ICE Arrests Palestinian Ringleader of Anti-Israel Columbia Protests

[essentialsaltes]

Can you site the statute that gives designated terrorist illegal aliens the same due process rights as citizens!

Once again, two words -- "No person" -- are very important. This time in the Fifth Amendment with regard to who can be deprived of due process and other legal protections.

 

[rjs330]

They cannot issue orders to the military directly, but they can tell the other branches of government to stop breaking the law. And, in some cases, that may require the Executive branch to modify or rescind its orders to the military.

As rge commander and chief of the military, issuing order to rhe president IS issuing order to the military when it involves a military mission. No they do not have the authority.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Can you site the statute that gives designated terrorist illegal aliens the same due process rights as citizens!

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/

 

[rjs330]

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

A terrorist organization is a danger to the public. There are times when due process doesn't apply.

And due process of law is dependant on the law. In the cases at hand the laws governing immigration.

 

[Hans Blaster]

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

That clause is about courts martial for service members who violate the law.

A terrorist organization is a danger to the public. There are times when due process doesn't apply.

And due process of law is dependant on the law. In the cases at hand the laws governing immigration.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As rge commander and chief of the military, issuing order to rhe president IS issuing order to the military when it involves a military mission.

If you want to be technical, fine. But that's not really relevant.

No they do not have the authority.

They absolutely do. If the President orders the military to do something illegal, then a judge can order him to order them to stop. To argue otherwise is akin to sovereign citizen tomfoolery.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Check your grammar. A prepositional phrase modifies the previous clause, and the semicolon indicates a new clause. Taken fully in context, what this means is that US servicemembers, in times of war or public danger, do not need to be indicted by a Grand Jury for capital or other "infamous" crimes". In other words, as Hans said, they can be tried in military court. It does not relate in any way to the subsequent clauses of the Amendment.

 

[rjs330]

Check your grammar. A prepositional phrase modifies the previous clause, and the semicolon indicates a new clause. Taken fully in context, what this means is that US servicemembers, in times of war or public danger, do not need to be indicted by a Grand Jury for capital or other "infamous" crimes". In other words, as Hans said, they can be tried in military court. It does not relate in any way to the subsequent clauses of the Amendment.

Okay i won't argue that. Due process of law is based upon the law. In this case immigration law.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Due process of law is based upon the law. In this case immigration law.

No one has argued otherwise.

 

[rjs330]

No one has argued otherwise.

I beg to differ. It sure seems that people think he and all other deportees or those who have their visas revoked have to have some sort of hearing otherwise they have been denied due process. Thats false according to the law.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I beg to differ. It sure seems that people think he and all other deportees or those who have their visas revoked have to have some sort of hearing otherwise they have been denied due process. Thats false according to the law.

If they ask for one, they do have to get a hearing. And the Supreme Court just ruled (9-0, no less) that they have to be given the opportunity to ask for one as well. The only exception to this is if they are eligible for expedited removal - and even that has exceptions (i.e. if they request asylum). Of note, no one who has been granted lawful admittance to the country (i.e. allowed in on humanitarian parole, allowed in pending an asylum hearing, etc) is eligible for expedited removal.

Moreover, if someone files a lawsuit to contest their removal (or the revocation of their visa), it is not unreasonable for the judge to stay their removal from the country until that case is heard.

 

[rjs330]

If they ask for one, they do have to get a hearing. And the Supreme Court just ruled (9-0, no less) that they have to be given the opportunity to ask for one as well. The only exception to this is if they are eligible for expedited removal - and even that has exceptions (i.e. if they request asylum). Of note, no one who has been granted lawful admittance to the country (i.e. allowed in on humanitarian parole, allowed in pending an asylum hearing, etc) is eligible for expedited removal.

Moreover, if someone files a lawsuit to contest their removal (or the revocation of their visa), it is not unreasonable for the judge to stay their removal from the country until that case is heard.

Yes you seem to understand. Others seem not to.

So how does this all apply to Khalil? Has been deported? No. Is he going through the process? Yes. So what's all the claims that he is not getting due process?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yes you seem to understand. Others seem not to.

So how does this all apply to Khalil? Has been deported? No. Is he going through the process? Yes. So what's all the claims that he is not getting due process?

