be in prisoned without ever having trials?
2. We don't know If Albrego Garcia turned himself in or not at any point. We do know that he appeared in front of judges multiple times, and those judges said that he should not be returned to El Salvador, because his life was in danger there. In fact, Trump administration officials themselves initially admitted that they did not mean to send him back, that they were unaware of these previous rulings. How do you square that with their current claim that they did the right thing?
3. This philosophical conversation, like any other, would be pretty useless if we did not try to apply it to current salient cases.
4. There is such a thing as international law, some of which has been ratified by the US Senate in the form of treaties over the centuries. When a treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes law in the United States, this is in the Constitution. This includes the ideas of political asylum that we are discussing.
(04-30-2025, 10:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 08:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]1. Now you're just regurgitating the Leftist rhetoric. What do you want to charge them with here and what should they be charged with in El Salvador, or whatever country to which they're deported?
To answer your question, if they entered the US illegally and are caught hiding from law enforcement, then they should be deported to their country of origin.
2. Again, you're trying to defend Garcia. If he had turned himself in, don't you think the liberal media would be trumpeting it in an effort to elicit sympathy for his case?
3. LOL. Moving the goalpost again to support your argument of the moment.
4. This discussion is not, and never has been, about individuals seeking political asylum. To suggest otherwise is an insult to all those who fled truly oppressive regimes. Picture a bunch of Cubans clinging to a raft a hundred miles from land or an East German caught in the razor wire on the Berlin Wall and tell me again how politically oppressed this guy was.
The whole point 149 is making is that we don't HAVE to give them a trial. If they're here illegally, we can save the time and expense and simply deport them. They're NOT US citizens, and therefore DON"T have the same rights.
An illegal immigrant deserves a hearing not a trial. Trials are for people who are going to be sentenced to prison. Hearings are for people who are in less serious trouble.
If an illegal immigrant is arrested, we need to have a hearing to double-check their identity, that they don't have the proper visa, that they don't qualify for asylum, then we deport them. Just a hearing. Not a trial. If we didn't have a hearing, we might have the wrong guy and not realize it. Once we're sure we have the right person, we send them back to their country, to live as a free person there.
But if that country is going to imprison them, without any trial, we shouldn't send them there. Albrego Garcia wasn't tried here, and he wasn't tried in El Salvador, yet he is in a prison in El Salvador.
Any country that imprisons its own citizens without trial is another North Korea or Cuba. Don't let the lack of Marxist propaganda confuse you. Lawlessness is lawlessness. Dictators are dictators.
Yet again, goalposts on the move. Your previous post specified "trial" five times, but now you want "hearings" instead. How do you envision those hearings proceeding after apprehension? Will they be evidentiary? Will there be an appeals process? Will the defendants be provided legal counsel? If they don't even claim to be here legally, do we still need a hearing?
Why should the judicial system of another country become our problem, simply because a fugitive from that country entered the U.S. illegally? For the nth time, Garcia did NOT come here seeking asylum, nor is he exactly the poster child for such an argument. You Liberals pick the strangest hills to live and die on.
(04-30-2025, 01:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 01:24 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So here's the thing...they're wrong. So suspect all you want, the facts remain that an activist judiciary is still one of the gravest threat to America.
There it is.
You say the people who apply the law are activists who must be ignored, which, in effect, places the President and Congress above the law.
Trump appointed many of these folks himself! But they're wrong. Only Trump is right.
I don't really care what Trump thinks either, I only care about what I think. Frankly I don't really give much thought to what other people think, especially folk like you who go out of their way to be dull and argumentative. You could at least try to be entertaining, you at least used to be able to pull that off. Now you're just...boring.
(05-01-2025, 07:03 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (04-29-2025, 10:07 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1. We agree on terms. I don't believe anyone is being imprisoned in the US without a trial currently. However it seems we sent 200 to 300 people to El Salvador, without giving them a trial here, and it seems they won't get a trial there. I ask you for the second time, please answer directly the direct question, should we, without having any trial under our law, send people to countries that will imprison them without trials under their law? Is there a group of people who somehow deserve to be in prisoned without ever having trials?
2. We don't know If Albrego Garcia turned himself in or not at any point. We do know that he appeared in front of judges multiple times, and those judges said that he should not be returned to El Salvador, because his life was in danger there. In fact, Trump administration officials themselves initially admitted that they did not mean to send him back, that they were unaware of these previous rulings. How do you square that with their current claim that they did the right thing?
