Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
But you'd like to see how it plays out. A good man doing nothing? Not a good man.
Merged Due process in the US
- Thread starter Aridas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- due process maga spartz
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,498
But I'm not particularly bothered by it, either.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Oh, and you're doing something special?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
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.
The new due coming soon to a town near you!
Don't woke us up, we're living the dream.
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
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:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Exactly so you are fine with them being deported for reporting a crime against themselves. Glad to clear that up.
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
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:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
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.
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.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
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.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
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.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Can you explain how due process allows you to question the reason for your removal of the government is not required to have a reason?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
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.
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:
esquel
Collector of Meteorites
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.
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:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
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.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
deleted....
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
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.