GO HOME!

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: Fern
You're mixing apples & oranges.

Indefinte detention does not apply to illegal immigrants, but rather alleged terrorists. And that's Constitutional and in accordance with a law passed by Congress (can't remember the name, but we've had a lengthy thread on it) which Constitutionally allows for the suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus. And here I speak of the detention of US citizens (Padilla etc.) Non-citizens on foreign soil do NOT have US Constitutional rights. There the debate is whether their treatment is in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

Concentration camps evokes military comparisons, again not suitable to the matter of illegals.

If you wanna say the illegals detained have been denied "due process", link it up. I still say the whole resason that they are there, instead of deported already, is because they DO have due process. Not the other way around.

Fern

Fern, I can't find the case law for a couple of the situations you speak. I thought the Padilla case was going to go to the Supreme Court -- but it didn't since the government moved him to a federal prison and charged him accordingly. So, we never really had a challenge to whether his detainment was legal or not. Many seem to think the government would have lost that case if it went to the Supreme Court.

Secondly, you state that non-citizens do not have US constitutional rights. However, my review of what I see on this is that in cases for trials, arrests and detentions, courts have upheld that they do have the same basic rights as citizens. This is not counting the terrorist enemy-combatant stuff, which I think is still is fully unresolved. You also mention that they do not have 4th amendment rights. I can't find any cases that say that either. Do you have a reference for that?

Actually, the Japanese were relocated by a civilian authority, and these camps were called 'concentration camps' by the US government, include FDR himself. But, I disgress...

From what I'm reading on the subject, illegal immigrants are not being held because of due process, it's because if they would be let go on bail or bond, they would be freed back into the country until they case comes up for resolution. So, our government is holding people indefinately. Only the Executive Branch has held that these people can be held indefinately. I don't find a decision where this has been resolved by the courts yet.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: Fern

-snip-

Fern

Fern, I can't find the case law for a couple of the situations you speak. I thought the Padilla case was going to go to the Supreme Court -- but it didn't since the government moved him to a federal prison and charged him accordingly. So, we never really had a challenge to whether his detainment was legal or not. Many seem to think the government would have lost that case if it went to the Supreme Court.

IIRC, both the 2nd & 6th fed circuit courts heard the case. One upheld Padilla's detention etc, the other didn't. Padilla later petitioned the SCOTUS, presumable to sue for violation of civil rights, but SCOTUS declined to hear (cert denied). There's a long thread here about it with both case linked & quoted extensively. Perhaps a search of "padilla" would turn it up. It's been within the last month IIRC.

The one that ruled Padilla should be in civilian custody, instead of military looked a bit dubious to me. Certainly if the court thought GWB over-reached they could have heard the Padilla case and smacked GWB for it. Instead, they declined to come to Padilla aid.



Secondly, you state that non-citizens do not have US constitutional rights. However, my review of what I see on this is that in cases for trials, arrests and detentions, courts have upheld that they do have the same basic rights as citizens. This is not counting the terrorist enemy-combatant stuff, which I think is still is fully unresolved. You also mention that they do not have 4th amendment rights. I can't find any cases that say that either. Do you have a reference for that?

That's if they are IN the US. If they aren't, the Constitution doesn't apply. But a non-resident alien in the USA DOES have some Constitutional rights, such as Due Process. But 4th Amendment rights do not apply to non-resident aliens even if in the USA, it was 1999 SCOTUS case under Rehnquest (sp?). I'll try to link tomorrow.

Otherwise, I've seen the "what Constitutional rights do immigrants/alien ahve" question answerd in the form of a table or chart, listing the rights and any case rulings. I'll try to find one tomorrow.


Actually, the Japanese were relocated by a civilian authority, and these camps were called 'concentration camps' by the US government, include FDR himself. But, I disgress...

Had to do with WWII, not any immigration issues per se.

From what I'm reading on the subject, illegal immigrants are not being held because of due process, it's because if they would be let go on bail or bond, they would be freed back into the country until they case comes up for resolution. So, our government is holding people indefinately. Only the Executive Branch has held that these people can be held indefinately. I don't find a decision where this has been resolved by the courts yet.

