—> US Sends More Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | Admin declares oopsies

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 564
  • Views: 10K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
This is true, but it doesn't **only** apply to citizens.

Nobody is going to talk law with you. To stoop to your level in order to have a "debate," I would have to forget basically everything I ever learned about law, government and half of my training in science. And I'm not going to do it. Read a book.
Click to expand...
Who else does it apply to?
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Correct. 14th Amendment due process also applies to noncitizens in the US.

"Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Click to expand...
So we're saying you just have to find a way to illegally enter and now you're covered by the law? Wtf. Our govt is dumber than I thought
 
superrific said:
You have so many search tools at your disposal to get the answer you seek. I will answer questions posed to me in good faith by people who respect my expertise. You qualify on neither count. I'm not going to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.
Click to expand...
This was your chance to shine but you blew it. Couldn't spin how someone here illegally should receive due process huh?
 
Silence Dogood said:
Npr? Left leaning for sure. Same ol tired argument. You definitely know you have a losing position when that's the argument you're making. "Let's justify crime by one group because I found a biased study saying their crimes are less likely to occur, so therefore let's ignore the crime."
Click to expand...
NPR didn't do the research, they simply reported on it. Research was done at Stanford Univ. and by CATO institute (libertarian and right leaning).

Some quotes, because you didn't bother to read the article.

"Some of the most extensive research comes from Stanford University. Economist Ran Abramitzky found that since the 1960s, immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born people."

"There is also state level research, that shows similar results: researchers at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, looked into Texas in 2019. They found that undocumented immigrants were 37.1% less likely to be convicted of a crime."

Also, might add that I'm not ignoring the crime, but crimes by illegal immigrants are not an existential crisis for our country; you're far more likely to be a victim of crime perpetrated by a US citizen than by an illegal immigrant.
 
Last edited:
Bobfripp said:
NPR didn't do the research, they simply reported on it. Research was done at Stanford Univ. and by CATO institute (libertarian and right leaning).

Some quotes, because you didn't bother to read the article.

"Some of the most extensive research comes from Stanford University. Economist Ran Abramitzky found that since the 1960s, immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born people."

"There is also state level research, that shows similar results: researchers at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, looked into Texas in 2019. They found that undocumented immigrants were 37.1% less likely to be convicted of a crime."

Also, might add that I'm not ignoring the crime, but crimes by illegal immigrants are not an existential crisis for our country; you're far more likely to be a victim of crime perpetrated by a US citizen than by an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...
Immigrants or illegal immigrants, big difference. Most crimes by illegals are also underreported because of fear from fellow illegals being deported.
Whatever data you're using still doesn't justify a welcome all approach. You're grasping at a strawman here. You're basically saying no one can question an illegal immigrants intentions since we already have crime. That makes no sense.
 
StrangePackage said:
It certainly does. It also applies, in certain provisions, to all persons. It uses both terms, and not interchangeably, so it is clear when they say citizens, they mean citizens, and when they say person, they mean person irrespective of citizenship.
Click to expand...
Wrong. All persons born or naturalized.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Wrong. All persons born or naturalized.
Click to expand...
Didn't read past the first clause, eh? Leave the law to the lawyers. @StrangePackage is exactly right.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Didn't read past the first clause, eh? Leave the law to the lawyers. @StrangePackage is exactly right.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Click to expand...
What if they participate in or even lead pro-Palestinian protests? Asking for a friend.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
Didn't read past the first clause, eh? Leave the law to the lawyers. @StrangePackage is exactly right.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Click to expand...
You bolded any person for obvious reasons. I would add bolding to "within its jurisdiction."
 
Zoo_View said:
Even worse than engaging with ZenMode is engaging with this Silence troll.

He’s 100% MAGA. He spews disinformation and malicious information. You CAN’T counter it.

You think you can counter it. You can’t.

You need to ignore him on this board.
Click to expand...
Nah, ZenMode knows he’s posting bullshit but does it simply to annoy people. I think this Silence guy actually believes the shit he brings here from the right wing media bubble and is too dumb to comprehend the refutations. The right wing brain worms are a serious problem.
 
Silence Dogood said:
Immigrants or illegal immigrants, big difference. Most crimes by illegals are also underreported because of fear from fellow illegals being deported.
Whatever data you're using still doesn't justify a welcome all approach. You're grasping at a strawman here. You're basically saying no one can question an illegal immigrants intentions since we already have crime. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

"They found that undocumented immigrants were 37.1% less likely to be convicted of a crime."

In case you don't know, 'undocumented' is lib speak for illegal. Does that help?

Talk about strawmen ... I never said I agree with a 'welcome all approach.' I don't want open borders. But ... is the recent illegal immigration at the southern border an existential crisis to our country? I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top