3. This philosophical conversation, like any other, would be pretty useless if we did not try to apply it to current salient cases.
4. There is such a thing as international law, some of which has been ratified by the US Senate in the form of treaties over the centuries. When a treaty is ratified by the United States Senate, it becomes law in the United States, this is in the Constitution. This includes the ideas of political asylum that we are discussing.
(04-30-2025, 10:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]An illegal immigrant deserves a hearing not a trial. Trials are for people who are going to be sentenced to prison. Hearings are for people who are in less serious trouble.
If an illegal immigrant is arrested, we need to have a hearing to double-check their identity, that they don't have the proper visa, that they don't qualify for asylum, then we deport them. Just a hearing. Not a trial. If we didn't have a hearing, we might have the wrong guy and not realize it. Once we're sure we have the right person, we send them back to their country, to live as a free person there.
But if that country is going to imprison them, without any trial, we shouldn't send them there. Albrego Garcia wasn't tried here, and he wasn't tried in El Salvador, yet he is in a prison in El Salvador.
Any country that imprisons its own citizens without trial is another North Korea or Cuba. Don't let the lack of Marxist propaganda confuse you. Lawlessness is lawlessness. Dictators are dictators.
Yet again, goalposts on the move. Your previous post specified "trial" five times, but now you want "hearings" instead. How do you envision those hearings proceeding after apprehension? Will they be evidentiary? Will there be an appeals process? Will the defendants be provided legal counsel? If they don't even claim to be here legally, do we still need a hearing?
Why should the judicial system of another country become our problem, simply because a fugitive from that country entered the U.S. illegally? For the nth time, Garcia did NOT come here seeking asylum, nor is he exactly the poster child for such an argument. You Liberals pick the strangest hills to live and die on.
You moved the goalposts, socky.
First we were talking about imprisoning people. That should require a trial.
Then you changed the subject to merely deporting people. That requires a hearing.
If a person admits in their hearing that they are here illegally, that's a very short hearing, but it's still a hearing. We still have to tell them where we are going to send them, and give them an opportunity to plead to be sent to another place if they wish.
(05-01-2025, 09:02 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-30-2025, 01:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There it is.
You say the people who apply the law are activists who must be ignored, which, in effect, places the President and Congress above the law.
Trump appointed many of these folks himself! But they're wrong. Only Trump is right.
I don't really care what Trump thinks either, I only care about what I think. Frankly I don't really give much thought to what other people think, especially folk like you who go out of their way to be dull and argumentative. You could at least try to be entertaining, you at least used to be able to pull that off. Now you're just...boring.
There aren't enough people here anymore to go for laughs.
(05-01-2025, 09:41 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2025, 07:03 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Yet again, goalposts on the move. Your previous post specified "trial" five times, but now you want "hearings" instead. How do you envision those hearings proceeding after apprehension? Will they be evidentiary? Will there be an appeals process? Will the defendants be provided legal counsel? If they don't even claim to be here legally, do we still need a hearing?
Why should the judicial system of another country become our problem, simply because a fugitive from that country entered the U.S. illegally? For the nth time, Garcia did NOT come here seeking asylum, nor is he exactly the poster child for such an argument. You Liberals pick the strangest hills to live and die on.
You moved the goalposts, socky.
First we were talking about imprisoning people. That should require a trial.
Then you changed the subject to merely deporting people. That requires a hearing.
If a person admits in their hearing that they are here illegally, that's a very short hearing, but it's still a hearing. We still have to tell them where we are going to send them, and give them an opportunity to plead to be sent to another place if they wish.
(05-01-2025, 09:02 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really care what Trump thinks either, I only care about what I think. Frankly I don't really give much thought to what other people think, especially folk like you who go out of their way to be dull and argumentative. You could at least try to be entertaining, you at least used to be able to pull that off. Now you're just...boring.
There aren't enough people here anymore to go for laughs.
It wasn't the comedy, it was the caricature. Like a bad stand up your act hasn't changed in a decade and it's just... tired.
(04-30-2025, 03:29 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]How many hearings were held for the 350,000 migrants Obama deported?
Obama deported far more than 350,000. you would be closer moving the decimal place to the left