Is anyone arguing that he is not currently receiving due process? There were worries about it initially because ICE wouldn't say where he was being held, but from what I've seen, the arguments about due process in his case have been mainly directed at the people saying he shouldn't get the chance to contest his visa revocation or argue that the government's justification for doing so violates his right to free speech.

 

[Postvieww]

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim

CHAPTER 3—ALIEN ENEMIES​

Sec.
21.
Restraint, regulation, and removal.
22.
Time allowed to settle affairs and depart.
23.
Jurisdiction of United States courts and judges.
24.
Duties of marshals.

§21. Restraint, regulation, and removal​

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

(R.S. §4067; Apr. 16, 1918, ch. 55, 40 Stat. 531.)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim

CHAPTER 3—ALIEN ENEMIES​

You'll note that the Alien Enemies Act says nothing about dispensing with due process. And that's before we consider the question of whether or not Trump's invocation of the Act is even legal in this scenario (the courts are still working on that one).

 

[rjs330]

Is anyone arguing that he is not currently receiving due process? There were worries about it initially because ICE wouldn't say where he was being held, but from what I've seen, the arguments about due process in his case have been mainly directed at the people saying he shouldn't get the chance to contest his visa revocation or argue that the government's justification for doing so violates his right to free speech.

Yes I think many on the left are arguing just that. Due process is all about following the law.

There gave bern a number if people saying or at least intimating that since he committed no crime his due process has been violated. But the fact is according to the law no such thing need to have happened as there are many things that can be used. Up until now none of his due process according to law has been violated.

He'll get his day. Then we'll see what happens.

 

[Bradskii]

I think I did answer your question, you just don’t like the answer which did not fit your gotcha, get Trump narrative. Judges are not a god to be revered they must operate within the confines of the constitution just like everyone else. Some do not and it is just messy trying to deal with that but we will get that fixed. Higher courts are leaning more to Trumps position. The latest 9, O ruling by the supreme court is not against Trump it is a pause until that can be addressed by the court. I believe Tump is complying with that Supreme Court order.

Nup, no answer forthcoming. Can I make this simpler?

A. Trump must obey the judiciary.
B. Trump can decide whether to obey the judiciary or not.

Is it A or B?

 

[Postvieww]

Nup, no answer forthcoming. Can I make this simpler?

A. Trump must obey the judiciary.
B. Trump can decide whether to obey the judiciary or not.

Is it A or B?

Nup it is not that simple. It is still your form of a gotcha question. Try this : 1. SCOTUS must operate within the confines of the constitution and their own rules. 2. SCOTUS can do whatever the heck they want regardless of previous decisions and legal precedent. The reason for this is you need to take a look at Alito’s recent decent of the recent midnight hour opinion. Alito calls out the very court he is a part of for their inconsistency in applying their own rules, and legal precedent. He even calls out Roberts for reversing his own opinion on a previous case so he could rule against Trump. This court has lost its way and all credibility in joining the Stop Trump liberal band wagon. So all of liberal screaming of the rule of law and we must obey the courts no matter if they are rogue activists lunatics is just background noise. So here is your answer: If SCOTUS can make their own rules and ignore legal precedent and the constitution then Trump could conceivably ignore their illegal unconstitutional order. They are coequal branches per the constitution if one is not bound by the law then theoretically the other is not bound to obey. See what a mess this unnatural hatred for Trump has brought on this nation. I will send you a link to a video where Alito’s decent is shown and analyzed as well as Trumps response. I am confident you will not take the time to actually watch it but it is the evidence of what I say here so do with it what you wish. - YouTube

 

[Postvieww]

You'll note that the Alien Enemies Act says nothing about dispensing with due process. And that's before we consider the question of whether or not Trump's invocation of the Act is even legal in this scenario (the courts are still working on that one).

The poster boy the liberals are fawning over had his due process before 2 judges who found him to be a gang member. Oh did we mention the wife beating charges brought by his wife?

 

[Lukaris]

The poster boy the liberals are fawning over had his due process before 2 judges who found him to be a gang member. Oh did we mention the wife beating charges brought by his wife?

I believe he was also arrested with 4 other guys; 3 were gang & 1 was released right away. So his particular case was an error but it doesn’t seem to make him eligible for any legal status. I am glad he was released from the max security prison but it seems his case is being used for larger purposes to revive more illegal immigration. There must be some human trafficking lobby probably has a stake in this.