How important is Due Process?

wong kim was decided incorrectly. looking into the records of the 14th amendment drafters like I suggested would have saved you from looking like you just discovered this topic today. just googling a few key words would have saved you a lot of embarassment, not to mention one or two captchas.

it's not up for debate

I see, you are one of those people who refuses to subject his opinions to scrutiny. no wonder they're worthless.

He deported less than Joe Biden though and republicans actively sabotaged a border bill that Biden was gonna pass so that Trump would look good and win from worse immigration

How do you know if someone is here illegally?

by looking at their race, next question?

How can they be subject to every law except the one

No one said their not.
Do you know what due process is?
Maybe look that up first before trying to make an argument

Are you a citizen?

No? Deportation.

As I've already explained, they have the right to due process even if it triggers you.

wong kim was decided incorrectly

looking into the records of the 14th amendment drafters

Okay cool, you've presented feels and literally nothing, fascinating.

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, said:

"This amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."

Clearly stating that only families of ambassadors are excluded, but ordinary aliens (foreigners) are included.

As I explained to you, that is due process. Going to court, and providing documents to prove US citizenship.

you're talking about the bill that provided for millions of illegals to receive rubber stamped entry? the one that provided hundreds of new administrative hearing officers to rubber stamp these millions of fraudulent asylum claims? democrats have been drooling over this for a decade and it's a non-starter, of course the republican party opposed it just like they did that last eight times it passed one of the congressional houses with no hope of passing the other.
I can't believe you fell for this, you gullible twat. I mean I literally can't believe it. it's easier for me to believe that the democratic party if full of people lying to themselves about things like "republicans killing a bipartisan immigration bill" because it's good for the party if everyone pretends it's true, but in reality no one can possibly fall for it when a simple post like this one can clear up your obvious misconception. what a horrifying ersatz world you live in to have to pretend you your utter horeshit is epistemologically fulfilling months after it's been casually debunked.

How many fucking threads has this seething swede made so far today? Clearly the shill spammers realized Anon Babble is back

Yes of course, they are constitutionally afforded that right and not allowing them to do it is illegal.
What is your problem exactly?

Stupid. In this hypothetical scenario the person has already been determined to be illegal

Why should illegal aliens be subject to citizen rights?

This scenarios are an issue of order of operations rather than due process.

These people have been ordered to be deported, they had their hearing and lost
Time to go
The federal government deporting them comes before any local legal problems they have
No warrants needed either, these people had their process and we're ordered to be removed
Bye bye

No, you are wrong. People within the borders are subject to the jurisdiction. You are incredibly stupid and sovereign citizen tier

It's a good thing that Trump would never let immigrants back in and make them legal if a farm owner wants it.
Oh wait, that's literally happening, isn't it?

we’re going to ultimately bring them back. They’ll go out, they’re going to come back as legal workers.

nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-farmworkers-hotel-workers-undocumented-legal-rcna200722

Prove they are an illegal alien

for smoothbrains, by smoothbrains

coming back with documentation and the ability to be tracked is no change at all

Idiot

Do they speak American English? Do they look European?
If not, chuck them over the border or find a tree and a rope.

SSN sir?

Que? Speeki spaniish?

What more do you want or need?

These people already had their due process and had been ordered to be deported.
Feds deporting takes priority over any local legal issues they have

Don't @ me, retard

I can easily prove I'm a citizen because I was born here, am white, speak dnglish, and have a social security #, birth certificate, and 5-point license that confirms as much. It would take me les than 30 seconds to prove I'm a legal citizen. This comic is fucking stupid and doesn't say anything other than DURRR MAN IN RED HAT SILLY

Uuuuh actually it's good that Trump is making illegals legal, that's what I wanted all along

Serious question, is there anything Trump can do that you would disprove of?
I already know the answer is no, I just wanted you to think about it

>"This amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."

Clearly stating that only families of ambassadors are excluded, but ordinary aliens (foreigners) are included.

you have failed in your english comprehension.
there are standard rules of statutory interpretation and this is clearly an or statement.

Okay cool, you've presented feels and literally nothing, fascinating.

evidently you were just projecting here.
here are the facts you could not contend with:
even your first casual dive into those records has proven me correct.
let's take another look:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

persons born in the united states who are foreigners,

persons born in the united states who are aliens,

persons born in the united states who belong to the families of ambassadors

OR persons born in the united states who belong to the families of foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

the first 20 scholarly results all explain that this is an or statement, as I'm sure you saw yourself.
but you ignored them because it did not make you feel good to learn that, and then you projected your own insistence on emotional post-hoc justification of your prior position onto me.
I predict you will make more statements exposing your ignorance of the law instead of asking questions like someone who's legitimately interested in the topic.

No one cares eurolibs

...what you just cited just proved they aren't subject to due process, just to the laws within the land. You're a fucking retard. Congrats, you played yourself.

Use due process to identify illegals

See this is why they don't deserve the right to due process

Hey. Retard. He just explained to you that they got due process. In court for a crime. Are you a citizen? No? Deportation. Case closed, due process completed. Goddamn, even for a retarded European you're dumb.

only if they're actually a citizen
otherwise it's wasting court resources and subject to civil penalties, like any frivolous legal filing
that's because non-citizens do not actually have any due process rights, unless they are subject to the jurisidiction of the united states.
this is actually an important phrase and not some archaic window-dressing as you seem to believe. for example, foreign companies can contract with the US government and in their contracts agree to the subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. if the government later wishes to arbitrarily change the contract terms, those foreigners are entitled to a due process hearing on the matter.
in normal scenarios, foreigners are not subject to our jurisdiction. the writers of the civil war amendments made clear that they intended to naturalize freed slaves who desired to stay in america and integrate as freemen. not immigrants.

Love how "due process" is the new normie meme. No one has given a fuck about the constitution since 9/11.

Yes we're all aware of the fallacy that it's an or list.
It's nice that you get to learn these things all while failing to prove your argument.

In nineteenth-century legal language, foreigner and alien meant the same thing: a non-citizen.

They're not separate categories they're simply repeating the idea for emphasis.

Not that anyone of this really matters, since the supreme court case law on this hasn't changed for over 100 years.

But my feels say they got it wrong

Literally no one or nothing cares. It has no bearing on this whatsoever

Damn you are stupid. It just means they are subject to the laws of the land, not that they are afforded any constitutional rights. It's so some spic can't just go kill ten people then go to court and say eem ackshully I'm not a citizen so your laws don't apply to me. I know leftists are retarded but you are a special case.

eurolibs are mad we are deporting illegals

Oh no!

I'm tired of law merely being a weapon used to control me, it's worthless to me

You're saying everyone deported got due process?
That's strange since Trump doesn't think so.

can't give everyone they want to deport a trial because it would "take, without exaggeration, 200 years."

abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-trial-migrants-deport/story?id=121080810

you disagree with me but could not articulate any reason why, this is a good sign that my ideas are correct.
here is the argument you failed to contend with:
persons subject to the jurisdiction of the united states is unambiguously defined as applying to natural born and naturalized citizens only. again I suggest you look at the records surrounding the drafting of the 14th amendment, or simply ask me about it if you're still confused.

I don't care about bracero programs, so that was a weird topic change. this doesn't lead to citizenship. it depresses wages of course but I dgaf, wagies keep voting for it and I'm not going to save them from their own stupidity.
I'm glad you now know that the whole bipartisan border bill narrative was a flimsy lie. republicans rejected a democratic dream bill that would have rubber stamped millions of illegals, and provided hundreds of fake and underqualified administrative law "judges" to do the rubberstamping. thank god the bill was defeated again. I can't believe you idiots ever thought it was a new bill, and that it was palatable to republicans. it's literally incredible and I have an easier time believing you're all just emperors new clothesing each other constantly. sounds like a nightmare.

