Merged Due process in the US

Yup, there's due process ahead. Because you know our fearless leader loves his due process, especially when he gets to decide what it is, and as Hercules so astutely points out where there's due process the only problem is mistakes, and gee, when did you last see one of those? No worries, its so due we'll be swimming in due due as we watch our neighbors and...oh wait, why not our families too...whisked off to exotic places like El Salvador and Libya. Because the boss says America is only for Americans, and we know who is and isn't, don't we? We'll dance with joy as the blood of our fatherland becomes bright red again, sing duedely duedely due!

The new due coming soon to a town near you!

Don't woke us up, we're living the dream.
 
Edited by jimbob: 

Quote of subsequently moderated post removed



Yes, moving on. There is a clear need for immigrant labor in many industries. This is now highlighted by the rising instances of companies or farms not having the manpower they need. Because that need amounts to numbers approaching the undocumented immigrant population, do you support fast-tracking those workers to getting their papers, or do you prefer throwing them out?

Given this is a civil and not a criminal matter, what is the justification for employing heavy-handed tactics to solve what is, in essence, a lack of a better framework for attracting and retaining migrant labor and upgrading applicant processing infrastructure? Is it not more efficient to use the workers who are already ready, willing and able to perform?

Or is hopping off the equivalent of the Mayflower and attempting to stake a claim a "forever sin" that has no pardon? Best have a thought. A nation founded on settler colonialism has no logical or ethical recourse to today's methods; rather, only to a racist nativism that is also, OMG, patently contradictory in its postulates.

Not that there isn't much to complain about. Immigrants from, say, Venezuela, voting for Trump are essentially idiots who wish to repeat the Maduro failure on US soil, ditto all other such similar parallels. Hispanic voters should use this time of woe to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ up their game once and for all and realize that the failure of the rule of law has always been their main problem, and that recreating that failure now in the US is epically beyond thumb-sucking, blank stare idiocy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by jimbob: 


Quote of subsequently moderated post removed


Just as an aside, this is the sort of deaf and blindness to extended consequence that turns those most dedicated to arguing for the USA, citizens abroad, into your victims. Willing or no, citizens abroad are often strenuously and spontaneously tasked with defending administration policy, no matter who is in the WH, no matter their own policies. This is in keeping with the general rule that nation-states are perceived as single actors on the world stage, represented by their current and recent leaders, a fact that makes Trump a source of unending harm.

This can extend to close allies; case in point being walk-ins off the street into my Madrid office during the Falklands War. In those days, expats still recalled the lessons of The Ugly American, and soldiered on with their informal ambassadorial duties. Granted, desperate for safe harbor and comity in interpersonal relations, this has also produced the radicalized communist or, far more frequently, fascist American seeking to fit in with the local flavor of governance. (Apart from immigrant bating, guess what Abu Ghraib did to my chances of getting decent health care.) Yes, you throw the insult, we navigate the punches, graffiti, and broken windows.

You blabby blab, we have to man up. Good reason why I consider today's Americans to be rank cowards.

ETA: Eminently satisfying addendum deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There seems to be a serious deficiency in understanding of what words mean here.

A right is a right. The fact that it is conditional does not mean it is not a right. All rights are in some sense conditional. But if you have said, explicitly (as you are on record has having said) that a right does not exist, you cannot properly discuss the dimensions or limitations of the right. If you say there's nothing there, then you've said all there is to say.

If anyone, or anyone of a certain class, can be deported for "any reason or no reason" that means, by its very definition, that there is no possible due process by which such a deportation can be in error. Once again, the absence of thing makes it definitionally impossible to discuss its content. I mean, really, in what possible way, in the world of reality, can you argue that "no reason" is in error? You simply cannot say that "no reason" isn't a good enough reason!

As it stands now, the "very conditional" right of non-citizen aliens is rapidly being tied to political opinion and expression, which some would say is in conflict with the First Amendment, which is generally not limited to documented citizenship. And our current administration is working very hard to extend that corruption to include citizens, naturalized or other. They have explicitly stated their intention to overturn the 14th amendment and withdraw the citizenship of many, and to violate the existing rules regarding the withdrawal of naturalization, making political position a criterion for de-naturalization retroactive for a lifetime, and by extension making it possible to expel their children as well. This is not trivial. People who entered this country legally, and committed no crimes once here, have been detained and arrested, and deported too, for the same opinion your avatar expresses. At the moment, assuming you are a native-born citizen, you can afford to be complacent about this. Not so many others, and not necessarily so for you forever.

