Deportations

[dogs4thewin]

That is a terrible argument and I wish it would stop.

Yes there's law violations in being undocumented. But they are of the sort of violations that indicate nothing about whether youre inclined to actually harm people. People who would steal or kill are a different category of individual altogether.

Its apples and oranges.

So let me asks you this ( and I by the way am asking thiss as someone who does not consider incarcertion as the best option for non-violent crimes. However, let us say that a citizen was caught selling drugs ( small amount to support their own habit). This is a non-violent crime that the only people it can really directly "hurt" are those that choose to buy the drugs Let us say that this person has had probation and drug court several times is thre not ANY point at which incarceration or loss of custody for that matter of children should be considered? Same applies if a person is using non-violent means say theft ( without robbery or passing bad checks to fund their habit after other tools in the tool box for treatment have been tried is incarceration NEVER the answer again or loss of custody.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Aren't there character provisions for visas in the US? In a large number of countries, criminal convictions would see you fail the character test, your visa would be cancelled and you would be deported.

yes, although I will say that even I find (if we are NOT going to de mass deportion just for being here things like simple drug procession maybe worthy of treatment (at least before getting deported. If there are no other violent crimes as really addicts ( if that is their only issue are not a danger to anyone whether they are here, Mexico Genmany wherever and it is cheaper than incarceration ( which often will come before deportation anyway they simply do their time and instead of being released are handed over to ICE.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The legislative branch passing a law that covers taxation, or passing a regulation, constitutes "due process of law". Courts are only required as part of due process when there is a need to establish whether a law applies to an entity, which, in the case of tax laws and regulations is generally pretty straightforward. If you don't want to pay your taxes or follow a regulation, then you are entitled to the opportunity to establish that the law does not apply to you.

But then, if a regulation is passed like the Expedited Removal provision that was part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996...

Expedited removals can be considered removals without hearings: these removals do not require judicial review by immigration judges within the Executive Office of Immigration Review unless the individual plans to apply for asylum or indicates fear of persecution.[41][42] Therefore, noncitizens subject to expedited removal do not have the right to administrative review or the right to administrative appeal and judicial review.[40] Because expedited removals do not require judicial or administrative review, noncitizens who are subject to expedited removals are not afforded the right to an attorney during their interviews with immigration officials.[40]

Then congress passing such a regulation stating that undocumented persons arrested with felonies are subject to "expedited removal" would be constitute the "due process" in that case based on what you're saying.

If regulation passed by congress satisfies "due process", then how is a "due process challenge" to expedited removals any less flimsy than a "due process challenge" by me not wanting to have to get a fishing license to catch walleye, in the context of the very literal (I would say overly semantically literal) way the other poster was wanting that due process clause to be interpreted?

 

[durangodawood]

So let me asks you this ( and I by the way am asking thiss as someone who does not consider incarcertion as the best option for non-violent crimes. However, let us say that a citizen was caught selling drugs ( small amount to support their own habit). This is a non-violent crime that the only people it can really directly "hurt" are those that choose to buy the drugs Let us say that this person has had probation and drug court several times is thre not ANY point at which incarceration or loss of custofdy for that matter of children should be considered? Same applies if a person is using non-violent means say theft ( without robbery or passing bad checks to fund their habit after other tools in the tool box for treatment have been tried is incarceration NEVER the answer again or loss of custody.

This is a close looking question at a very particular situation. I have to say I dont know off the top exactly where the line gets crossed and incarceration makes sense. Addiction seems to drive people of general average goodwill into somewhere darker.

My point in the post you quoted is summed up better in my next post:

Anyone like the OP looking for a "middle ground" on this issue really should make a distinction between deliberate outlaw behavior and the default "criminal" status that just comes with peacefully living and working here undocumented.

 

[dogs4thewin]

They're going to start with deporting those who have committed crimes beyond entering America illegally. Crimes both here and in their homeland. That's who Trump wants out of here.

Anytime he talks about illegal immigration being a problem, he talks about all the ones who were criminals and even convicts in their homeland coming over or being sent over here.

Getting rid of all of those particular illegals will take a lot of time.

In the meantime I hear caravans are turning back now.

Illegal alien gang members and crime lords and their crews might decide to vacate on their own terms before getting nabbed.

thank you I believe we should even offer those whose only crime is being here illegally ( and maybe even other very minor crimes such as simple drug proccession a choice either go home OR for those who have been here long term a path to citizenship ( the thing they could not do is stay here WITHOUT seeking citizenship ( which when you come here legally ( even long term with a green card you are allowed to stay here without ever seeking citizenship as long as you stay out of trouble and renew your green card every ten years. This may be the case for someone who for whatever reason wants to keep their birth citizenshp in a country that does not allow duel citizenship.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Very valid concern…,families belong together…

but they can be together in their home country ( in cases of minor children their parents' home country. No one is saying they cannot be togather.

