[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>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.   
   >>>   
   >>>If they are validly subject to deportation under the law why   
   >>>should any court procedure be needed?  The law involved is   
   >>>very clear.   
   >>   
   >>     Why have any hearings or trials? By YOUR standards, the mere   
   >>accusation is proof of guilt.   
   >   
   >Nonsense.  If documentation is requested and then shown no   
   >court hearing is needed.  If there is no documentation then   
   >a hearing would be superfluous.   
   >   
      
        Do you keep your Social Security card on you? Or your birth   
   certificate? Something, other than a driver's license, since even   
   illegals can get them, that will prove you're not here illegally?   
        If you don't, you can be deported, and you won't be allowed an   
   opportunity to prove you have the legal right to be in the U.S.   
      
   >>>>>>>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.   
   >>>   
   >>>This entire immigration process needs to be changed and new   
   >>>laws need to be enacted to reflect the reality of the   
   >>>situation.   
   >>   
   >>     Lobby to get the changes you believe are needed.   
   >>   
   >>>If a person does not have legal status to be in   
   >>>the country they are subject to immediate deportation and no   
   >>>laborious court procedure should be  required.   
   >>   
   >>     The Constitution requires it.   
   >   
   >According to SCOTUS.  That is subject to change.   
   >   
      
        Once again, file a writ of certiorari and argue your case that   
   due process is NOT a part of the Constitution. Or lobby for a   
   Constitutional amendment limiting, or removing, due process.   
      
   >>>Only their   
   >>>status should be determined as easily and quickly as   
   >>>possible.   
   >>   
   >>     Which is what deportation hearings are for. But they're not being   
   >>used. People are just deported based solely on accusations.   
   >   
   >Specific example please.   
   >   
      
        I cite three above.   
      
   >>>Plus there should be severe limits to persons and   
   >>>departments who can grant any temporary exemptions, starting   
   >>>with the elimination of the state department.   
   >>   
   >>     You do realize this means an end to DHS, ICE, and boarder patrol.   
   >   
   >Only a lot of the volume they handle.  Too many sources can   
   >approve legal status for aliens.  DHS, ICE, and Border   
   >Patrol should not be granting legal status.  This should be   
   >concentrated in one department.   
   >   
      
        No problem. As you learned in seventh grade, such authority   
   resides with the office of the Attorney General. This is authorized   
   under INA (Immigration and Nationality Act).   
      
   >On reflection perhaps the State Department should do this.   
   >   
      
        I presume you mean the Department of State :)   
        Lobby to have such authority transferred. You may succeed.   
      
   >>An odd position for someone who wants them to have open permission to   
   >>do as they wish in regards to deportation.   
   >>     I do hope I simply misunderstand what you're presenting.   
   >   
   >Obviously you are.   
      
        As it turns out, I am not. I understood, and understand,   
   perfectly.   
      
   --   
   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)