Your opinions on the U.S. border wall

[Salvador]

If they are such a risk detain or deport them. Why waste more money just to track people you suspect, based on little evidence, are a flight risk. I favour deportation when it comes to costs. .

You mean suspected illegal immigrants could promptly be deported without being held until they've received a deportation hearing? That'd be nice!

 

[fantome profane]

POTUS has direct control over immigration as it is part of executive branch. Trump is talking about the shutting down the immigration system. No applications are processed, reviewed nor see a hearing. All entry is denied. Do not pass go, do not collect 100 dollars. If he could order the actual shut down the border itself he wouldn't need a wall.

I understand. But even this won’t happen. Potus power is not absolute and he won’t be able to do this for long. Business leaders won’t stand for it.

 

[Shad]

Imo, Mexico would have to pay for removing RDIF chip implants from those who they fail to stop trespassing across the border; that'd encourage a crackdown from Mexico against illegal immigration.

Branding as punishment, international spying, undue burden placed on the individual. I am amazed at what people will let government do and get away with merely because government tells them what they want to hear.

Mexico can just decline paying for removal blunting said encouragement.

 

[Shad]

You mean suspected illegal immigrants could promptly be deported without a deportation hearing? That'd be nice!

Agents can decline an application without a hearing.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/01/22/Expedited Removal - English (17).pdf

*edit for link

 

[Shad]

You mean suspected illegal immigrants could promptly be deported without being held until they've received a deportation hearing? That'd be nice!

I provided a link via an edit.

 

[Salvador]

Branding as punishment, international spying, undue burden placed on the individual. I am amazed at what people will let government do and get away with merely because government tells them what they want to hear.

Mexico can just decline paying for removal blunting said encouragement.

Oh well, if these illegal aliens were unable to get someone to remove their tracking device in Mexico, then I reckon these illegal immigrants would be stuck there with having this implant; that'd give these trespassers a good reason not to sneak across the border again.

 

[Shad]

Oh well, if these illegal aliens were unable to get someone to remove their tracking device, then I reckon these illegal immigrants would be stuck with having this implant; that'd give these trespassers a good reason not to sneak across the border.

Depend on location of the implant. If only a shallow sub-surface implant people could dig it out. If implanted into the pelvis a form of "surgery" is required for implantation and removal; be it professions or not. Toss in the risks some are willing to take for whatever reason.

Still my point is that the rationale, flight-risk, is no longer applicable. The INS entry on barring entry (eq. 5 year ban for criminals) would have to be used for and argued for as a valid ground to track foreigners in foreign nations. All after whatever agreement made would be in a contract form.

 

[Shad]

I understand. But even this won’t happen. Potus power is not absolute and he won’t be able to do this for long. Business leaders won’t stand for it.

SCOTUS has ruled multiple time POTUS is the sole authority over immigration enforcement. He can use DHS grounds for shutting it down, which he has been for 2 years for deportation and detainment. Previous sessions of Congress gave the office this power in their zeal and haste to fight terrorism by creating the DHS. Now its turning against Dem's politics. Trump can even ignore a court order to cease if he wanted to. Congress GOP would need to flip in order to pass legislation countering a specific policy or reducing POTUS power.

Considering Trump seems to not care about the backlash he has a far stronger hand than any of his opponents

 

[youknowme]

Trump doesn't really care much about political fallout, he mostly cares about what's in the best interest of our national security.

I don't really think you are able to read his mind, and at any rate I don't really care; he is not a king or a god and it is Congress that controls the budget.

 

[Salvador]

I don't really think you are able to read his mind, and at any rate I don't really care; he is not a king or a god and it is Congress that controls the budget.

If Trump were to seal off the U.S.-Mexico border, he wouldn’t be the first president to do so. Nixon did shut down portions of the border during Operation Intercept in order to keep drugs from entering the U.S. President Reagan briefly shut down the border when a DEA agent went missing. So then, there is historic precedent for Trump to do the same, especially for national security reasons. He doesn’t even need any Congressional approval.

I doubt you would want the border to be closed in such a dramatic fashion; so then, I urge you to please write your Congressional representatives for getting an effective border security barrier approved.