 

[Servus]

thank you I believe we should even offer those whose only crime is being here illegally ( and maybe even other very minor crimes such as simple drug proccession a choice either go home OR for those who have been here long term a path to citizenship ( the thing they could not do is stay here WITHOUT seeking citizenship ( which when you come here legally ( even long term with a green card you are allowed to stay here without ever seeking citizenship as long as you stay out of trouble and renew your green card every ten years. This may be the case for someone who for whatever reason wants to keep their birth citizenshp in a country that does not allow duel citizenship.

That sounds reasonable. Right now I'm pretty sure Trump and Homan are out to remove those who are an actual menace to society.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Would they be considered refugees seeking asylum or no?

It would depend on a number of factors. Which country they came from as asylum has particular requirments. Whether they themselves had engaged in any criminal behavior over here or otherwise and in some cases whether they could prove that THEY would be targeted if they were sent back home.

 

[durangodawood]

That sounds reasonable. Right now I'm pretty sure Trump and Homan are out to remove those who are an actual menace to society.

"Right now".

The question tho isnt where the policy should start. Its where should the policy end? Outlaws? Everyone undocumented?

 

[tampasteve]

Everyone undocumented?

Bingo.

 

[durangodawood]

Bingo.

Youre not helping with the OP's middle ground solution search!

 

[dogs4thewin]

I live in a city with many immigrants from Vietnam, South Sudan and others

I believe people ALL PEOPLE have a right to live where they choose LEGALLY.

After all, unless you’re a Native American, you’re of immigrant descent.

My great grandmother came from the former Czechoslovakia in the late 1800s, she died in the early 1970s and only knew czech, not a word of English.

See I believe that if you are going to come here you should make an effort to learn English like real effort ( if for nothing else so you can communicate out in soceity. Even if the person never wishes to become a citizen which with VERY few exceptions to become a citizen you MUST know English as both an oral and written test is required. The exception is for elderly people looking o become a citizen. Still why would you come here and NOT at least try to learn the anguage even if you had NO plans to ever beome and citizen,

 

[Servus]

"Right now".

The question tho isnt where the policy should start. Its where should the policy end? Outlaws? Everyone undocumented?

That's going to have to be something that develops over time. I'm sure most everyone who came into this country illegally, knew they were subject to deportation ahead of time. Really what's being asked is, how much is the law going to be bent in their favor.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you read what you wrote, many of these people have been, Federally sentenced, in Federal prisons, detained or flagged as a criminal. That being said, we have " due process" in the USA. Due process is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the government from depriving individuals of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Which one could agrue you had the due proccess when you committed the crime that got you sentenced. After all if you were not here legally at the time of your incarceration nothing will change while you are incarcerated more than likely.

 

[durangodawood]

....Really what's being asked is, how much is the law going to be bent in their favor.

Trump bent this law last time round. He can do it again.

 

[Servus]

Youre not helping with the OP's middle ground solution search!

The problem with making provisos in the law, is people planning on entering illegally in the future are going to expect to get the same deal. The more mushy the law is, the less effective it is.

 

[dogs4thewin]

How can there be common ground when the level of hypocrisy is based on ignorance of the truth? What is that truth? Let me tell you...75% of the workforce in agriculture is filled with undocumented workers. Mass deportation means no food on your table. Let us reason people!

I oppose!

There are two sides to that either A allow those people ( if they have been here long term with no othr issue a path to citizenship or say look you want to eat go out and pick it yourself the VAST majority of people may not WANT to pick but their body and health will allow it.

 

[Servus]

Trump bent this law last time round. He can do it again.

The question is, was that beneficial to the interests of this nation?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Eighteen years is a long time to not go through the process of becoming a US citizen.

This is evidence that they and their parents are not willing to be productive members of society and are willing to commit all kinds of generational fraud.

There are pathways to citizenship even for the illegal aliens.

I am in the "all should report for possible deport" starting place. They are in no position to negotiate.

There are reasons one may not wish to become a US citizen that is likely why we offer renewal of green cards every ten years if someone wishes.

 

[durangodawood]

The problem with making provisos in the law, is people planning on entering illegally in the future are going to expect to get the same deal. The more mushy the law is, the less effective it is.

Part of the "middle ground" solution could be a much stricter regime for who gets into the country going forward and how the law deals with them.