OH MY Anon Babble IM VOTING FOR KAMALA NOW THANK YOU ANONYMOUS FOREIGNER DRUMPF IS BAD

Due process does not necessarily equal a trial
If its obvious its just a spic with no legal right to be here, due process just means confirming that and no trial is needed

Why do you think you’re convincing, retard?

court will take judicial notice of this based on INS and social security records
if there is somehow an actual citizen caught up in this (so far all the stories have been bullshit) then he is absolutely free to request a hearing on the matter. I don't know where you guys got the idea that filings can be ignored. I can file a motion to depose the judge and name me the judge in his stead if I want. it's just stupid, and likely to lead to sanctions for wasting court resources.

He isn't wrong. There's millions of these fuckers and the legal system is low as fuck. We don't got time. Get these fucks out of here!

Trial=/=due process. Due process can simply be being held and judged by the authorities that they are illegal is due process enough. As Trump said, it would take years and years to hold a fucking trial for something that can be proven or disproven with a brief examination of facts. Like, hey you just got arrested for stealing a car, and you have five warrents out for your arrest, can I see some identification? OK, Pablo, you don't speak any english and we looked up the SAN you provided and it's for one Eustice Majors, 96, and we know that's not you (another crime: identity theft, along with fraud and providing false statements to an officer). Do you have any papers that prove you're a citizen? No? OK, due process completed, you are now being deported, bye bye. The End.

how do you know if someone is here illegally?

Show me your papers. Oh, you don't have any? Get in the van.

Complains that America is a terrible place

but there is this stuff that they have that is really good and should never be taken away

Go fuck yourselves outsiders. We see how you guys do this all the time.
You don't get to say our country a shithole, dangerous but also the one place all these peeople should go. Take in Latinos yourselves Swede if you wanna help them so bad. We don't want them.

this doesn't lead to citizenship

Of course it does, Trump said so.

Uuuuh Trump lied, okay?

weird topic change

It's not, it's about bringing in illegals and making them legal.
Don't focus on the part tho where these are criminals that he's deported that he wants to bring back and make legal.
That's just way too funny

They are so committed to pre written talking points they really don't understand how they stand out so obviously

if there is somehow an actual citizen caught up in this (so far all the stories have been bullshit) then he is absolutely free to request a hearing on the matter

Sorry, that person has no right to due process because they have been flagged as an illegal

there you go again making statements instead of asking questions.
you've conceded that it's an "or" list.
you've all but admitted you suffered from motivated reasoning (i.e. the emotions you keep projection onto me) since you ackowledge you ignored the first 20 results all calling it an "or" list, and you ignored me teaching you that this is a stand part of statutory interpretation, all in the name of preserving your original conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence that you were mistaken.

But my feels say they got it wrong

evidently you were just projecting here
I would put money on you posting more statements instead of demonstrating your willingness to learn with some appropriate follow-up questions.

>Complains that America is a terrible place

Never said that, but neat rant you went on based on nothing.
I guess seethers are just gonna seethe

Hearings and trials are two different things

The shit bags you're going to bat for had their due process and had pre existing deportation orders, one had already been deported and came back and was in court for violent crimes

they get due process, but not a full trial.
is that really the source of all your confusion? how embarrassing for you. go study english for two more years and try again.
you should see the bullshit 5-minute hearings that pass as "minimal due process" in this country.
democrats are trying to pretend a hundred year old PROCESS isn't good enough any more and for some reason you're helping them evangelize this lie.

foreign liberals simping for illegal criminals

LOL

His sister will be Muslim property soon

states law

gets immediately proven wrong

doubles down and acts all indignant

How very jewish of you

probably shouldn't have weaponized the slowness of that bloated bureaucratic system' if you wanted dye process

>this doesn't lead to citizenship

Of course it does, Trump said so.

you are claiming that offering some bracero recipients a path citizenship is equivalent to making all seasonal migrant workers into citizens. this goes beyond mere stupidity, and I think you are being dishonest on purpose. this has severely damaged your credibility and it's impossible for me to keep acting like you're arguing in good faith.

The fuck is this swedish faggot doing interpreting American law ?
Go become a swedish lawyer and fix your immigration system instead

HAHA WE DESTROYED THE RULE OF LAW LMAO

Wait there must be some mistake let me call my lawy...

you've conceded that it's an "or" list.

No idea where you got that from, I proved to you how it's not an or list.
You just have to understand how the english language worked in the nineteenth-century. Simple as.

You have to ask questions even tho I don't know anything about this and I've been proven wrong every step of the way

I really don't have anything to learn from you, clearly.
That's not a diss, it's just objectively true.

The thing that you keep ignoring however is that this is already settled with supreme court case law 100+ years old.
Your feels on the matter are irrelevant.

we

Who is 'we' ?
All of a sudden, the rule of law is dead in america ?
Damn, didn't realize Drumpf was so powerful !
Third Term for sure

He deported less than Joe Biden

when entries a down 90% that's bound to happen.

I am claiming exactly what Trump said.
He wants to bring back criminals, make them legal and have them work in farms and hotels.
What's difficult to understand? Do you think he's speaking in riddles?

Illegal immigrants do have due process. They check to see if they're legal, and if they aren't, they're deported.

And you need to be at least 13 to post here, bud.

I just taught you what would happen in that scenario. you must have some kind of learning disability.
let me explain again.
anyone can file anything with the court. you can have a hearing on your claim to citizenship, whether you are a citizen or not. but for a non-citizen to file this paperwork would be frivolous at best and perhaps even fraudulent, barring him from applying for citizenship in the future.
there is no scenario where some kind of "flag" comes up and a citizen loses his ability to prove he is a citizen. you cannot articulate how this deranged fantasy of yours would come about. you're desperate to explain how this puts citizens like me at risk when it simply doesn't put me at risk in any conceivable scenario.

Its extremly important if and only if it can be used to stonewall deporting illegals

t. leftists

there is no scenario where some kind of "flag" comes up and a citizen loses his ability to prove he is a citizen

There is if illegal aliens have no right to due process

Stupid foreigner LOL

I've got your due process right here

this reply

that flag

Are you fucking serious?

That anon has defined Due Process as relevant to citizenship hearings several times
An illegal gets their 'due process' when asked to present documents to the court proving their citizenship status
As a citizen, I can easily prove
Can an illegal ?
No.
There, due process under the law
Now go stop the grooming gangs and kill some rats

you definitely have some kind of learning disability.
as I explained IN THE POST YOU'RE REPLYING TO, offering a path to citizenship for some bracero beneficiaries is plainly not the same as making all of them citizens. least of all the criminals. your credibility cannot recover from this; I suggest recycling your modem and pretending to be someone less obscenely dishonest.

What more do you need? All non whites are now guilty until proven otherwise.

important enough that president Trump is using it, even though your TV keeps telling you he isn't

The problem is that it's legal to do irregular migration if you have a valid asylum claim. So you need to sort it with due process to figure out if they are illegal or not. Obviously this system is open to abuse and USA has shit courts that are underfunded and incapable of dealing with this in a timely manner so not like there aren't problems.

desu, hard to not think that the GOP just want to put up a charade of dealing with the issue while both Dem and GOP like this half-measure where they get cheap exploitable labor that can't take out social security. They just find ways to weasel around the real issues.

The shills that were spamming before Anon Babble went down only just realized it's back. Now they're here for their shift.

What rule of law? Libtard judges have assured the public that the law doesn't matter. The only people who pretend the law matters are talking heads on CNN who only want it to matter to get at Trump. Otherwise they're more pro-criminal than they are anti-crime.

You have been proven wrong a dozen times over in this thread but like the dumb Swede you are you just keep barrelling forward pretending you're right. But you're dead wrong. If you want illegals so badly why bot write your government and tell them that you will personally vouch for and house some yourself? Fucking retard.