 

[fantome profane]

SCOTUS has ruled multiple time POTUS is the sole authority over immigration enforcement. He can use DHS grounds for shutting it down, which he has been for 2 years for deportation and detainment. Previous sessions of Congress gave the office this power in their zeal and haste to fight terrorism by creating the DHS. Now its turning against Dem's politics. Trump can even ignore a court order to cease if he wanted to. Congress GOP would need to flip in order to pass legislation countering a specific policy or reducing POTUS power.

Considering Trump seems to not care about the backlash he has a far stronger hand than any of his opponents

I am not debating the legality of this with you. But I do believe Trump cares deeply about the backlash. We are in this situation now because Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh said some things about the bill Trump was about to sign. I don’t believe this infant has the backbone to do something like this if he is going to be criticized for it.

We will see.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes. Build the wall. Here’s a reasonable and rationale video that explains my position.

Build the Wall

 

[Curious George]

Yes it is as tracking is the alternative to detention which is still a bar to free entry. Bars are covered by the INA

That os an interesting argument. I never supposed some laws would not require change.

It was be abuse against refugees as they are being treat with suspension and labelled a flight risk. It was violate settlement laws for refugees. For immigrant it violates due process making it an abuse of power.

Substantive due process or procedural due process? If you are suggesting substantive due process, I think that you will need to make that argument. It is not one that carries the day too often.

Cruelty nor barbarity are require to be branding. Chips are considered branding in general.

I am just heading off any arguments against it relating to the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition. It seems you agree it would not be considered such.

Which is branding used as a punishment

Yes. That is what I am proposing.

This would make chipping an criminal code matter and no immigration

Sounds like you disagree with the part of public sentiment who considers illegal immigrants criminals. I agree that we can only enact criminal punishment on criminals.

I was talking about the "and deportation" part. This would be spying once deported.

Lol, like the U.S. has any aversion to spying.

When it comes to abuse of and granting government power you bet.

Yeah, still not sure what your point was here and how your previous statements "And I have SCOTUS rulings in favor and established precedent of my point regarding family and citizens" related.

 

[Vinayaka]

I can think of better locations for a wall.

 

[youknowme]

If Trump were to seal off the U.S.-Mexico border, he wouldn’t be the first president to do so. Nixon did shut down portions of the border during Operation Intercept in order to keep drugs from entering the U.S. President Reagan briefly shut down the border when a DEA agent went missing. So then, there is historic precedent for Trump to do the same, especially for national security reasons. He doesn’t even need any Congressional approval.

I doubt you would want the border to be closed in such a dramatic fashion; so then, I urge you to please write your Congressional representatives for getting an effective border security barrier approved.

You clearly need to take a break from the "news".

 

[Salvador]

You clearly need to take a break from the "news".

I'm glad it's the weekend, so then, I can now take a weekend break from watching Fox and Friends...

 

[Shad]

That os an interesting argument. I never supposed some laws would not require change.

Depends on which laws and departments are at play. The INS bar are a real stretch but I did see the possibility. But then I do not thin many though DHS would be used for immigration purposes.

Substantive due process

Via US refugee law (not UN law) covering port of entry and lack of.

procedural due process

Via immigration as a department and part of the problem with false claims. Those apprehended outside a port of entry make a refugee claim during basic processing. Evaluation of the refugee claim ties up the immigration courts from asylum hearings, deportation hearings and appeals of both. They remain in the nation be it on a court order to appear or in detention. Simply put it buy times and government support especially if released into the nation. Government pays for housing, food, etc above that which welfare provides citizens. Some cases can go on for 10 years.The government charges those apprehended are illegal aliens. This becomes a claim vs claim which by US law the refugee usually win as far as which charge take priority. The DHS kicks in breaking up the normal system stated above via national security risk via location and method of apprehension.

I am just heading off any arguments against it relating to the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition. It seems you agree it would not be considered such.

More or less. I could see an attempt to argue for that cruel is applicable but I do not have one myself.

Yes. That is what I am proposing.

This is very problematic given the history of using brands as punishment. I think laws against body mutilation would be applicable to overrule the policy law used to punish by the state. The target foreign national once deported may have to use the international court system as body mutilation is very broad.