{b]The Exec branch does NOT have the Constitutional authority to suspend Habeus Corpus. However, (and I was surprised to learn this) Congress DOES in a time of war etc. But when/if Congress approves such suspension, it is the Pres that must carry it out. Congress cannot do that themselves (Pres enforces laws etc).

I am unaware of any Congressional law passed suspending HC, except in the realm of terrorism. I.e., no Constitutional authority as regards immigration issue.

Show me what you got (please not blogger), I suspect it has more to do with flight risks etc. [/b]

Fern

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Anna Calixto and witnesses said the judge asked Fernando Calixto ? who came to the United States from Mexico ? if he was in the United States legally. The judge told him if he wasn?t here legally, he had ?no rights in court.?


That should be how it always is. Unless the illegal immigrant is the victim of a crime and the criminal needs to be prosecuted they should have no standing in a US court. Hell, even after the later standard they should be tossed out of the country.

Why do people think that just because they are here or have been here for years it sudddenly gives them rights the Constitution reserves for citizens?

So, if the woman in the story is wrongly shot by the police or is hit by a car, basically she can not get justice because she isn't an US citizen?

Do you really want to live in a country that works that way?

Wait... yes you do.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Anna Calixto and witnesses said the judge asked Fernando Calixto ? who came to the United States from Mexico ? if he was in the United States legally. The judge told him if he wasn?t here legally, he had ?no rights in court.?


That should be how it always is. Unless the illegal immigrant is the victim of a crime and the criminal needs to be prosecuted they should have no standing in a US court. Hell, even after the later standard they should be tossed out of the country.

Why do people think that just because they are here or have been here for years it sudddenly gives them rights the Constitution reserves for citizens?

So, if the woman in the story is wrongly shot by the police or is a hit by a car, basically she can not get justice because she isn't an US citizen?

Do you really want to live in a country that works that way?

Wait... yes you do.

You have to understand that law and order types can't poop if they think somebody else is getting away with breaking a law. And constipation makes them mean.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: Fern

...
IIRC, both the 2nd & 6th fed circuit courts heard the case. One upheld Padilla's detention etc, the other didn't. Padilla later petitioned the SCOTUS, presumable to sue for violation of civil rights, but SCOTUS declined to hear (cert denied). There's a long thread here about it with both case linked & quoted extensively. Perhaps a search of "padilla" would turn it up. It's been within the last month IIRC.

The one that ruled Padilla should be in civilian custody, instead of military looked a bit dubious to me. Certainly if the court thought GWB over-reached they could have heard the Padilla case and smacked GWB for it. Instead, they declined to come to Padilla aid.


Yea, but SCOTUS chickened out. They declined to hear it because he was already charged with a crime in Fla, that made his case moot, so we never really got a challenge to Presidential War Powers. So, we still really don't know if it was legal or not.


That's if they are IN the US. If they aren't, the Constitution doesn't apply. But a non-resident alien in the USA DOES have some Constitutional rights, such as Due Process. But 4th Amendment rights do not apply to non-resident aliens even if in the USA, it was 1999 SCOTUS case under Rehnquest (sp?). I'll try to link tomorrow.

Otherwise, I've seen the "what Constitutional rights do immigrants/alien ahve" question answerd in the form of a table or chart, listing the rights and any case rulings. I'll try to find one tomorrow.


Of course, we're talking about being in the US. I didn't say otherwise. But, according to the information that I found, it appears that your statement that non-US citizens do not have any 4th amendment rights may not be correct. I give you this link as a reference:

LINK

Now, there have been some cases in which the Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled that involved illegal alien defendants or plantiffs, but the cases were decided on points based on whether the search was reasonable or other factors besides citizenship. I just cannot find any reference to the case you're referring to above, so if you do find it, I be very interested in reading it.


Had to do with WWII, not any immigration issues per se.

True, I was just making the point that regardless of citizen or non-citizen, America has held citizens for no apparent crime for indefinate periods, and that we considered this as a mistake before, and we should consider them mistakes now.

[ ...snip of my comments]

The Exec branch does NOT have the Constitutional authority to suspend Habeus Corpus. However, (and I was surprised to learn this) Congress DOES in a time of war etc. But when/if Congress approves such suspension, it is the Pres that must carry it out. Congress cannot do that themselves (Pres enforces laws etc).