There, due process under the law

I accept your concession that illegal aliens have an inviolable legal right to due process

This was back when only white male landowners counted a persons.

I didn't say they didn't
You're arguing with yourself silly head

Funny, I can prove my citizenship immediately. Most citizens can. You understand most of these illegals don't even speak English and are squat brown spics, right? Difficult to confuse them with actual American citizens. I'm 6'2", white, speak english, and can prove my citizenship immediately. Actual American citizens aren't being held and deported. You do understand that, right?

they get due process, but not a full trial.

Ah I see how this confused you, no they don't have to have a trial, but they do have to have a hearing before a judge.
Denying them this is illegal, simple as.
I'm honestly really pumped for you, you get to learn some many things today

This shitstorm is why it's important to have closed borders and keep these people out. Once they're inside it becomes a headache to kick them out.

he's ignoring you on purpose
remember, when you talk to a liberal you are talking to a TV, and the TV can't hear you and wouldn't change its mind if it could

Typical yank not understanding the topic they are trying to insert themselves into

has been seething and coping the entire thread

Has been btfo multiple times

"N-NOOOO! Y-Y-YOU'RE SEETHING!!"

The cope is strong with you.

Bro, he has been saying that the entire time
You are illiterate ESL
This isn't reddit, no one is going to upvote your feminine posts

Neat! Now you just have to have the supreme court reinterpret it and it might matter.
Until then...

adhom, projection, seething

I know this is taking a toll on you, but try to focus.
When Trump tells me he wants to make criminals legal and work on farms, I believe him, simple as.
I don't care how he needs to change rules or laws to make it work, he'll get it done.

muh plebbit

Disappointing, you lost by the way

You should just go full chink and harvest their organs. That would end it real fast.

Yeah, and they get it when law enforcement detains them and asks for their proof of citizenship. They cannot prove it so off they go to their country of origin. The end. Are you fucking retarded?

Trump tells me

He's not telling you anything foreigner.

The guy the dems are freaking out about had multiple courtdates and hearings that determined he was not only an illegal but also a criminal.
Their opinion is that he should for some reason have had one more trial before finally getting deported.

Bro, he has been saying that the entire time

Great! then we agree. These people are not having hearings and as such are being deprived of due process

They don't need to see a judge, swede. Law enforcement officers are all that's needed to determine if someone is a citizen or not. Again, due process=/=trial. You can keep repeating yourself but that will never make your retarded ideas correct.

They don't need to see a judge

Yes they actually do. It's part of due process which they are entitled

Oh no!

Limey inserts himself into a US topic

Claims US posters are inserting themselves into the topic

Fascinating. How are the rape gangs doing in your country? How many of your sisters or cousins have been raped by muzzies in your dystopian country? I know you can't answer that because police will show up at your door if you do
You see how you and I are not the same? I can say what I want without worrying about a knock at the door. But please, keep talking out your ass about my country you know nothing about.

Its laughable. People saying mean things about brown child rapists get more jail than the child rapists themselves ffs. Summer protestors got convicted in a matter of hours and they let murderers out to make space for them...UK "law" is worth less than the paper its printed on.

I would like to go full SS and simply execute them. Deportations to the afterlife.

Where was your pearl clutching when the UK speedtrialed protestors in the summer?

I take it you are unfamiliar with 'anarcho tyranny'
I recommend you start reading up on it.
How many people sit in jail in Britain for mean tweets while child murderers are let out with a sla?

thank you for the reasonable post.
I think it's up to us to define what makes a valid asylum claim. if we dispose of it in a five minute administrative hearing, so what? that's acceptable due process for asylum claims, government contract disputes, firing federal employees, and a hundred other administrative issues that don't require the massive expense and time investment of a full trial.
this is a non-controversy. the hearings provided by biden and obama were also minimal due process hearings. trump wants to make sure that fraudulent asylum claims are rejected, and end the free pass for millions of such fraudulent claimants to freely roam the country, take illegal work, and disappear before their hearing date. that pisses off the people who depend on what is essentially slave labor. instead of suggesting an alternate policy they know most americans would find unpalatable, they're lying to you about what minimal due process entails, and recruiting you to spread that lie. if you know now that it's up for debate, can you tell your friends it's actually a lie? can you say "I really want it to be easier to seek asylum but we shouldn't be bullshitting people about what a due process hearing entails"? no. they'll ostracize you for it. you have to repeat the lie for your own safety.

See
Now stop posting your repeated incorrect false assumptions about due process. You have been made a fool of multiple times in this thread.

I can say what I want without worrying about a knock at the door.

When Trump tells me

you have to stop lying
do you think fooling a few retarded lurkers is more important than maximizing learning opportunities for yourself?
here again is what you failed to contend with and therefore conceded:
offering a path to citizenship for some bracero beneficiaries is plainly not the same as making all of them citizens. least of all the criminals.

adhom, projection, seething

evidently you were just projecting here

Trial=/=due process

Right and a hearing in front of a judge is not a trial.
What is difficult for you to understand?

You're too thick to be actually British. Is this why you're watching closely?
British people are far more violent than Americans once they finally do get angry. They also care less about about administrative procedures pretending to be Law.

playing on only the minecraft demo teaches you the early game REAL fucking quick

and you can have that one for free.

"N-NOOOOO!!! TH-TH-THE ILLEGAL SPICARINOOS THAT ALREADY BROKE FEDERAL LAW HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS CITIZENS BECAUSE....BECAUSE THEY JUST DO, OK? I'M RIGHT AND Y-Y-YOU'RE WRONG!!! N-NOOOOO!"

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's the truth. Also, they get due process by authorities who determine they aren't citizens and have to go. The leftist tactic of gumming up deportations with bullshit "court dates" that simply allow these criminals to dodge and hide from continues the problems we have. Just say you think illegals should be allowed to live in the US, because that's what you're actually arguing. You disgust me.

Due process is for white men. I make no apologies. Democrats always set the precedent and forget about it.

Qatar or the UAE is rallying English speaking Muslims, is my guess.
They know they're next for getting the boot and none too soon.

We're going to keep deporting illegals no matter how much you seethe on rhe internet. Best of luck.

nobody has been denied a hearing
the media worked you into a frenzy over denying them full trials, but in fact, no one has been denied an immigration hearing. that would be unthinkable because the matter of their citizenship is still in dispute, hence they are entitled to a due process hearing on the matter (with potential penalties for fraudulent or frivolous claims).
I taught this to you, in fact the post where I taught this to you is linked in the post you're replying to here, suggesting this is dishonesty on your part rather than retardation

Oi, you got a license for that post? Pathetic straw grasping. Keep a close eye on your kids, make sure they aren't raped by a Muhommad today.

ICE catches illegal

they check if the illegal is a citizen

check comes back negative

DEPORT

So hard

you have to stop lying

Ah okay, instead of fighting what Trump is saying you'll just pretend he never said it.
Bold strategy, one I would save as a last ditch when I lost the argument.
Makes you think.

we're going to ultimately bring them back. They'll go out. They're going to come back as legal workers,"

This is what Trump said, this is what Trump intends.
If that triggers you, take it up with Trump

You are flip-flopping all over the place in this thread. Why don't you clearly state what you think "due process" should be for illegals and we will all let you know why you are wrong.

Woah you took the seething up another level.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it's the truth

Ditto. That's why I back it up with 100+ years old supreme court case law.
What do you have except for feels?

You're definitely Muslim.

a hearing in front of a judge is not a trial.

but it DOES satisfy minimum due process
it's pretty simple
you can now challenge me on my contention that a hearing satisfies due process, or concede the point.

You could start by proving how a hearing in front of a judge is not part of due process

He is Mohamed

but it DOES satisfy minimum due process

That's one of the requirements, yes.
Congratulations on conceding common sense

nobody has been denied a hearing

That's a fascinatingly bold claim, can't wait for you to show me all the documentation for every deported individual and all I would have to do is show you one

see

That's why I back it up with 100+ years old supreme court case law.