Sounds like you disagree with the part of public sentiment who considers illegal immigrants criminals .I agree that we can only enact criminal punishment on criminals

In layman terms they are. However by legal standards they have been charged with a crime but not convicted. Immigration does not have the power to force people to have a invasive surgery which is not medically necessary based only on deportation. The criminal courts would have to become involved to even try such a punishment based solely on what immigration decides. It after all is a executive branch not judicial

Lol, like the U.S. has any aversion to spying.

The government doesn't. The courts may as many are prone to political activism. This was more a point of law and principle than what the US leadership think and does.

Yeah, still not sure what your point was here and how your previous statements "And I have SCOTUS rulings in favor and established precedent of my point regarding family and citizens" related.

This was about refugee and immigration sponsorship by family as per SCOTUS ruling on Trump EO citing the harm clause. This in my view would create restriction on who could be targeted thus reduce the power and scope of what government can do.

 

[Shadow Link]

...Do do you or do you not support a wall on the U.S. southern border? Please explain your reasons.

Because the Government of Mexico doesn't care about US nor it's southern neighbors, by putting up a wall, why should we.

 

[Curious George]

Depends on which laws and departments are at play. The INS bar are a real stretch but I did see the possibility. But then I do not thin many though DHS would be used for immigration purposes.

Via US refugee law (not UN law) covering port of entry and lack of.

Yeah, you are going to have to explain. Substantive due process is a constitutional issue.

Via immigration as a department and part of the problem with false claims. Those apprehended outside a port of entry make a refugee claim during basic processing. Evaluation of the refugee claim ties up the immigration courts from asylum hearings, deportation hearings and appeals of both. They remain in the nation be it on a court order to appear or in detention. Simply put it buy times and government support especially if released into the nation. Government pays for housing, food, etc above that which welfare provides citizens. Some cases can go on for 10 years.The government charges those apprehended are illegal aliens. This becomes a claim vs claim which by US law the refugee usually win as far as which charge take priority. The DHS kicks in breaking up the normal system stated above via national security risk via location and method of apprehension.

Procedural due process could be addressed and would have to be addressed in the ins ands outs of such a penalty. There is no insurmountable obstacle here.

More or less. I could see an attempt to argue for that cruel is applicable but I do not have one myself.

This is very problematic given the history of using brands as punishment. I think laws against body mutilation would be applicable to overrule the policy law used to punish by the state. The target foreign national once deported may have to use the international court system as body mutilation is very broad.

There is not a problem with broadly defined mutilation. And you would need to define mutilation very broadly in order to count chipping as mutilation.

In layman terms they are. However by legal standards they have been charged with a crime but not convicted. Immigration does not have the power to force people to have a invasive surgery which is not medically necessary based only on deportation. The criminal courts would have to become involved to even try such a punishment based solely on what immigration decides. It after all is a executive branch not judicial

I agree that criminal courts would have to be involved. I do not think that is a problem.

The government doesn't. The courts may as many are prone to political activism. This was more a point of law and principle than what the US leadership think and does.

It is not the courts place to decide on that matter.

This was about refugee and immigration sponsorship by family as per SCOTUS ruling on Trump EO citing the harm clause. This in my view would create restriction on who could be targeted thus reduce the power and scope of what government can do.

Yeah, i do not think that is a problem here. Cite the case, i will read it.

 

[Shad]

Yeah, you are going to have to explain. Substantive due process is a constitutional issue.

Due process

Procedural due process could be addressed and would have to be addressed in the ins ands outs of such a penalty. There is no insurmountable obstacle here.

I never said it was an insurmountable obstacle.

There is not a problem with broadly defined mutilation. And you would need to define mutilation very broadly in order to count chipping as mutilation.

Scaring due to the process.

It is not the courts place to decide on that matter.

Wrong. The courts can if a suit is filed. It's the role of the courts to check the power of the other 2 branches.

Yeah, i do not think that is a problem here. Cite the case, i will read it.

Look up Trump's travel ban EO on the SCOTUS website August/Sept 2017. I will link it later as I do not want to bother looking this late at night.


*I removed some of your post as I agree with the point*