XPost: soc.culture.gooks, soc.culture.flips, uk.legal
XPost: soc.culture.jewish, soc.culture.usa, talk.politics.guns
XPost: soc.culture.canada, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, rec.arts.tv
XPost: alt.conspiracy, soc.culture.greek, alt.abortion
XPost: alt.atheism, can.politics, uk.politics.misc
XPost: alt.checkmate, alt.slack.goathead, alt.life.sucks
XPost: soc.culture.israel
From: Kenito@Benito.naw
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:48:48 -0500, Attila wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 10:15:55 -0800, Kenito Benito
> in alt.atheism with message-id
><72brjkh1ncd9kljnbeduqvd3nb9dk5lsro@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 07:57:20 -0500, Attila wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 03:32:43 -0800, Kenito Benito
>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 06:10:12 -0500, Attila wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 23:06:14 +0000, REAL Tall Henry
>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 16:50:29 -0500, Loose Cannon
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:13:28 -0800, Michael Ejercito
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://ethicsalarms.com/2025/12/11/more-on-trump-derang
ment-and-i-c-e/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>More on Trump Derangement and I.C.E.
>>>>>>>>December 11, 2025 / Jack Marshall
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The only derangement is you. You follow a known quack like a baby duck
>>>>>>>and its mother, licking his ass along the way. You find your
>>>>>>>'opinions' reading plagiarized nonsense from apes, and you continue to
>>>>>>>deny your presence at the Queen Mary parking lot. That's derangement!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It sure, is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>TDR is real and can be found in many places.
>>>>
>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but what is TDR?
>>>
>>>The result of my not proof-reading my comment.
>>>
>>>TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome.
>>
>> That makes much more sense.
>
>Yes, it does. Sorry about that.
>
I frequently prove I should not be allowed to proofread my own
posts.
>>>>>ICE is doing
>>>>>what they are required to do under federal law as passed by
>>>>>Congress and signed by the President.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly what is ICE doing that is illegal?
>>>>
>>>> Deporting people WITHOUT due process.
>>>
>>>They came here without any due process.
>>
>> Yet we have learned, and are learning, of MANY who were here
>>legally being deported.
>
>Even when they showed documentation supporting their status?
>
Since they're denied due process, they've not been allowed to
show documentation supporting their status.
>> When refugees come here and are granted asylum, they're legal.
>
>With limitations. Legal status is not a permanent key to
>the vault.
>
But the government must be able to prove any violations. This
isn't being done. People are being declared guilty by ICE and deported
without any trials or deportation hearings. This violates the
Constitution AND Federal statutory regulation (Please see 8 U.S.C. §
1534 and INA §§ 239, 240, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.12 et seq., 1240.1 et
seq.).
>>They may violate a law, or laws, that causes that protection to be
>>removed. But without due process, how can we know they committed such
>>an act?
>> Without due process, there is no means for them to prove they are
>>here legally. ICE could grab you and deport you, claiming you're
>>actually illegal. Without due process, you couldn't present evidence
>>proving that you are legal.
>
>I can show it to anyone upon request.
Without due process, there is no request. You could find yourself
in a maximum security prison in El Salvador within a week. And there
is no way for you to prevent it.
>I doubt anyone using
>documentation to support legal status is being deported
>without due process.
>
But they are being deported without due process. Is anyone
denying this? I know Trump isn't. ICE isn't. Both are open about the
willful violation of the law.
>>>Why should they get
>>>the legal protection of a legal citizen?
>>
>> Everyone within the boarders has a Constitutional right to due
>>process. Please see Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345
>>U.S. 206, 212 (1953), Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 215 (1982), and
>>Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). The last one is, perhaps,
>>the best since it holds that due process applies to all persons within
>>the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is
>>lawful, or not.
>> You will note the Constitution states in the Fifth Amendment, the
>>ones SCOTUS used, all PERSONS, not all citizens.
>> You are certainly free to lobby for an amendment that restricts,
>>or eliminates the right to Due Process. I don't think you will find
>>successes, but you guarantee failure if you don't try.
>> You may also file a writ of certiorari, either yourself or
>>through a lawyer, to argue to have a new ruling that negates the
>>previous ones.
>
>I suspect SCOTUS might reach a different conclusion post
>Biden invasion.
Maybe so, maybe no. File a writ of certiorari. If chosen, you, or
your legal agent, may argue for an overrule of SCOTUS' previous
rulings. Or lobby for an amendment limiting, or removing, due process.
As it stands, all persons within the United States of America are to
be assured due process. You are still free to offer legal precedent
that would show due process is not required.
I am aware of the rule of expedited removal. Expedited removal
was codified in IIRIRA in 1996 as an amendment to the INA. And it
requires the alien be apprehended within 100 miles of the border and
have been present in the country for less than 14 days. Sadly, many
deportees who are not given due process do not meet these
requirements, making the rule of expedited removal irrelevant.
--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