What do you have except for feels?

actually, I defeated this claim of yours several posts ago and you dropped the topic, thereby conceding it.
here again is the argument you could not contend with:
wong kim was decided incorrectly. looking into the records of the 14th amendment drafters like I suggested would have saved you from looking like you just discovered this topic today. just googling a few key words would have saved you a lot of embarrassment, not to mention one or two captchas.
even your first casual dive into those records has proven me correct.
let's take another look:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

persons born in the united states who are foreigners,

persons born in the united states who are aliens,

persons born in the united states who belong to the families of ambassadors

OR persons born in the united states who belong to the families of foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

the first 20 scholarly results all explain that this is an or statement, as I'm sure you saw yourself.
but you ignored them because it did not make you feel good to learn that, and then you projected your own insistence on emotional post-hoc justification of your prior position onto me and other anons.

No maga person cares about due process. None of them have voted trump if they did.

let's just try to overturn the 2020 election with false electors

Hey, shill Answer.

Be cop

Identify individual

Visa has biometric data

Thumb print Matches that of individual

"You are here illegally.exe"

Outcha go

Else if

No biometric data

License and IDs have proof of residency

No proof?

Outcha go

OP is a faggot

You are just trolling at this point. You are arguing in bad faith and being a deliberate agitator who picks and chooses which arguments you respond to and repeat the same statements as if they are objective truths. Due process has been asked and answered in this thread and you have been proven wrong. But keep going and repeating the same dumb ideas as if that will make them right or the truth.

Papiere, bitte

Fuck off, don't tread on me

Deported

Land of the free

I stopped responding to your arguments so I win

The fact still remains that none of your arguments (even while they are provably false) matters since there is 100+ years of supreme court case law.
You suspiciously never address this.
Well, not suspiciously, it's obvious because there is no argument you can make.

That's one of the requirements, yes.

Congratulations on conceding common sense

what does this mean?
a hearing satisfies due process, a full trial is not required. you have conceded this claim. if you wish to try contending with it for the first time, do so now.

>nobody has been denied a hearing

That's a fascinatingly bold claim, can't wait for you to show me all the documentation for every deported individual and all I would have to do is show you one

go ahead
literally nobody has been denied a hearing
you can get a hearing for anything in this country
I can sue trump for some made up bullshit, I just have to be ready to pay some fines for wasting the court's time, plus his lawyer's fees.
I've explained this like six times. you are an inexhaustible font of motivated ignorance, or you just have a learning disability. probably the latter. the base rate of learning disabilities is high and pretty much anyone can get on the internet these days

nobody has been denied a hearing

see

common sense

We already have countless of instances of this.
I'll wait for you to provide documentation proving every person deported got a hearing

Let's just rig an election and accuse the people we rigged it against of doing the same thing

Your due process should be a noose.

>I stopped responding to your arguments so I win

epic projection

The fact still remains that none of your arguments (even while they are provably false) matters since there is 100+ years of supreme court case law.

you already conceded that wong kim was decided incorrectly, because it directly contradicts the records of the drafters of the 14th amendment.
this was covered in exhaustive detailed here (). you have not even attempted to contend with the arguments in that post yet you are claiming victory, as if persuading some 80-IQ lurkers is more important than your own edification. either that or you're contractually obligated to stick to your priors regardless of how much you have to humiliate yourself.

More like

be dumb spic that can't even speak english

commit some spic crime like drunk driving or molestation

No ID, papers, need a translator to speak to the police

Run fingerprints, turns out you have five bench warrents

"Do you have anything to prove you are a citizen at all?"

No.

"What is your country of origin?"

Mehico.

CUT TO: All-expenses paid one-way plane ride back to Mexico, where he's their problem once again

Nice oversimplification and purposely disingenuous scenario you came up with, though.

Amir rapes 12 yo

Nigel says Amir bad

Nigel goes to jail for hatecrime

Amir gets 20 hours of community service, suspended

Rule of law.
Why dont I hear you complain when the UK violates this repeatedly? Should be more revelant to Sweden than the US.

We already have countless of instances of this.

seems like somebody fooled you
you would have proven it by now if you had a single example of somebody being denied a hearing
despite your silly attempt to turn it around and ask anon to prove a negative, every new post from you is evidence that no such examples exist. you can't prove "there are no black swans" but if some swede is really motivated to produce a black swan and just can't do it, that's good evidence that there are no black swans.

It means that a hearing is not the only requirement.
It's fascinating that you would attack my English.
Now you could take your own advice and ask me questions like, what are the other requirements?
I don't mind teaching you, clearly.

literally nobody has been denied a hearing

Sure here is one. (believe you me, this is not the only case)
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/26/trump-administration-child-deportation

because it directly contradicts the records of the drafters of the 14th amendment.

This might surprise you, but you don't decide that.
Do you know who does? It's the Supreme Court.
And you know what they said?
Of course you do, I've already told you countless times.
You really have to do better than "the decision doesn't align with my feels on it"

The absence of citizenship and legal occupant status is an illegal alien by default. If you are a citizen then you are registered as such; if you are a legal occupant then you are registered as such. There is no need to waste court resources establishing an obvious truth. The people who demand we retain illegal aliens just want to waste other peoples’ time and money, and probably employ them as slave labor to undermine wages for everyone else

That's what your side attempted in 2020 and failed. They tried rigging it again in 2024 and succeeded.
You just haven't been paying attention if you disagree.

be dumb Amerimutt that can barely speak English

commit some retarded crime like jaywalking or disrespecting Israel

No ID, papers because why would a citizen need to prove their right to exist

"Do you have anything to prove you are a citizen at all?"

None of your business

"What is your country of origin?"

USA

CUT TO: Enjoy El Salvador

It means that a hearing is not the only requirement.

correct
the other requirement is notice
together, these are "minimum due process"
if you believe a full trial is required, you are wrong.
feel free to ask questions, but further repetition of statements I know to be incorrect will not persuade me.

Sure here is one.

it says, citing a judge who was not on the case, that the child received “no meaningful process”
this explicitly confirms that the child received some process.
as for whether it was "meaningful" I am sure a higher court is already working on that question, because, contrary to your belief, the child's had a hearing and that hearing is appealable all the way to the supreme court if they decide to take it up.
I conclude that the child received and is receiving due process.

(believe you me, this is not the only case)

no, I don't believe you, because you've thrown your credbility in the trash repeatedly and the only example you came up with definitely involved a hearing that definitely would have satisfied the obama and biden administration.

the problem is not procedural. the problem is substantive. powerful interests want millions of fraudulent asylum seekers walking around with a free pass and even missing their scheduled hearings which are delayed and drawn out beyond the basic constitutional requirements. the novel demand for full trials after 100 years of functional administrative hearings is a red herring, designed to recruit you into supporting those powerful interests. they want slaves. I do not want to help them have slaves. your position is unjustifiable, legally, ethically, and morally. you don't get to tell us what asylum claims are valid.

single check of citizenship, entry record, and residence expiry

"b-b-but due process!"

You have to go back.

there is no conceivable scenario where this happens
burden of proof is on the accuser in the anglo-american legal system. or, I suppose I should say, in the american legal system.

Where were Dems and leftists when red flag laws were passed in their states? Where is due process there?

Lol what's the weather like in Opposite Land today?

Yeah that's a real nice strawman you built there, Muhommad.

They are blatantly transparent in their double standard. Euro countries jailing people based creatievly interpreted laws is good. US speeding up deportation process for illegals bad. They just hate whites and love browns, every thing else they say is grisle.

The burden of proof is on the accuser

But no due process for illegals

Are you a Ukrainian refugee by any chance?

