XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.conspiracy, alt.atheism   
   From: Kenito@Benito.Het   
      
   On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 12:26:07 -0500, Attila  wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:39:07 -0800, Kenito Benito   
   > in alt.atheism with message-id   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 22:28:15 -0800, Samuel Spade    
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Attila  wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:33:48 -0800, Kenito Benito   
   >>>>  in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 06:11:13 -0500, Attila  wrote:   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >[Snip to focus on Attila's hypocrisy.]   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >>>> Just what is your goal?  Do you wish to stop deportations of   
   >>>> >>>> illegals?   
   >>>> >>>   
   >>>> >>>      Yes.   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >>What other violations of the law do you wish to ignore?   
   >>>> >>Kidnapping?  Drug dealing?  Murder?   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >>Deportations are not only legal but required under current   
   >>>> >>law.   
   >>>> >   
   >>>> >     So is due process. But you want that ignored.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I am not an attorney and I do not know the legal   
   >>>> requirements for due process.   
   >>>   
   >>>Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Start studying.   
   >>>   
   >>>As Dylan said, you don't have to be a weather man to   
   >>>know what way the wind is blowing.   
   >>   
   >>     It's almost funny how Attila cries out how illegals are violating   
   >>the law (in fairness, they are violating immigration law).   
   >   
   >And under those laws they are subject to immediate   
   >deportation.   
   >   
      
        AFTER a deportation hearing. This is the part you consistently   
   PROVE you don't like.   
      
   >Are you saying the immigration laws do not require illegal   
   >deportation?   
   >   
      
        Require? No. But they do require a hearing so that the government   
   can prove the people are here illegally and allow the accused to   
   present counter evidence showing they are here legally. Without this,   
   *you* could be deported.   
      
   >> But when   
   >>challenged on his hypocrisy about application of the law (the   
   >>requirement for due process), he suddenly doesn't actually know the   
   >>law.   
   >   
   >That is your opinion.   
      
        Facts are not opinion.   
      
   >I think the law is fair and should be   
   >applied just as any other law is applied.   
      
        You're lying. You think due process should be ignored, even   
   though the law requires it.   
      
   >If it is violated   
   >the penalty should be paid.  No hypocrisy in involved.  Just   
   >as a light is on or off or a woman is pregnant or not   
   >pregnant, a person who is in the US is here legally or not   
   >legally.  If not legally they should be removed from the   
   >country immediately.   
   >   
      
        AFTER it has been proved they're here illegally. This is the part   
   you conveniently "forget."   
      
   >>     One doesn't need to be a lawyer to understand due process.   
   >>Applicable law is very clear. If someone is facing deportation, a   
   >>deportation hearing is required so that the prosecution, representing   
   >>the people of the United States, can prove just cause for deportation.   
   >   
   >No cause is necessary since federal law is being violated by   
   >the fact that the person is physically in the US without   
   >legal status.  The only issue to be decided is their exact   
   >status.   
      
        But you keep PROVING you do not want that. You just want people   
   rounded up and deported. I wish you well when you are cause by ICE and   
   deported without any chance to challenge the claim that you're here   
   illegally.   
      
   --   
   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)