I am unaware of any Congressional law passed suspending HC, except in the realm of terrorism. I.e., no Constitutional authority as regards immigration issue.

Show me what you got (please not blogger), I suspect it has more to do with flight risks etc.

Okay, here you go:

LINK #1
LINK #2

From LINK #2:

In April of 2003 Attorney General John D. Ashcroft defended and asserted the rights of the U.S. government to hold deportable aliens indefinitely. He released this far-reaching decision as he denied bail to an 18-year old Haitian migrant who had escaped Haiti and come to Florida by boat to seek asylum. Ashcroft maintained that illegal aliens do not have due process rights.

The Bush administration continues to hold this position.

So you see, the Bush administration (not Congress) has suspended due process. It has nothing to do with flight risks -- they just think they can get away with holding people forever, and it appears so far they have.

 

[maluckey]

the term Deportable Alien means that they already have been charged with and convicted of a felony. A convicted felon may be held until the maximum of his sentence, and IF the sentence is "Return to Country of Citizenship", that means until the convict arrives in their country...even if it takes years.

What's the issue with this?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Judge was 100% correct!!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: Fern

-snip-

Okay, here you go:

LINK #1
LINK #2

From LINK #2:

In April of 2003 Attorney General John D. Ashcroft defended and asserted the rights of the U.S. government to hold deportable aliens indefinitely. He released this far-reaching decision as he denied bail to an 18-year old Haitian migrant who had escaped Haiti and come to Florida by boat to seek asylum. Ashcroft maintained that illegal aliens do not have due process rights.

The Bush administration continues to hold this position.

So you see, the Bush administration (not Congress) has suspended due process. It has nothing to do with flight risks -- they just think they can get away with holding people forever, and it appears so far they have.

[/quote]

Thanks, interesting. I have not heard about this. I'll check it out.

Here's the link to the Thread where I linked the Padilla cases (wasn't the 6th, it was the 4th). Look for my post on 8/24/07 for the links, it prolly about number 60 towards the end of the thread.

Have a look at that and the so-called AUMF, the law Congressed passed suspending Habeus Corpus (I think the SCOTUS upheld it with respect to the Hamdi case. Padilla's two cases discuss Hamdi IIRC).

I'll come back with an edit when I find the 1990 SCOTUS case deny the 4th Amendment to an illegal Mexican immigrant prosecuted for drug dealing (IIRC).

Edit: #1 Here's a link to a 1990 SCOTUS case overturning the 9th curciut and deny the 4th to foreigners.

Edit: #2 Here's a link to site by Duke Univ Law School about Constitutional rights & aliens . It has a link to the ACLU site on the same subject. As you'll quickly see, aliens have limited Constitutional rights.

Fern

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: maluckey
the term Deportable Alien means that they already have been charged with and convicted of a felony. A convicted felon may be held until the maximum of his sentence, and IF the sentence is "Return to Country of Citizenship", that means until the convict arrives in their country...even if it takes years.

What's the issue with this?

Deportable alien does not always mean a person who has been charged or convicted of a felony. If you read my links above, you will find that for example, a deportable alien can be an alien that seeks aslyum. Since they are an alien, and have come to the United States not through regular channels, but they are still here, they can be held because the are here illegally (however, it's not a felony to be here illegally!). Therefore, their claim of aslyum needs to be processed and examined by a court of law. Since being an illegal alien is not a felony, for most non-felony crimes you can bail or post a bond, and -- until the Bush Administration -- many did so, probably never to return to their court cases.

However, the Bush admin now asserts that illegal aliens do not have any due process rights, illegal aliens are now being held indefinately. So, in a nutshell, many aliens are being held indefinately and in inhospitable conditions.

There are other types of non-criminal cases above that have the same result. Furthermore, there are a fairly large number of children (who are not charged with anything) living in what essentially is a jail.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: rpanic

Originally posted by: rchiu
Yipee, I see illegal immigrants, and anyone else associated with them, legal or illegal has no rights here in the US. Let's all start robbing, raping and do whatever we wish to them. Or better, let's start a concentration camp for them since they have no right.

No that?s what Mexico does to illegals.

Yeah, that's what German did to the Jewish too, so US should just go ahead and do it too?

I guess when you cannot make an intelligent reply that hyperbole is okay in your book.

