quote:

Originally posted by sooma:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

We all know that at least one non-illegal will be mistakenly detained or arrested in the massive deportation effort. Imperfections happen.

As I said earlier, I (and probably all citizens) would produce our proof of citizenship pdq were I to be mistakenly arrested.

Yet the burden of proof somehow must remain on the government within the interior of the country. The border is different, and rightly so, where each individual should provide proof of legal justification before being allowed in

Name one country where they are responsible to prove you belong inside their border?

It's you who must provide proof you belong anywhere.

Also, I strongly disagree with the notion that anyone is going to be deported illegally. Why must this be a fact?

If 3rd world countries can figure out who are there illegally, surely the richest country in the history of the world can figure it out.

Name one country where they [government] are responsible to prove you committed a crime, rather than the suspect having to prove they did not commit the crime?

Isn't that the USA? Doesn't the US Constitution provide no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process?

I am not saying we must have a court trial for every suspected illegal alien. But we must provide a process wherein a person could contest deportation if he/she is actually legally here. So that would be citizens and green card legal residents. What would that process be? Idk, but if it isn't properly crafted then the asshole leftists will use it to meke deportation impossible.

Were you, sooma, to be incorrectly scooped up by ICE, you specifically do have a Constitutional right to due process as a citizen before being flown to a foreign jail or launched by trebuchet across the Rio Grande. Yes?

You don't believe anyone will be mistakenly deported among the tens of millions of illegals we will be trying to find? You believe that the people and systems we have are infallible and will never detain the wrong person? Mistaken identity will never happen? Databases will be perfectly accurate?

quote:

Originally posted by Bytes:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Yet the burden of proof somehow must remain on the government within the interior of the country. The border is different, and rightly so, where each individual should provide proof of legal justification before being allowed in

Explain to me where the border actually is. Is it the actual border separating the countries or could it be at the airport in Omaha. Last I checked Omaha would very much be in the interior of the country. The wife and I used to fly to Cancun once a year. We would depart from and arrive at Salt Lake City. We always proved our citizenship both in Mexico and the US and never hit a "border" check point.

Perhaps a lawyer could refine where the border is relative to a Port of Entry. Do we really need to parse and split these hairs?

Until you are allowed past the immigration booth in the airport, you are not lawfully in the country. You are physically inside the country, but not lawfully yet. ICE can refuse you entry if you cannot prove you meet the requirements such as citizenship.

Now after they wave you in and you're sitting in Starbucks waiting for your connecting flight, you have every Constitutional protection. You cannot be summarily jailed nor deported without due process. ICE cannot legally grab you and put you on a flight to a Venezuelan jail without you first having due process.

quote:

But we must provide a process wherein a person could contest deportation if he/she is actually legally here. So that would be citizens and green card legal residents. What would that process be?

This process already exists. It's called "showing your ID", which is then verified. Can usually be done within a matter of seconds right on the side of the road.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

But we must provide a process wherein a person could contest deportation if he/she is actually legally here. So that would be citizens and green card legal residents. What would that process be?

This process already exists. It's called "showing your ID", which is then verified. Can usually be done within a matter of seconds right on the side of the road.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it greatly bothers my view of our Constitutional rights on the side of the road. And, yes, I would certainly whip out my Real ID or passport immediately so that I could continue with my life. But I would be furious about "Show your papers!".

It seems much like being jailed indefinitely unless I can prove I didn't rob the liquor store. Deportation is no minor thing to do to a person.

Imagine you, as a citizen, said, "Nope, you the government must prove I did that crime before you deprive me of my liberty". Why is robbery any different than coming into the country illegally? Both are crimes. You have rights.

Brilliant

https://x.com/ChrisStigall/status/1916814193560367472

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:


I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it greatly bothers my view of our Constitutional rights on the side of the road. And, yes, I would certainly whip out my Real ID or passport immediately so that I could continue with my life. But I would be furious about "Show your papers!".

