(Yesterday, 09:41 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(Yesterday, 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.

---

It does require a trial to imprison people in the U.S.  How do you not understand this?  What may or may not occur under judicial systems of other countries is beyond our power to control.

Why do we need to give them the opportunity to choose deportation destinations when they've entered illegally?  We're not running a Club Med here.

---