Any moron can cite the extreme examples you did, it takes someone with intelligence and dignity to actually put forth some effort. When you get those traits feel free to participate.

Can you show me in the Constitution where non-US Citizens don't have constitutional rights? The USSC has said many times that they have Constitutional rights when it comes to the criminal courts -- in fact all of them. Their rights are limited when it comes to immigration and ability to reside here. They still have protection for their basic rights.

Let's say Pierre was here from France and the police arrested him as he was walking down the street for a bank robbery. They cannot violate his constitutional rights. They cannot prevent him from seeking relief in Federal Court if his civil rights are violated. Your astonishing ignorance is something I deal with everyday as my wife is not a US Citizen. She's here legally, and she has constitutional rights just you like you. So stop making up motherfucking shit just because you are a racist jerkwad.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
ICE said it would take more than 94 billion to evict all of the illegals here in the US. Frankly, that would be money better spent than in Iraq.

I'd trade Iraq for evicting 12m people any day. Throw 'em out.

I'm sure some of the indigenous people of North America would love to throw out 300 millions people off their land any day.

How much would it cost tax the system every year & the illegal employers?

And, who is going to do America laundry & mow the lawn?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

And, who is going to do America laundry & mow the lawn?

Yeah it really sucked before we had all these illegals as the lawns went unmowed and everyone wore dirty clothes. It really sucked. The illegals have really made life in the US bearable considering they do the jobs Americans won't do. They are our saviours.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa

And, who is going to do America laundry & mow the lawn?

Yeah it really sucked before we had all these illegals as the lawns went unmowed and everyone wore dirty clothes. It really sucked. The illegals have really made life in the US bearable considering they do the jobs Americans won't do. They are our saviours.

Didn't know there were a time that America didn't have illegal Mexican.

United States-Mexico Borderlands/Frontera -- Smithsonian

The eastern region of the border along the Rio Bravo (later called Rio Grande in the United States) was more hospitable and became a focus of regional life as towns grew up along its banks. As Dr. Ceballos points out, residents of these towns like Laredo felt a strong allegiance to a Mexican identity. El Paso del Norte, now known as El Paso, was the first and largest town built on the river in the early 1600s in the mountain corridor that was called "El Paso del Norte," the "Passage to the North." Many small towns established before the creation of the border still dot the Texas Valley.

The Rio Grande/Rio Bravo, a "symbol of separation" in Texas, constitutes more than half the length of the border. In the decades following the Mexican-American War (1850s), U.S. cattle barons and agricultural opportunists from the East and Midwest with substantial capital and extensive mercantile connections came to dominate U.S.-Mexican trade across this Texas river border. Shortly after their rise, these merchants began to acquire extensive tracts of land in Texas and to assert dominion over the earlier Spanish and Mexican settlers. This created an environment of cultural and economic conflict that characterizes the border to this day.

During the Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910, the border population increased significantly as many moved across the border seeking refuge. Migration patterns were established between particular states in Mexico and particular regions or towns on the border. For example, refugees from central Mexico who settled in the Texas valley were likely to be joined later by immigrants from their hometowns. Migrants from the northwestern states of Zacatecas, Durango, and Sinaloa regularly traveled to Ciudad Juarez/EI Paso.

When economic recessions hit the United States, efforts mounted to push immigrants back to Mexico. In 1914-15, the U.S. side of the Rio Grande Valley experienced a winter of violence when hundreds of Mexicans, or "Mexicanos" in border usage, were persecuted and killed by the Texas border patrols. The Great Depression of the 1930s brought a new wave of deportations in which immigrants who had lived undisturbed in the U.S. for decades were repatriated.

 

[maluckey]

Deportable alien does not always mean a person who has been charged or convicted of a felony.

True, A conviction requires a court of law.

8 USC 1227 is pretty clear that to be deported, you MUST be in violation of the law, and virtually all cases in this section are felonies.

Asylum seekers are Intended Immigrants without Immigrant Documents. The only difference is that they get a credible threat interview at point of entry, whereas a Mexican National would not generally get the privilege. If the Interviewer finds no credible threat in the initial interview, the Asylee is processed for removal and may sometimes be granted a Voluntary Departure if paroled ino the U.S. (which is the norm, so as to NOT admit them).

Splitting hairs, but a good catch Dance Man!