It seems much like being jailed indefinitely unless I can prove I didn't rob the liquor store. Deportation is no minor thing to do to a person.

Imagine you, as a citizen, said, "Nope, you the government must prove I did that crime before you deprive me of my liberty". Why is robbery any different than coming into the country illegally? Both are crimes. You have rights.

No ID?

How hard is that?

I understand you think everyone of these illegal criminal aliens should all go to trial and we have to PROVE they are illegal.
It's absurd and will effectively negate all immigration law effectiveness.
Previously we let them in, asked them nicely to go to court, then let them go and THEY NEVER SHOWED UP.
Any deportation from there effectively completes the due process.
If anyone (legal or otherwise) is arrested say for any other crime ~ an identity is established and they go from there.
I would imagine a substantial amount of them are in the category of skipping their hearing/trial >>> DEPORT is fully justified.

GOTTA GO.

Living in AZ and making plenty of trips along I-8 to CA and back, I have driven through countless BP checkpoints. Mrs. Lee is Chinese and, even when she's been with me, we've never once been asked for ID. BP knows who they're looking for.

You folks ought to relax. The Trump administration is now in charge of border security.

quote:

Imagine you, as a citizen, said, "Nope, you the government must prove I did that crime before you deprive me of my liberty". Why is robbery any different than coming into the country illegally? Both are crimes. You have rights.

I gave this example previously.

Imagine you as a citizen are up at Walmart when for whatever reason the manager has called the police and informed them than you were trespassing.

You then say "Nope, you the government must prove I'm not Sam Walton before you remove me from the property". Do you get to remain inside of Walmart until after your court hearing?

Why is trespassing inside Walmart different than trespassing inside the US?

If you really are Sam Walton, you can whip out your ID on the spot and then fire the manager. No need for it to go to court. If you really are a US citizen you can easily prove that as well. Courts don't need to be involved.

Being returned to the country of which you are a citizen is not depriving you of any rights or taking away any of your liberties.

Under the current rules of engagement, you are NOT going to remove 31 million illegal aliens. What did Eisenhauer do?
Opertion Wetback

https://www.history.com/articl...wer-1954-deportation

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

No ID?

How hard is that?

I understand you think everyone of these illegal criminal aliens should all go to trial and we have to PROVE they are illegal.
It's absurd and will effectively negate all immigration law effectiveness.

No, that is not at all what I said. I said the following:

1) There must be a process available for those who have a legitimate claim that they are here legally. i.e. Citizens or green card residents must have a way to not be whisked away to a foreign jail or dumped across the border into Mexico. I have no doubt that at least one person will be wrongly detained due to error.

2) While due process is a Constitutional requirement, it need not be a trial. It could be as simple an appearance in front of an official. Only those who contest their deportation would get this procedure, while the remainder would be accepting deportation.

3) I believe we citizens would all choose to present our Real ID or passport immediately so as to avoid the pain of detention.

4) I am troubled by the concept that we have to prove our innocence first or that there would be no due process available prior to deportation. Just as, I hope, you would be troubled by having to prove your innocence or possibly even have no due process before being incarcerated for, say, insurrection on Jan 6.

5) Any due process procedure will be open to abuse. If every one of the millions of illegals demands a hearing to prove their innocence, the system is fucked. So the process needs to be really airtight somehow. The Dems are proven to do everything possible to keep the illegals here. Yet, not allowing due process is a seriously terrible precedent.

As an addition, in my life I've experienced a major state database error which caused my some grief, and a malicious prosecution by my Favorite Aviation Administration which would have been a career ender. The latter cost me two years gross pay in legal fees before the court agreed the prosecutor had falsified a document. Up until then it didn't matter one bit that their complaint against me actually proved my innocence. The complaint was a violation of aircraft limitations via exceeding a max demonstrated number. Max demonstrated is not a limitation, as established by Federal Regulation as well as many court precedents. The judge didn't care, even though both AOPA and ALPA supported my case.