So you have modified your position on the basis of what you perceive to be the law of the US, but that statement still, as it stands, suggests that you're OK with it. And it still implicitly refers to the law as it exists, and not to the fact that laws are being routinely violated and judgments based on those laws routinely challenged and disobeyed. Our national character is being assaulted by a lunatic and his band of assorted fools, opportunists, white supremacists, and xenohobes. The rule of law is being overthrown. Saying things could be worse has ceased to be comfort and become a prophecy. What we've been talking about here is symptomatic.

Maybe this isn't the right forum for it. Maybe there is no right forum for it, but I really think that you, among others, need to spend some serious time figuring out what kind of country you want, what kind of society you want, and what price not only you, but others, should pay for it. Because right now, right here, it's changing, and surprise comes too late.
 
Also, I agree we should probably stop saying 'deported' when talking about people sent to be detained, dehumanized, and quite possibly tortured in inhumane prisons, without due process. We don't say people were 'deported' to concentration camps during Nazi Germany. It's an unintentional euphemism for what's actually happening, and it makes it easier for certain people to handwave or even support what's happening.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Also, I agree we should probably stop saying 'deported' when talking about people sent to be detained, dehumanized, and quite possibly tortured in inhumane prisons, without due process.
We don't say people were 'deported' to concentration camps during Nazi Germany. It's an unintentional euphemism for what's actually happening, and it makes it easier for certain people to handwave or even support what's happening.
Click to expand...

We may not, but I am pretty sure they did. It may be a matter of opinion when and whether the euphemism is unintentional. I will give Hercules the benefit of the doubt here, as his support is implied but denied, but I do not believe for one second that the use of the word by the administration and its open advocates is so.
 
Hercules56 said:
I shouldn't have to explain that to you, its self evident.
Click to expand...
It is indeed self evident if the words used are used in the sense most people understand.

Among the statements I have not seen modified or corrected is the contention that a person, at least an illegal alien, can be deported for any reason or for no reason. You have also said that everyone is entitled to some kind of due process.

So do please explain: if a person is detained and arrested and slated for deportation for NO REASON, what argument can that person muster when and if a hearing occurs. "No reason" is inherently, definitionally incontrovertible by any reason. It cannot be argued. It is a done deal. In addition, "any reason" includes reasons which may be irrelevant or untrue, including false beliefs, ethnic lies and myths, presumed political sympathies,and any number of bad reasons which cannot be controverted, because "any or no reason" is inherently immune to correction.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm very conflicted on this particular topic. On the one hand, I very much want to protect the right to peaceful assembly and protest.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge (which is extremely limited due to lack of information on this topic) the right to peaceful assembly and protest has ‘only’ existed in our National Forests for decades. That is why The Rainbow Gatherings are held in National Forests. All other places can be outright forbidden or require a permit or permission which can be denied or rescinded.

Everyone just assumes that because it is in the US Constitution that it exists everywhere. The erosion did not happen all at once. Laws/Regulations to require a permit to assemble in the National Forests have failed so far. As of today it may no longer be possible to assemble in our National Forests without a permit. It has been years since I researched this. If anyone has any current information on this I would like to know what it is.

Zuccotti Park (Occuoy Wallstreet) is/was privately owned but open to the public. The police could not raid the park until for some reason the owner rescinded that permission. Then the police swooped in.

Just a short edit. To my limited knowledge, National Forests, National Parks & BLM lands (Bureau of Land Management) are all quite different in how they are managed, regulated & controlled.
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, the First Amendment doesn't say anything about limitations on where people can peaceably assemble on public grounds. It might get sticky if a group decided to sit down in the middle of I-5 during rush hour, however, and IANAL.
 
esquel said:
AFAIK, the First Amendment doesn't say anything about limitations on where people can peaceably assemble on public grounds. It might get sticky if a group decided to sit down in the middle of I-5 during rush hour, however, and IANAL.
Click to expand...
I believe limitations are imposed by other means. State, County, City, local ordinances, regulations, permits, public safety, homeland security etc. The constitutionality of these has never been questioned as far as I know. IAKAL
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I do no know how to delete a post. I ended up with multiple replies when trying to edit.
 
Last edited:
esquel said:
It might get sticky if a group decided to sit down in the middle of I-5 during rush hour, however, and IANAL.
Click to expand...
It's not like traffic actually moves during rush hour on I-5 anyway.

