• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hope y'all aint married to any immigrants.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
VirtualLarry said:
This is insanity. There is NOT two different forms of US Govt, for citizens, and for non-citizens. The Constitution enumerates what powers the gov't has, as granted by the people. That applies to ALL interactions between the gov't, and the people, not just citizens.

What's next? Checkpoints? Papers please?
Click to expand...

Isn't that already true if you live within 100 miles from the border?
 
The legal answer to this question is clear. We cannot
here engage in this legal fiction. No one can claim, nor
since the time of slavery has anyone to my knowledge
successfully claimed, that persons held within the United
States are totally without constitutional protection.
Whatever the fiction, would the Constitution leave the
Government free to starve, beat, or lash those held within
our boundaries? If not, then, whatever the fiction, how
can the Constitution authorize the Government to imprison
arbitrarily those who, whatever we might pretend, are
in reality right here in the United States? The answer is
that the Constitution does not authorize arbitrary detention.
And the reason that is so is simple: Freedom from
arbitrary detention is as ancient and important a right as
any found within the Constitution’s boundaries.
Click to expand...

Thomas Clarence then stood up and said if it doesn't say in the statute that "Aliens are not allowed to be kicked henceforth in thy balls" then the Federal government can go to town on the grapes.
He then dropped the mic and muttered something about "this nonsense taking away from his Housewives of New York" binge watching.
 
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/right-due-process-detention-jennings-v-rodriguez

Alex immigrated to the United States from Mexico with his parents as a baby, and grew up as a lawful permanent resident.

As an adult, Alex worked as a dental assistant to support his two children. But he also ran into legal trouble and was convicted of joyriding and misdemeanor drug possession. Immigration agents put him in detention after the second conviction and began deportation proceedings to send him to Mexico. Three years after he was first locked up, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of Alex and a class of immigration detainees in the Los Angeles area, arguing the government has no right to hold people for more than six months without a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether their detention is justified.
Click to expand...
 
pauldun170 said:
Thomas Clarence then stood up and said if it doesn't say in the statute that "Aliens are not allowed to be kicked henceforth in thy balls" then the Federal government can go to town on the grapes.
He then dropped the mic and muttered something about "this nonsense taking away from his Housewives of New York" binge watching.
Click to expand...
Clarence Thomas is so strange; it's almost like he believes he is no longer human or something. Like he lives in on Mount Olympus and gets to pass whatever he wants without taking any responsibility for the consequences.
 
Jaskalas said:
Not sure. On your reading of it, their right to bail is being denied? It's one hell of a violation if they are being detained for any longer duration than for the court to process their criminal indictment / conviction. I'm confused as to the practical application of this ruling.
Click to expand...
My wife is married to an immigrant, so I have some interest in this.. But it sounds like the headline is a bit sensationalist. From my reading this says no right to bond hearing, after conviction of a crime (while waiting deportation hearing, or any prison sentence?). It does not mean the cops can pull me off the street and hold me in jail indefinitely. I think?
 
Last edited:
The dissent frames the question of interpretation as follows: Can §§1225(b), 1226(c), and 1226(a) be read to require bond hearings every six months “without doing violence to the statutory language,” post, at 20 (opinion of BREYER, J.)? According to the dissent, the answer is “yes,” but the dissent evidently has a strong stomach when it comes to inflicting linguistic trauma.
Click to expand...

latest
 
I think LEGAL immigrants without any criminal history/conviction should not be treat the same as those ILLEGALS or convicts.

From the article of the OP -

Alejandro Rodriguez, is an immigrant with permanent legal status who was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and joyriding. He was detained by immigration officials for three years without a bond hearing.
Click to expand...

In other news, the US CBP agents can stop you miles inside the US and you do not have much rights to do anything if you are still in the yellow color area.

constitutionfreezonemap.png


https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
Not sure. On your reading of it, their right to bail is being denied? It's one hell of a violation if they are being detained for any longer duration than for the court to process their criminal indictment / conviction. I'm confused as to the practical application of this ruling.
Click to expand...
All Corporations are people but not all people are people. Animal Farm Ruling, (More Equal) now a law in the Supreme Court.
 
Svnla said:
I think LEGAL immigrants without any criminal history/conviction should not be treat the same as those ILLEGALS or convicts.

From the article of the OP -



In other news, the US CBP agents can stop you miles inside the US and you do not have much rights to do anything if you are still in the yellow color area.

constitutionfreezonemap.png


https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
Click to expand...


Anybody wanna take a guess where 99 percent of Americans live?
 
dank69 said:
Hope y'all aint married to any immigrants.
Click to expand...
Well, I am.

-----------------------------

I'm not liking this article. Note this part:

imposed a rule requiring immigrants held in custody be given a bond hearing every six months
Click to expand...

Umm, excuse me, but citizens that commit crimes do NOT get a bond hearing every 6 months. You generally get ONE.

Getting a new hearing every 6 months is not feasible/practical. What the hell can change in 6 months? The courts are already heavily backlogged. This is stupid.

Now what the article doesn't make clear is if the immigrant is entitled to ONE at or near the time they are arrested. I strongly believe they are, but unless there are unusual circumstances, just that one like any citizen.

Fern
 
Zaap said:
So draft an idiotic, hyperbolic thread title trying (desperately and pathetically) to make people whose problem it isn't somehow believe it is their problem.

Because fearmongering and blatant hyperbole always advances your cause.
Click to expand...

With the way you go on about immigration, it seems obvious that you're going out of your way to make it your problem.

It seems to me we already have enough misery in this country w/o the govt inflicting more a few million times over which is what we're really taking about. For what? To make America great again? In what way exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top