The biggest difference between third world shit holes and nice countries is due process. If you are starting a business, would you rather do it in a place with strong legal protections, or one where the government can fuck you whenever it wants for no reason, and with no warning?

illegals

Its in the name bub.if they weren't here illegally they wouldn't be deported. Simple as. Why does due process according to libshits involve letting known illegals argue why they shouldn't follow the law in court

Yes, they'll do anything and say anything to try to retain power. They are evil.

luke the notable 100 days minecraft demo

"Due process" doesn't mean anything in and if itself, it's a buzz word. It means that you are due the process that you are due..

What process is an invading alien subject to deportation due?
The problem is that leftist collaborators want you to believe that every invading alien is due a full court hearing with unlimited It's the equivalent of arguing that every enemy soldier is due a trial by his peers before one of our soldiers is allowed to shoot them. Deliberate lawfare and sabotage that violates all common sense and clearly has no resemblance to how the system was intended to be used when it created. Legal hacking in other words, aka. pilpul.

Being ILLEGALY in the US is a crime in itself. Your beloved darkies are going home where they belong and there is nothing you can do about it.

a person's citizenship is something that will take months and months of due process in order to verify

lol no

ICE identifies whos legal and who isnt already. So they're already getting due process then?

Yes and extremly, disgustingly dishonest.

If due process is easy, then why not do it?

no due process

that strawman was beat to death ages ago.
they get due process hearings. the sudden demand for full trials goes beyond the minimum constitutional requirements.
you seem totally convinced trump has REDUCED the de minimis hearings in some way. please explain how you came to be so wrong. who told you this? how did they describe the reduction in process?

because it's there, and you could use some early game polish

we do
they're literally called "due process hearings" look it up
democrats are suddenly demanding full trials and tricked you into thinking that's a reasonable demand

additional context: it's only technically required because the subject of citizenship or valid asylum is in question. a non-citizen doesn't actually have due process rights according to the drafters of the 14th amendment.

Why are retards trying to debate this.
Screw due process. If a criminal benefits from the law being followed for them despite them deliberately breaking it, then the government shouldn't follow laws when punishing them either.
It's like if the government had to give money launderers a 2 year warning before investigating them.
Just go full lowbrow grug and say "illegals get deported, don't care about your bullshit laws"

don't play dumb, you CAN, and you are ABOUT THAT.

I CHALLENGE YOU.

You clearly don't have due process because you're deporting gay hairdressers to Salvadorian concentration camps based on their autism awareness tattoos. The supreme court has told the president to do a bunch of shit and he's just ignoring them. He has threatened to ban lawyers from entering federal courts if they try to sue him.

we don't technically need to give due process to non-citizens because ...

This is how countries become shit holes.

for illegals

Kinda explains itself.

You

a citizen is entitled to due process

Also you

illegals get due process

I accept your concession that everyone gets due process under US law.

flag

Being full of non-citizens from shithole nations is how nations become shitholes

Quite.
Which is why you should have never allowed those numbers in in the first place.

If you dread the cleaning you shouldn't have made the mess, simple as that.
Allowing Soros to ideologically corrupt the judiciary was a similarly stupid move too.

Important, because the federal government is often wrong. Remember the time you trusted the feds? Yeah didn't think so. Not budging on that view just because its Trump.

Yup. Ditch all the shit that makes you the richest country in the world to get rid of the foreigners who deliver your food. I'm sure it'll work out in the end.

play minecraft how I have been playing minecraft....

5 "days" at a time.

Everyone HAS been getting due process.
The faggots that say the people being deported aren't getting due process are lying.

And yet again you dodge the supreme court argument.
I'll take it as you concede that one.

citing a judge who was not on the case

Yes in this case he's used as an authority on the subject, given the details his conclusion is illegal deportation due to denied due process.
Can you prove otherwise? no? interesting

I've jumped off of a tower of dried kelp blocks at world build limit in the demo.

I've enchanted armor in the demo.

I've been to the nether in the demo.

I think that's pretty fucking notable.

you seem to have deliberately misunderstood.
as I said, the issue at contention is citizenship, hence the hearing.
if the issue was an assault we could just deport them, because non-citizens don't have she process rights.
if you have to pretend to misunderstand me in order to defend your beliefs, then why are they still your beliefs?

but who will deliver the food?

you want slaves. the whole thing is ridiculous.

DUE PROCESS

illegal, fuck off, get deported

legal citizen ,key a tesla go to prison immediately

politician, commit treason and fraud for years and decades, internal ongoing investigation, years of litigation, at most resign from job.

FUCK THIS CLOWN WORLD

keep the slaves around at slave wages

Why do libshits only see the them as workers

Show documentation of every deported person of their due process.
The absence of proof is proof of denied due process

Show documentation of every deported person of their due process

You can look it all up in court filings.

you dodge the supreme court argument

deeply ironic post.
you already conceded that wong kim was decided incorrectly, because it directly contradicts the records of the drafters of the 14th amendment.
this was covered in exhaustive detailed here (). you have not even attempted to contend with the arguments in that post yet you are claiming victory, as if persuading some 80-IQ lurkers is more important than your own edification. either that or you're contractually obligated to stick to your priors regardless of how much you have to humiliate yourself.

Except for the fact that Article 2 Executive Branch powers exist and I quote. The President has THE SOLE power to exclude or suspend entry of aliens OR ANY class of Aliens from entry.

you want slaves

They have the option to turn themselves in and be deported. They aren't slaves; they're working willingly. I would prefer they're paid a higher wage, but the current set up is better for them than what you suggest.

CHICKEN JOCKEY

it depends on their race.

you already conceded that wong kim was decided incorrectly

I can't concede to your feels, that doesn't even make any sense.
The Supreme court decision stands until it's been changed.
There is no amount of seething and crying you can do to change this simple fact

how do you know

OK it goes something like this.
"Are you in the country legally?"
If "yes": ok prove it
If "no": adios
Its really that simple.
I know you retarded leftyniggers think this needs to be some massive process, but it really doesnt.

if the issue was an assault we could just deport them, because non-citizens don't have she process rights

Until they claim they are a citizen

They still get due process.
Standing in front of an immigration judge is still due process.

All the are doing is suppressing wages for legal citizens

if entering a country illegally isn't important to you then neither is the process that will see your exit.

Ah, so I'm glad we're in agreement that they aren't slaves and no one views them as slaves. I'm sure you'll forget this conversation instantly and accuse people of wanting slaves because your brain is too directional.

That IS their due process. But disingenuous faggots with malicious intentions try to do the most ridiculous mental gymnastics to try to justify why it isn't and how there needs to be this OJ Simpson trial level of fanfare around deportations.
Illegal aliens by definition broke the law coming into the country without following the proper procedures and this judiciary full of activists are aiding in the destruction of the country. Expedited removal for every single fucking one of them.

The Constitution protects American citizens. Not foreigners. So sorry you were mislead.

they only care because they are delusional in thinking the brown man will vote for them, unfortunately for them even the brown men aren't buying their bullshit like before, liberals are on their death spiral

I have already disposed of this emotional angle and determined it was merely projection, here: ()
you are acting like you have ammedia, it's so transparently dishonest. you can always recycle your modem and try contending with my arguments for the first time.

I'm so sorry you never bothered reading the constitution, it does not say citizen, it says person.
This is upheld in 100 year old Supreme court decision

It's not at all when we're talking about the left or illegal scum. Smart people will research the setup used by the beltway sniper niggers for pic related.

Lol swedecuck thinks he’s somehow covered by the American constitution

your post doesn't make sense
what he described is the legal equivalent of chattel slavery
you don't get to have a special class of workers exempt from normal payroll regulations, we fought several wars over this starting with tripoli

you left out "subject to the...
wait
I've typed this exact post before
you're feigning amnesia again, very dishonest behavior

I have already disposed of this emotional angle

The Supreme court
All you have to do is make an argument that isn't based on your feels.
How does your interpretation of the constitution invalidate the Supreme courts decision?

