The Frankish Reich Posted May 19 Author Posted May 19 Read the Fifth Amendment. Show me where it distinguishes between citizens and aliens.
Steve O Posted May 19 Posted May 19 38 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Read the Fifth Amendment. Show me where it distinguishes between citizens and aliens. Article IV, section 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;..." Invading the country, then asking for due process under its constitution is like stealing an item from a store, then trying to hold the manufacturer responsible for the warranty.
nedboy7 Posted May 19 Posted May 19 44 minutes ago, Steve O said: Where in the constitution are these rights of non-citizens addressed? The only statement I can find that addresses non citizens is in Article III clause 2 section 2 "...cases between U.S. citizens and foreign states and their citizens, come under federal jurisdiction. The trials will be in the state where the crime was committed." Its in the wording. But whatever. Do you believe that any non-citizen can be treated however the current regime feels is appropriate or do all humans have some basic rights in your view. I am not a liberal nor do I think you should let random immigrants roam the country for 7 years before their trial. 1
Homelander Posted May 19 Posted May 19 Imagine that - the Trump regime isn’t about enforcing laws it’s about weaponizing fear. They're using smoke-and-mirrors tactics, targeting even legal immigrants and citizens, not because it's legal, but because it sends a chilling message. This isn't policy - it's a full-blown psyop designed to terrorize communities and consolidate power. When you can rule by fear, why bother with the Constitution? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted May 19 Author Posted May 19 18 minutes ago, Steve O said: Invading the country So if the president calls it an invasion, that's it? The courts disagree. Trump's own intelligence report disagrees. Use of a metaphor ("we are being invaded!") does not negate due process.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 24 Posted May 24 3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: There’s the emotional side of an argument, and the legal side of an argument. Considered from the big picture perspective, the vast majority of people would tend to support due process and a fair and just legal process from start to finish. Of course, we know when humans and personalities get involved, fair and just are subjective terms. OJ Simpson comes to mind. On the other hand, on a local level, when the system fails an individual or community, the lofty notion of due process becomes a bit more complicated. The takeover of the apartment complex in Colorado comes to mind. In that case, the system—the judicial system, law enforcement, ICE, etc, fails the tax paying citizen in spectacular fashion. Who could blame those people for being incredibly grateful for the removal and deportation of victimizers absent the long, laborious legal system that allowed the activity to flourish to begin with? Put another way…show me the federal judge or defense attorney supporting crime and violence in his/her neighborhood and not using every tool or trick in the tool box to protect his/her family and I’ll show you an exceptionally rare person. 2
BillsFanNC Posted May 24 Posted May 24 22 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: There’s the emotional side of an argument, and the legal side of an argument. Considered from the big picture perspective, the vast majority of people would tend to support due process and a fair and just legal process from start to finish. Of course, we know when humans and personalities get involved, fair and just are subjective terms. OJ Simpson comes to mind. On the other hand, on a local level, when the system fails an individual or community, the lofty notion of due process becomes a bit more complicated. The takeover of the apartment complex in Colorado comes to mind. In that case, the system—the judicial system, law enforcement, ICE, etc, fails the tax paying citizen in spectacular fashion. Who could blame those people for being incredibly grateful for the removal and deportation of victimizers absent the long, laborious legal system that allowed the activity to flourish to begin with? Put another way…show me the federal judge or defense attorney supporting crime and violence in his/her neighborhood and not using every tool or trick in the tool box to protect his/her family and I’ll show you an exceptionally rare person. Which is why we should start housing all the misunderstood Maryland fathers awaiting due process in Chevy Chase, MD. I'd wager most of the local due process screamers at the country club will demand those fathers wait out their due process machinations elsewhere. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 24 Posted May 24 27 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Which is why we should start housing all the misunderstood Maryland fathers awaiting due process in Chevy Chase, MD. I'd wager most of the local due process screamers at the country club will demand those fathers wait out their due process machinations elsewhere. Great point—that would be Trumpian indeed.
Niagara Bill Posted May 24 Posted May 24 Is not the debate simple. 1. Biden admin and others before him allowed illegal migrants at unimaginable numbers, to enter the US without following the legal NORMAL requirements. Yes, there are laws for exceptions but it was NEVER contemplated to deal with such huge numbers. It is easy to see why the word invasion could be a term used. 2. Did citizens in some cities break the spirit if immigration laws by creating sanctuary for people that were outside the legal status. If those numbers were manageable there would not be such a reaction. 3. Tax payers dollars were spent on illegals, and they were allowed and encouraged to work, outside the law. As a foreigner to the US, I from time to time entered the US for business, was never allowed to actually work I could attend meetings which involved my business, but could never perform a task. Example, if a person working for my business in Cape Garardeau was to be terminated for cause or no cause, I could not perform that task and technically couldn't order it. I was legal. So how did millions of other illegals work, get services, even pay taxes. I could never have been allowed. I would have been deported and banned. 4. So, in correcting many years abuse allowed by many levels of law enforcement, politicians and citizens a few mistakes have been made, many fewer than has been allowed for many years. Obviously there is no effort to fix those mistakes, there should be some quick process to review cases. But for every one mistake, there are thousands of correct decisions. Those being forced out, hand them the paper work to apply. Our countries need and want the good ones, but not the bad ones.
BillsFanNC Posted June 7 Posted June 7 Finding reeling once again. It's tough to keep up when you keep staking out ridiculous positions. 😂
The Frankish Reich Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago ^The dumbest comment yet from "legal scholar" Mike Davis. So I guess this doesn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 All of which spell out due process rights for "illegal aliens." As passed by both house of Congress and signed by the president.
Pokebball Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago On 5/19/2025 at 10:18 AM, The Frankish Reich said: Read the Fifth Amendment. Show me where it distinguishes between citizens and aliens. So, in your opinion our constitution applies to every person across the globe? It obviously applies to the citizens of our country. Tell me you understand that, please. Please tell me you comprehend that
The Frankish Reich Posted 4 hours ago Author Posted 4 hours ago 12 minutes ago, Pokebball said: So, in your opinion our constitution applies to every person across the globe? No, it doesn't. 13 minutes ago, Pokebball said: It obviously applies to the citizens of our country Yes, it does. 13 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Tell me you understand that, please [Sigh] Another lesson in Logic is required here. Are there people who are not citizens of our country but who are in our country and subject to its jurisdiction? Venn Diagrams may help you. [Probably not]
yall Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago 37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: ^The dumbest comment yet from "legal scholar" Mike Davis. So I guess this doesn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 All of which spell out due process rights for "illegal aliens." As passed by both house of Congress and signed by the president. Care to point to which specific provision(s) you're referring to? The article seems to indicate the act removed some due process. From your link: "The Immigration and Nationality Act eliminated numerous due-process safeguards shielding immigrants from deportation abuses."
BillsFanNC Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago Who wants to get legal advice from a middle school English teacher with zero powers of observation? Not me. I'll stick with a former SCOTUS law clerk.
muppy Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago (edited) due process means squat within the MAGA regime Yes I said Regime. definition Quote re·gime noun 1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. "ideological opponents of the regime" Edited 4 hours ago by muppy
The Frankish Reich Posted 3 hours ago Author Posted 3 hours ago I don't know where Stephen Miller got his law degree,* but the constitutional guarantee of due process has never been limited to citizens facing criminal charges. That's why the U.S. government can't deprive someone - anyone - of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Life. Liberty. Even property. It's kind of right there in the 5th Amendment. *Trick question: he doesn't have one.
Recommended Posts