Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Yes. We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum. 
 

They should run for office if they want to change the law. 
 

The dependents of an asylum seeking terrorist have no legal right to remain in the country. 
 

billable hours. 
 

image.gif.e5dd13a8ce174e48db9ea6fc4605d044.gif

Either the law protects everybody, or it protects nobody. These are your only options.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
6 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Yes. We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum. 
 

They should run for office if they want to change the law. 
 

The dependents of an asylum seeking terrorist have no legal right to remain in the country. 
 

billable hours. 
 

image.gif.e5dd13a8ce174e48db9ea6fc4605d044.gif

It isn't about a judge isn't disagreeing with the law. It is about a judge applying it. Due process is important. Either everyone has it or no one does. Why is this so confusing? @Rex Kramer why are you liking this nonsense? Surely you understand the importance of rule of law? I know you're better than this. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

It isn't about a judge isn't disagreeing with the law. It is about a judge applying it. Due process is important. Either everyone has it or no one does. Why is this so confusing? @Rex Kramer why are you liking this nonsense? Surely you understand the importance of rule of law? I know you're better than this. 

I’m still waiting for a response to your change in argument. His comment was correct. You have issue distinguishing between law for citizens and law for non-citizens. 

Posted

Friendly reminder that the Due Process Clause applies to every person within the United States, including non-citizens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Anyone that continues to push the narrative that these people are not entitled to due process because they are not citizens is lying to you.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)

I strongly believe this country needs white men who perhaps have a GED and several white supremacist tattoos deciding what the law says and how it applies to everyone in the country. And if the elected, obese angry guy with dementia, 28 felonies, an 8th grade education, and caked on orange make-up base wants to intervene, who the hell are you to tell him no? Fuck the judges. In fact, kill all the judges.

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m still waiting for a response to your change in argument. His comment was correct. You have issue distinguishing between law for citizens and law for non-citizens. 

I didn't change my argument. I was clear from the beginning, my issue was your reasoning, not the conclusion. 

Why is his argument correct? Citizen or non-citizen, both are entitled to a hearing by a judge as part of due process. That's all the judge's order does, ensures the process is followed. They may lose any argument they have, but they do get to make one. You should want that. Everyone should. I don't understand why you're confused by this.  I don't understand why you want that process skipped. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I didn't change my argument. I was clear from the beginning, my issue was your reasoning, not the conclusion. 

Why is his argument correct? Citizen or non-citizen, both are entitled to a hearing by a judge as part of due process. That's all the judge's order does, ensures the process is followed. They may lose any argument they have, but they do get to make one. You should want that. Everyone should. I don't understand why you're confused by this.  I don't understand why you want that process skipped. 

Whoever said I wanted that process skipped?  You presume way too much. 

Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Either the law protects everybody, or it protects nobody. These are your only options.

Bolded etc. for emphasis.  There are two options.  And only two options.  

The argument of "but it's a waste of time to give guilty people due process" begs the question....it assumes that guilt (a term that can only be applied AFTER a procedure to determine same) applies.

Applying due process to people who 99% of us know will eventually be adjudicated guilty, not entitled to asylum, what have you, is what tells us that due process is available for THE REST OF US.  If you say "well, but no due process for guilty people," and then allow an extra-judicial determination of guilt to make that dividing line....then you've just ended due process.  For everyone. 

Because I, local director of an ICE office, just decided that Chicken Sandwich is a member of Tren de Aragua, or he doesn't like jews, or he eats funny-sounding foreign foods, and therefore he has no legal status in the US.  What's that, Chicken Sandwich says "wait!  I'm a US citizen, let me prove it!"?  Fuck that, that's just what the terrorist gang members want, to gum up our system with their bullshit defenses. Onto the plane you go, non-stop to El Salvador, terrorist! 

43 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Whoever said I wanted that process skipped?  You presume way too much. 

Chicken Sandwich wants it skipped.  Because when we "know" someone is guilty/not entitled to asylum, we can skip all that law and rights and shit.

Of course, I know that Chicken Sandwich is a secret member of Tren de Aragua.  His name and ID?  Those are all fake, a ruse to allow him to infiltrate our beloved country and commit his terrorist acts of depravity.  I am protecting us all when I nab him, shove him in the back of a van, and have him on a flight to El Salvador to rot in prison that same day.  Why should he get any chance to prove his claims of US citizenship?  Why are you siding with a terrorist gang member?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Because I, local director of an ICE office, just decided that Chicken Sandwich is a member of Tren de Aragua, or he doesn't like jews, or he eats funny-sounding foreign foods, and therefore he has no legal status in the US.  What's that, Chicken Sandwich says "wait!  I'm a US citizen, let me prove it!"?  Fuck that, that's just what the terrorist gang members want, to gum up our system with their bullshit defenses. Onto the plane you go, non-stop to El Salvador, terrorist! 

 

I saw him eating a sándwich de pollo.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Whoever said I wanted that process skipped?  You presume way too much. 

You did by saying @ChickenSandwich's comment was correct. That is exactly what he was asking for. I didn't presume anything. I think you're not reading these posts very carefully or critically and are just responding emotionally. Just slow down a bit. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You did by saying @ChickenSandwich's comment was correct. That is exactly what he was asking for. I didn't presume anything. I think you're not reading these posts very carefully or critically and are just responding emotionally. Just slow down a bit. 

I don't think Rex wants due process to be skipped, he just wants them deported. I think maybe he doesn't understand that ChickenSandwich actually does want due process to be skipped.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You did by saying @ChickenSandwich's comment was correct. That is exactly what he was asking for. I didn't presume anything. I think you're not reading these posts very carefully or critically and are just responding emotionally. Just slow down a bit. 

I’m not the one responding emotionally. Nothing Chicken Sandwich posted even suggested ignoring due process. And you absolutely have changed your argument. 

8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I don't think Rex wants due process to be skipped, he just wants them deported. I think maybe he doesn't understand that ChickenSandwich actually does want due process to be skipped.

I do not. And I did not read his post that way but could be wrong. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not the one responding emotionally. Nothing Chicken Sandwich posted even suggested ignoring due process. 

Then you need to re-read that post. Here is the quote:

"We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum."

The government was trying to deport without the family having the ability to speak to a lawyer or have a hearing before a judge.  All the judge did was say, hold up, you can't deport immediately and asked for a status conference. Chicken believes that because the law may ultimately result in the family's deportation, that we can just skip the "waste of tax payer dollars" of having a hearing. You agreed with that. This is cut and dry. I'm glad that you don't actually believe that and that you misunderstood his post.

Quote

And you absolutely have changed your argument.

What do you think my original argument was? Where did I ever say "the family shouldn't ever be deported"? I said the particular argument you were making was problematic and dangerous. And I said there were other non-problematic arguments that reach the same conclusion and suggested that you should use those.  I haven't changed my position on that. 

  • Hook 'Em 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...