All you have to do is make an argument that isn't based on your feels.

here: ( #)
you're feigning amnesia, very dishonest. you can always recycle your modem and try contending with my arguments for the first time.

People inside the country are subject to it's laws.
Again, the Supreme court as already ruled on this 100+ years ago.
It's very simple.

You do realize you're doing the same strategy Darrell Brooks tried doing to get out of his charges. You don't get a separate trial just to determine your identity.

capitalism is coercive and low wage workers are similar to slaves

I'm glad we agree on this. Socialist thought doesn't come easy but you're making good first steps.

People inside the country are subject to it's laws.

incorrect
I already taught you the exact meaning, here: ()
you're feigning ammedia, very dishonest.

Again, the Supreme court as already ruled on this 100+ years ago.

already rebutted, here: ()
feel free to try contending with my rebuttal for the first time.

I see, you're under the misunderstanding that if you can argue with their decision, it somehow matters.
Sadly, again, your feelings on it still doesn't matter.
The Supreme court is the final authority on what the constitution says.
I don't think I can explain this any simpler to you.
What they say goes until it's overruled, that's it.

An employer will choose slave labor over paid labor every day of the week. If an employer has access to slave labor he can choose to pay his non slaves less. Due process doesn't mean you get what you want because you think its right

Arguing about decorum

In 2025

This is like boomer political dialogue. Completely out of touch with what time it is.

Exactly. You're really on a role here. So we need stronger workplace protections for undocumented migrants, right?

not that anon but if he doesnt follow through on the whole overtime/tip tax abolition then I'd be pretty steamed, other than that hes doing what I wanted

explain how you came to the incorrect belief that relying on a class of foreign helots is "capitalism," this should be good.
failing that, here is the argument you couldn't contend with:
you don't get to have a special class of workers exempt from normal payroll regulations,
please attempt to justify america's continued reliance on such a class of workers when we have plenty of domestic labor and decent laws in place to protect it, because I don't currently understand why you love it so much (unless you own a farm in Idaho?).

So you think that making brownoid criminals legal was a good thing?
Want to elaborate on that?

you don't get to have a special class of workers exempt from normal payroll regulations,

Yeah, this is what I'm saying. We need to regulate the capitalist system to ensure workers aren't exploited, and this starts by protecting undocumented migrants and other low-pay workers.

because I don't currently understand why you love it so much

The current conditions are unconscionable, but it would be far worse for the workers in question to be expelled to some foreign nation.

protecting undocumented migrants

Or just deport them.

I see, you're under the misunderstanding that if you can argue with their decision, it somehow matters

indeed it does, see marbury v. madison. this is basic con law and demonstrates once again how you should be asking questions instead of making up your own interpretationa of the law.
therefore I still believe you are projecting your own insistence on emotional post-hoc justification of your prior position onto me.
you can always attempt to rebut my arguments here () for the first time. it's strange that you project such confidence in beliefs that you won't even defend.

No. Government is doing its job protecting citizen's jobs and wages.

stronger workplace protections for undocumented migrants, right?

this is basically an oxymoron
strong workplace protections mean workers don't have to compete with a suspiciously racially homogenous class of underpaid workers who are totally beholden to their employers for shelter and safety

see

What? But you were just complaining about how they are kept in such poor conditions. Now you want to actively make their conditions worse? This makes no sense. You've literally just explained that these people are treated badly as slaves and that you don't feel you should benefit from their extorted labour, now you want to stop them from working, making both them and you worse off. It's very odd.

Well get out into the fields if you want, but I don't think your wages will go up.

Yea. It's a good thing to give these people a firmer legal status and similar workplace protections to citizens.

Okay so you don't understand how the Supreme court works.
Their ruling is the basis of the law, until it's been overruled, it stands.
You can't make an argument to make it go away.
Only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment can change it.
Why do I need to explain this to you?
I'm guessing you already know all of this, you just can't concede an argument.
Pretty funny and pathetic, but it's been fun anyway

Incredibly important. It's the backbone of our entire legal system.

weaponize courts and ignore due process

only talk about importance of due process AFTER you lose

expelled to some foreign nation.

it's not foreign to them
how delightfully absurd
I get that not living in America must feel like a prison sentence but legally speaking it's just your home

Yea. It's a good thing to give these people a firmer legal status and similar workplace protections to citizens

but that would contradict my stated goal of protecting domestic workers from having to compete with a suspiciously racially homogenous class of underpaid workers who are totally beholden to their employers for shelter and safety.
you're just getting lazy now.

Lmfao NPCs actually believe just anyone can end up in immigration court and the feds are completely clueless who's here legally and who isn't without a trial. You retarded fuck, they're only getting a hearing because it's KNOWN they are here legally. The whole point of the hearing is to see if they meet certain criteria to remain here without being citizens and most of the time they don't.

Due Process is important for people. It is unimportant for invaders. The 10 million that came here under biden are invaders. They didn't use any official channels or went through a vetting process and skipped due process to reach the USA. So, we are not obligated to use due process to kick them out.

It would take somwhere around 120 years to process every single invader that came under Biden.

Only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment can change it.

Actually a court ruling can be overturned by an act of Congress but you’re a baiting Swede so you wouldn’t know that. Technically he is correct that the prior decision is wrong and that issue will go up to the Court this time around. Anyone thinking the Court isn’t going to hear arguments in the next few weeks on the recent use of the ASA is retarded.

they are here legally

Illegally*

yes that will be MAGA cultists in 4 years.

Legally we don't have to give a trial or hearing actually. Get fucked nigger

LEGALLY!

He's right though. Look at the deportation numbers. The deporter in chief was Obama though, partly because that was before sanctuary cities

a court ruling can be overturned by an act of Congress

No an act of congress can't overturn an interpretation of the constitution, but nice try!

The supreme court disagrees with you, sorry!

bitchute.com/video/Cpgpe5mtnAyJ

There is no legal designation of "home", but I would suggest somewhere isn't your home if you don't want to live here.

no argument

Lol.

No it wouldn't. By granting these people strong protections from employer abuse, you would make them less reliant on their employers for shelter and safety.

And quite frankly, I don't see the value in your objective of forcing locals to accept low wage farm jobs. I think it would be much better to take actions which mutually benefit both parties. Locals get cheap food, and immigrants get to work in America.

Okay so you don't understand how the Supreme court works

incorrect
imagine thinking you can trick me about this
what an oddball maneuver, I love it

Only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment can change it.

Why do I need to explain this to you?

mostly because it's wrong.
you don't seem intrigued by this at all - someone disagrees with you and is even willing to explain why! which tells me you're not actually interested in the topic. alas.

doesn't actually though, nigger try again. Legal process on this has existed for years yo can just look it up. The fact Tim pool of all people has a better understanding of than you is embarrassing.

He's right though. Look at the deportation numbers. The deporter in chief was Obama though, partly because that was before sanctuary cities

Wrong

you don't seem intrigued by this at all

You've been wrong every step of the way, to ask you questions would be to ask for misinformation.
But sure, I'll bite!
Tell me how you feeling that the decision is wrong matters.
How does that change the law?
How does that overrule the supreme court decision?

LEGALLY!

There is no legal designation of "home"

what a strange thing to say
it's your nationality, mate.
the place you get deported to if you overstay your visa and start a barfight in chicago.
how exactly do you retain beliefs that don't withstand scrutiny? you're probably great at playing devil's advocate but I don't see much other use for it.

No it wouldn't. By granting these people strong protections from employer abuse, you would make them less reliant on their employers for shelter and safety.

but that would only increase the negative impact on domestic workers.
I don't get why you're trying to find ways to accommodate racially based chattel slavery. it's interesting from a theoretical standpoint but at the end of the day, I don't want to accommodate it, so I'm not going to adopt your ideas.

No an act of congress can't overturn an interpretation of the constitution, but nice try!