SkyeLight said:
I believe limitations are imposed by other means. State, City, local ordinances, regulations, permits, public safety, homeland security etc. The constitutionality of these has never been questioned so far as I know. IANAL
Click to expand...
"Time, place, and manner" restrictions have been repeatedly upheld. The restrictions have to be purpose-neutral and strongly connected to a legitimate government purpose. The standard of review is strict scrutiny. Protecting the rights of non-assemblants, for example, is legitimate. Permits, for example, allow a government to put its operatives on notice for the practical side effects of an assembly.
 
SkyeLight said:
Sorry, I do no know how to delete a post. I ended up with multiple replies when trying to edit.
Click to expand...
I don't know how to completely delete a post that's been posted, but you can delete a post before you post it by backspace-erasing your comment, and continuing to backspace delete the post you're replying to, if you're replying. When the previous poster's text is deleted, their name disappears too and you are left with a blank reply page unposted. It seems to work better than deleting selections, and I've also had trouble getting the multi-quote option to work. It did and then it doesn't and it's probably my fault and I just forgot how to do it.

If you are editing a done post, you can do the same thing, but you'll get a message telling you to put something back in. I just tried that. The easiest solution there is to say you deleted a post.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'm trying to figure out how the government identifies if someone is a citizen or not without using a due process. Shouldn't everyone be allowed to prove their citizenship when questioned? I know that most Americans do not carry their passport or birth certificate with them.
Click to expand...
1746815765061.png

You consult this helpful colour scale (courtest of the Norwegian adaptation of 'Have I Got News For You').
 
Patterns are funny things. Mystics tend to see the patterns they imagine or invent as meaningful information about the universe, while the apologists for the obvious deny any patterns at all. If you can't point to a written memo, the fact that brown people are the ones who get deported, or that "random" TSA checks just happen to occur entirely to people with foreign birthplaces, hey, it's just the way the coin flipped.
 
What due process?

White House considering suspending habeas corpus, Stephen Miller says.

They are ahead of schedule. I didn't have this happening until the end of the year at the earliest.

Stephen Miller, President Trump's top policy adviser, said Friday the White House is exploring the option of suspending habeas corpus, the constitutional provision that protects from unlawful detainment.

What he's saying: "The Constitution is clear," Miller told reporters outside the White House. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So, to say that's an option we're actively looking at ... a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not."
Click to expand...

 
JayUtah said:
It's not like traffic actually moves during rush hour on I-5 anyway.


"Time, place, and manner" restrictions have been repeatedly upheld. The restrictions have to be purpose-neutral and strongly connected to a legitimate government purpose. The standard of review is strict scrutiny. Protecting the rights of non-assemblants, for example, is legitimate. Permits, for example, allow a government to put its operatives on notice for the practical side effects of an assembly.
Click to expand...
A good example of a legit restriction is you cannot go through a resisdential neighborhood at two o clock in the morning in a truck with loudspeakers blaring your policial rant at full blast.
And if a peaceful rally turns violent for whatever reason, it can legally be broken up.
 


I have moved 99 posts to AAH because they were bickering

Stay on topic, and remember that the topic isn't other posters

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob


EDIT: I had split the thread but had left it in USA politics by mistake. Apologies for that.
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Well, by defending someone claimed to be a criminal (without any proof), Democrats are clearly criminals and thus can be arrested at will for the crime of being a Democrat. The Erdogan / Putin textbook on how to stay in power.
Click to expand...

I think there's a slightly earlier example you could have used..

Mind you, I don't know why they're going to such efforts, Democrats are opposing King Donald I, that by definition is treason so hangings too good for them and drawing & quartering will need to be invoked as well. How much can we get off our tariffs if we let him ship the Tower of London to Mar-a-Lago brick by brick?
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I think there's a slightly earlier example you could have used..

Mind you, I don't know why they're going to such efforts, Democrats are opposing King Donald I, that by definition is treason so hangings too good for them and drawing & quartering will need to be invoked as well. How much can we get off our tariffs if we let him ship the Tower of London to Mar-a-Lago brick by brick?
Click to expand...
Sure, but the resident Trump voters get upset when you point out the parallels to the earlier example and the current US president.
 
Great! It so happens that because my car is small and hard to find in parking lots, I put a little yellow Pikachu on its radio antenna (something I found on the pavement one day, might have been a fancy eraser). The top of the antenna is often the only thing I can see behind even the hood of a current full sized pickup truck! Now I can say it's a secret sign of solidarity! Go resistance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom