DOJ won't defend ban

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Jan 30, 2017.

  1. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #2
    Now all we have to do is hold up Sessions and this ban will go bye bye

    Ya I know, wishful thinking.
     
  2. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
  3. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    Not necessarily. There may not be a damn thing Sessions can do about it.

    See, this ban already runs afoul of the US Constitution: in particular, the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. And there isn't a damn thing Sessions can do about it. Nor can Trump.

    BL.
     
  4. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #5
    how can someone outside of the US be protected by the Constitution?
     
  5. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    If they are detained while in the United States, they are protected by the US Constitution, regardless of legal status.

    The grey area is where the the borders of the United States is defined.

    BL.
     
  7. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #8
    How can an illegal immigrant be protected by the constitution? You literally stated this the other day:

    The 14th amendment specifies that legal protection under federal and state law doesn't only apply to legal citizens of the statehoods. For someone who reads a lot of history, you like to skimp over some stuff. Now, I seem to recall you were recently naturalized. Maybe the State Department should revoke your citizenship on the basis that you didn't necessarily learn much of our constitution and thus perjured yourself.
     
  8. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #9
    If they aren't a citizen, nope.
     
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    Wrong. completely, totally wrong.

    BL.
     
  10. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #11
    He's all confused about what the constitution means. It's part of the problem with all of this.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 30, 2017 ---
    Keep trying.
     
  11. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #12
    Actually, you're wrong. Illegal immigrants, green card holders, and those detained in customs while in mid-transit after the ban are protected by the law.
     
  12. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #13
    Customs can detain anyone entering for questioning, you aren't in the country until you leave the customs processing facility.
     
  13. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #14
    The US absolutely has the right to determine who enters the country. We have no obligation to let in any and everyone who wants to come here.
     
  14. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    From the way I interpreted it only if they are either citizens, have dual citizenship, are working on U.S. soil, or currently residing on U.S. territory does this apply.

    So illegal immigrants here are covered by certain constitutional rights but doesn't that mean that any who are not already here or have a green card/work visa are not covered at all?

    I could be wrong. Someone more knowledgeable with links, I've tried researching but lots of grey area.
     
  15. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #16
    Unfortunately, that's not true. If customs detained you but you weren't on US soil, then you can simply walk out as they would have zero jurisdiction over you. And unless you know more than constitutional lawyers of the last 100+ years, I suggest keeping your incorrect facts, sorry, alternate facts, to yourself.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 30, 2017 ---
    Except these people already passed interviews and background checks for visas. Furthermore, up until last night, green card holders were barred from reentering the country. If an Iranian citizen came here 10 years ago and was still on green card status, but went to Canada and came back, they would have been barred. So what are you talking about?

    What about international students who were born outside of these countries but have citizenship of their parents' homelands through descendency, but have never stepped foot into that country? You'd be surprised at the amount of people coming from Europe to our Ivy Leagues. These people can't take out a loan without placing a lien on their property through their government back home, or if they're wealthy enough, to pay out of pocket. They can't open a bank account here on a student visa.
     
  16. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #17
    Actually it is true. It's precisely why someone who is not a citizen can be detained until a seat is available and put right back on a plane without seeing a lawyer.
     
  17. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    Wrong.

    Almeida-Sanchez v. United States was affirmed by SCOTUS in 1973 that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.

    This also was further affirmed in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), and Wong Win v. United States (1896).

    So before ranting on about how people don't know what protections someone has or doesn't have in from the Constitution, you may want to study up on the cases that make up the policies we have today.

    Again, wrong. Reference the above. And since the 5th grants due process of law, and the 6th grants legal representation, they just can not be sent back home without access to legal counsel.

    BL.
     
  18. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #19
    Customs is bound by due process. Due process is given to any soul on US soil or stuck in customs and immigration.
     
  19. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #20
    Once again, you aren't in the coountry until you clear Customs. What you're talking about only applies once they walk out the door of a customs facility.
     
  20. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #21
    Was she the same part of the DOJ that allowed guns to walk across the border of Mexico, killing two CBP Agents and hundreds of Mexican nationals?
     
  21. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #22
    You don't know anything about customs processing. Why do you supppse they have hold cells in the facility? It's not for criminals.
     
  22. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #23
    It doesn't matter. They still get due process. Why is this so hard for you to understand? That's how it's always been. Trump's ban violates due process. Hence why the White House keeps fumbling back, thrice now in a 24 hour period. I've been through customs over 20 times in my life. Please don't tell me what I do know or don't know when you've likely never left the country.

    What you're suggesting is that every due process given to an illegal immigrant or immigrant stuck in customs wasn't given due process since the late 1800s until now. That every constitutional court case is invalidated because you say so. That no constitutional lawyers know what they're talking about.
     
  23. yaxomoxay thread starter macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    Absolutely not, if they are not US citizen they're not legally on the US soil until "admitted". That's why customs and immigration officers can send you back without even asking as it happened to my father in law who was sent back because the US consulate made a mistake (with me, as an idiot, at the airport for three hours before I found out).
    What you're entiled are basic human rights (that is, water, food, and freedom to leave), but that's it. you are at full discrection of the officer.
     
  24. dogslobber macrumors 68020

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #25
    You still need to deal with the border agents who have gone rogue. Is government breaking down like it does in the movies?
     

Share This Page