It has phappened several times. I do not understand why you’re pretending to be a smug retard about this.

thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3483694-five-times-congress-overrode-the-supreme-court/amp/

How do you know if someone is here without due process

Same way they can tell if you're fare dodging. Are you a citizen? No? Do you have documents and a permission? Oh you lost them? Lets check the database, nope, you're either lying about your name or you are illegal. Either way, get bent!

So you have to actually read the words I'm typing, specifically "interpretation of the constitution" can't be overruled by and act of congress.
I'm sorry if you have dyslexia or something, I don't want to punch down

Seen that pic the other day, it's incorrect because it treats new arrivals as 'turned away at the border' as if it doesn't count due to that. A 'new arrival' can mean someone who has been in the country for months. Obama prioritized those + convicted criminal illegal aliens for deportation, the latter of which Trump says he wants to do too.

This distinction gets made by libs, ironically enough, to try to defend Obama on this point rather than complain about him. You'd have to show that Trump is disincluding these 'turnaways' in his deportation numbers for some reason.

The libertarian Cato Institute crunched the data and demonstrated that deportations from the interior of the country – meaning away from the border, so, people who have likely been in the country longer – were on the downswing during most of the Obama administration.

Trump has sought to end Obama’s program shielding undocumented young people from deportation and has reversed the trend on internal deportations as he’s sought to remove more people, including those who have been in the country a long time.

However, Trump still has not reached anywhere near the level of interior removals as the early Obama administration, according to Cato’s analysis of data through 2018.

That has created a headache for Biden, who is now paying a political price for that Obama record. His campaign office in Philadelphia was briefly occupied and six immigration rights activists were arrested Wednesday. He’s been confronted on the campaign trail.
edition.cnn.com/2019/07/13/politics/obama-trump-deportations-illegal-immigration/index.html

from a lib article trying to handwave Obama's record in comparison to Bush and Clinton.

still no argument

Still lol.

your home is your nationality

What about people who live in places where they aren't a citizen? Projecting the belief onto me that people have no nationality is absurd. You are currently engaged in a massive retarded deflection where you make endless side arguments over nothing to avoid the actual point being made.

We've already been over the slavery point. It's not slavery if people come to your country to seek out a job and willingly stay working that job.

only increase the negative impact on domestic workers

Option 1: give immigrants better protections, food prices increase a little.
Option 2: expel immigrants, local workers now have to work on farms. Food prices increase a lot due to the shakeup. There is also general inflation because people had to leave their jobs in other sectors to go work on farms which makes goods generally less available.

This is basic economics, Option 2 is better. It's mad you can simultaneously think someone is working as a slave for you, and assert you'd be better off if they weren't doing it.

So you have to actually read the words I'm typing, specifically "interpretation of the constitution" can't be overruled by and act of congress.

I did here. >Their ruling is the basis of the law, until it's been overruled, it stands.

You can't make an argument to make it go away.

Only the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment can change it.

Nowhere did you mention the constitution. You only mention “rulings” which have been overturned by an act of Congress multiple times. In the cases I cited were based on constitutional arguments. For example, FDA v. Brown was decided on no constitutional authority. Specifically the question. Of whether the FDA had the authority under the constitution to regulate tobacco. It didn’t, because the court found Congress did not expressly grant the FDA this power. So congress changed the law and override the decision. Again, you’re just wrong.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abrogated_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Right now post the numbers about how many obama lot in while doing this, Because he did it poorly, obamas numbers are bullshit.

Show me proof of legal residency or citizenship

I can't

Kick them out of the country

That's all the due process we need

You'd have to show that Trump is disincluding these 'turnaways' in his deportation numbers for some reason.

Also you can just look at trumps numbers of border numbers and how much they dropped, This is basically the one thing trump can actually claim victory on. Forgot to mention that.

It should be noted I'm not doing this to defend trump, he's doing terribly on this. The point is just that the libtard numbers are made up.

But you were just complaining about how they are kept in such poor conditions

Do you even know how to read Anon Babble IDs?
Fucking newfags.

I think the state electrocuted me when I was a kid, and are lying about it. I don't remember it, but I could have been drugged, or they got me when I was a baby. They have never admitted it. I had a wonky eye, and I have co-ordination issues. I think that is why. That's what no due process means. The system can legally lie to you, all the time. And make you a second class citizen, with reduced rights.

You've been wrong every step of the way

I wonder if this horseshit works on you
hey anon, turns out you agree with me on everything
wow what an interesting and productive debate

Tell me how you feeling that the decision is wrong matters

you are attacking an argument I never made.
ask me something that's not an obvious projection of your own emotional need to stick to your priors.
here, let's pretend you asked "why is marbury relevant?"
marbury held that the Supreme Court has the final say on constitutional interpretation. congrats, you clearly understand that part.
marbury also held that constitutional interpretation is retroactive.
when madison failed to deliver the appointments, they were deemed delivered anyway. the decision was made months later but madison's actions were null and void the whole time.
legally speaking, you are only allowed to do what the Supreme Court says the law is - EVEN BEFORE THEY SAY IT.
so, it's important to violate incorrect decisions. especially for officers of the court like judges and lawyers. if no one acted according to what the interpretation OUGHT TO BE then we would never have any test cases. roe never would been able to consult a doctor about her abortion and prove that abortions were actually legal the whole time, and we just didn't know it yet.
you may consider this theoretical and even dangerous but it's how American law works.
the government must interpret the 14th amendment correctly, not according to the latest precedent, not according to the theoretical final precedent.
you know this is true because every administration ends up in court over a hundred times. sometimes they win and sometimes they lose.
it comes down to whether you think the clear contradiction between the 14th akendment drafters notes and the current interpretation matters. I think it does. you want to sidestep that debate by saying it's settled but that's just now how the common law works.

I am not blaming Trump nor his cabinet for the slow deportations I AM however blaming all of those activist judges legislation from the bench. Desu. Also the white house lawn today easily 10|10 shows every single one of those freaks that the left in USA or socialist weirdos in Canada and UK are all to happy to defend

I'm talking to like 4 people at once here, I'm not gonna keep track of you. You guys have like hive mind anyway. You all think the same shit.

Okay so you have number dyslexia as well.
That's not the post you responded to, it's this one
Again, I'm not one to punch down.
I sympathize with your struggle

not according to the latest precedent, *but according to the theoretical final precedent.

it's important to violate incorrect decisions

Great! So we agree that Trump is breaking the law and denying people due process.
That wasn't so hard, was it?

Based retarded transexual faggot kike nigger anus-eating swedish fish cuckold nonce.

That's not the post you responded to, it's this one

No, it is. The problem is you’re trying to move the goalposts and are too retarded to do it effectively. You’re just wrong. I’ve provided you resources showing you are wrong. Not my fault you’re an idiot.

Holy kek. it's not like the post history is hidden, everyone can see.
I guess I'm sorry I hurt your feelings
Consider using chatgpt as a therapist

If you're not a 'citizen' or have a valid visa, the state doesn't know you even exist as a 'person', you understand? This is why an illegal immigrant has no legal rights or protections granted by the state. Because the state apparatus doesn't know you if you came in illegally.

Holy kek. it's not like the post history is hidden, everyone can see.

Thank you for agreeing with me :^)

hurt your feelings

Not at all. I typically don’t get upset at the retarded.

Sure now you just have to overturn the supreme court decision saying otherwise.
Good luck!

we did it with alcohol.

Newfag confirmed.
Lurk moar faggot.

I've been on here for the best part of a decade (technically newer than newfag, I know), but whatever.

>still no argument

Still lol

derision is not an argument.
here is the argument you could not contend with:
you're not "expelling people to a foreign nation" bevause they are nationals of that nation. the legal term is repatriation.

What about people who live in places where they aren't a citizen?

they're subject to deportation at will, obviously. no one has a right to live in a foreign nation unless the laws of that nation grant them the right.

Projecting the belief onto me that people have no nationality is absurd.

I don't know what you're getting at here

You are currently engaged in a massive retarded deflection where you make endless side arguments over nothing to avoid the actual point being made.

epic projection

It's not slavery if people come to your country to seek out a job and willingly stay working that job.

willingness has nothing to do with it. historically people often sold themselves into slavery or temporary servitude to settle debts or fund their passage to colonies. willingness is irrelevant to determining if chattel slavery exists, and more importantly, it doesn't negate any of my concerns about the impact on free domestic workers. if you don't want to address the concerns that I brought up then why reply?

Option 1: give immigrants better protections, food prices increase a little.

Option 2: expel immigrants,

considering the impact on domestic workers, labor costs, not to mention crime and cultural pollution, option 2 all the way.

It's mad you can simultaneously think someone is working as a slave for you, and assert you'd be better off if they weren't doing it.

did you just step out of the 18th century or what?
slavery is convenient, what a compelling argument, now kindly get the fuck out of my civilization you barbarian. I will not agree to disagree here, I find your values anathema to a free and prosperous society that I would want to live in and that's all there is to it.

Sure now you just have to overturn the supreme court decision saying otherwise

Saying what? That illegals are protected by the state? This would be extremely retarded. If the state doesn't know you exist (by being illegal), they can't apply the rule of law onto you, since you're not a valid juristical subject. You're only a valid juristical subject if you're either a native born citizen (registered) or entered with a valid visa (also registered)

what? when did he do that? give me one example, and explain how you came to believe we are in agreement on this new and unsupported claim of yours.
meanwhile, here is the argument you failed to contend with and thus conceded:
the government must interpret the 14th amendment correctly, not according to the latest precedent, but according to the theoretical final precedent.
it comes down to whether you think the clear contradiction between the 14th akendment drafters notes and the current interpretation matters. I think it does. you want to sidestep that debate by saying it's settled. instead, you should try making an rebuttal of your own for the time.

I feel like that's stupid

Okay, neat!
So anyway

Yamataya v. Fisher (1903)

immigrants, even if undocumented, are protected by due process once they are physically in the U.S.

been her for the better part of a decade

can't read Anon Babble IDs

Pick one.

TSA agents (literal high school dropout retards) can verify a driver's license or passport in 15 seconds at the airport. Showing it to the ICE agent and explaining in crisp English why you're legally allowed to be here is not an unreasonable ask. Sorry José, but you have to go back.

They have to go back

Lol you are such a clown. You have moved the goalposts all the way to the parking lot at this point. You certainly earned your shill shekels today. I accept your concession that you are a shill and have been arguing in bad faith this entire thread.

when did he do that?

When did he break the law by deporting someone according to the Supreme court?
When he deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
It was decided illegal 9-0.
This obviously also means that loads more deportation was as well illegal.
Do you just not read the news or?

It's not slavery if people come to your country to seek out a job and willingly stay working that job.

Yeah let's import niggers from africa and pay them less than minimum wage picking cotton and have them live in your barn. It's not slavery because they would rather do that than starve in africa

When he deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Kilmar got plenty of due process. Literally tons of it.

Yeah that's what I would say too if I couldn't make a counter argument.
Oh well, better luck next time

good point
it's also easy to distinguish between those decisions and the instant matter.
the Supreme Court extended 14th amendment due process to Chinese laundromats in San Francisco that we're facing racially motivated laws cracking down on them. these laundromats were licensed by the city, and these licenses made them subject to the jurisdiction of San Francisco and of California despite being operated by noncitizens.
the Swede is very confident that the case means all constitutional rights apply to foreigners, period. if that were true, why do we have laws against Russian propaganda agents buying facebook ads to influence elections? To name just one recent example.

Years before, he had his due process where they decided he was legally allowed to stay.
This time they didn't give him due process.
Either way, it was illegal, as I said.
Trump deported someone illegally.

Supreme Court was wrong. He has to go back. If the 9 justices declared 2+2=4 69 ballsack would you agree?

where they decided he was legally allowed to stay

They literally never said this.
They said he can't be deported to Guatamala but otherwise he is perfectly fine to deport.

slavery is convenient, what a compelling argument

Okay, now engage your thinking cap. It's convenient for us to have foreigners working on farms, and the foreigners want to work on farms, so why shouldn't it happen?

You are confusing me not bothering to read the IDs with me being unable to. Perhaps if you had more distinctive style and ideas, I would not so easily confuse you with others.

Yes. What's so confusing about that? It's bad when you force someone to do something against their will, but good when you let them do something that benefits both of you.

They have the right to be detained and deported. Fuck off, Nigel, you've been wrong this entire thread. Go deport Achmed before he rapes and knives more of your nation's children.

Stop trying to crawl out of the hole you dug for yourself.
You are a newfag shilling for the DNC.

Very important, humans deserve dignity and citizens deserve the right to defend themselves.
Too bad Taco nuggets are neither.

he abided by the decision.
if you want to see a real roller coaster look up the amistad case.
justice is not instant.
this was a really silly tangent from you.
now, here is the argument you failed to contend with and thus conceded:
the government must interpret the 14th amendment correctly, not according to the latest precedent, but according to the theoretical final precedent.
it comes down to whether you think the clear contradiction between the 14th akendment drafters notes and the current interpretation matters. I think it does. you want to sidestep that debate by saying it's settled. instead, you should try making an rebuttal of your own for the time.

Info gathering esl pedonigger im trans btw reminder this site doesnt even have sound and the file size is pathetic

DNC

These are the literal slave owners. They caused the entire American problem by letting people hop the border illegally instead of actually processing the immigration claims.

If the 9 justices declared 2+2=4 69 ballsack would you agree?

Then that would be the law and you would need to follow it, yes.
I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's your system.

They said he can't be deported to Guatamala

Correct, which barred them from deporting him.

he abided by the decision.

He was denied due process and was illegally deported.
I will let you concede the argument at this point.

It comes down to if you feel like they made the wrong decision or not

You can feel however you want about it, it doesn't change what is and isn't legal.
I'm sorry this is so hard for you, but you can't break the law just because you disagree.
I can't abort my unborn child because I disagree with the roe v wade reversal

forgot to ping you here, last two

which barred them from deporting him

Wrong sir. Wrong.
"Withholding of removal" status is country specific. It bars them from deporting him to that specific country. Not barring them from deporting him at all.

He was denied due process

No he wasn't. He had plenty of it. Stop listening to the lying mainstream media.
He had a hearing that showed he was MS13. He had a hearing about asylum. He had a hearing about his illegal status.
He had PLENTY OF DUE FUCKING PROCESS.

>He was denied due process

No he wasn't. He had plenty of it

This is actually the basis for why the supreme court ruled 9-0, because he did not get due process.
You're literally running on propaganda, just read the supreme court decision.

It's convenient for us to have foreigners working on farms, and the foreigners want to work on farms, so why shouldn't it happen?

because of the various concerns for domestic workers, crime, society, and culture which I highlighted earlier.

You can literally read the due process he had.
You are a faggot shill and retarded.
He had WAY more due process than was actually required.
Also next time read the dissention in the Supreme Court rulings.
And I don't mean what the media tells you. Read the pdf for yourself.

porque no los NEITHER

So you support slavery, got it

The Supreme court decided he did not get his due process.
9-0.
It's not up for debate, it's been decided.
It literally doesn't care about your feelings

So then you're saying it's not convenient. See how this goes round in circles? I should just like a clearly articulated point rather than this silly bullshit about slaves. "Oh we've got to build a wall to stop people illegally breaking into our country because of how much they want to work here." Okay, well then the people aren't slaves.

I don't see how you can define slavery in anyway that counts a mutually beneficial and consensual exchange of labour for money.

See above.