• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ICE set to begin immigration raids in 10 cities on Sunday

AliHajiSheik said:
What an unexpected turn of events. Apparently it was I who was in hybrid mode and you who couldn't turn on that switch.

In the meantime, I made this point: "I don't understand your comparisons, but regardless, why does a deportation order need to be considered at all, it already was considered. When a judge orders you out, it is time to leave, no reason to start crying over the method at that point. "
Click to expand...
Yes, you said you didn't understand my comparisons, and then I tried to give you the proper context.

Look, you asked about the relative harm to society, I answered your question, then you followed it up with your point that seems to make no connection to harm to society at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to debate at this point.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Finally a sensible reply from a fellow RESISTer of Evil Orange Man P*ssy Groper!

:donkeyfla
Click to expand...
The 2nd half they really smoked them. Some really good young players. I have dumb it down based on the audience.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
I'm still trying to figure out why you would throw out Trump's military deferments for here, other than you have nothing else to insult, and you are so slow on your feet that that was the best you could think of to bait me....Well, fail sir, fail....Try again.
Click to expand...
I always refer to president scumbag as 5 deferment cadet fake bone spurs. Nothing special for you. I see you are unable to defend your absurd post.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
rhinefire said:
"Millions will be moved out of our country" says the Orange Fat Boy With Pink Eyes. Let's see the actual count. like his inauguration crowd numbers!!!
Click to expand...

Did you know that 10 is 0.00001 millionS?
 
danarhea said:
Exactly like what happened with the attack on Iran. Plans are made. People get ready to carry out the plan. Trump opens his fat mouth and blabs it to the world. Plan is no longer the surprise it was supposed to be. Plan is canceled at the last minute.

ICE raids delayed, but Trump today threatens deportations unless Congress revamps asylum - CBS News

What a maroon. LOL.
Click to expand...

Congress doesn't have to "revamp asylum" all that has to be done is for Mr. Trump to take the US out of the The 1951 Refugee Convention (FULL TEXT) in accordance with Article 44

ARTICLE 44

Denunciation

1. Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the Contracting State concerned one year from the date upon which it is received by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. Any State which has made a declaration or notification under article 40 may, at any time thereafter, by a notification to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, declare that the Convention shall cease to extend to such territory one year after the date of
receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
​

After all, Mr. Obama signed that convention into law without any legal authority to do so.

Right?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I don't understand your comparisons, but regardless, why does a deportation order need to be considered at all, it already was considered. When a judge orders you out, it is time to leave, no reason to start crying over the method at that point.
Click to expand...

Some of those deportation orders were made ex parte when the person against whom the order was made was not notified (by "The State") of the date or place of the hearing.

Would you consider it "appropriate" for you to be convicted of a crime if "The State" didn't tell you when the trial was going to be held or told you the correct date but the wrong location?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Some of those deportation orders were made ex parte when the person against whom the order was made was not notified (by "The State") of the date or place of the hearing.

Would you consider it "appropriate" for you to be convicted of a crime if "The State" didn't tell you when the trial was going to be held or told you the correct date but the wrong location?
Click to expand...

These individuals were not convicted of a crime, and these people were notified at the location where they told the court where they would be or to their lawyer. Are you presuming to tell me that these people don't have lawyers?

Others have posted that entering the country illegally is on par with trespassing or a traffic stop. Well if I don't show up in traffic court, regardless of the reason, then I lose the case.

Civilized countries have these procedures, or are you suggesting that countries such as Canada isn't civilized?

Arrests, detentions and removals - Removal from Canada
Failure to Leave
Once a Removal Order takes effect, you must leave Canada immediately.

If you fail to appear for a removal interview or a scheduled removal date, the CBSA will issue a Canada-wide warrant for your arrest. Once arrested, the CBSA may detain you in a holding facility before removal.

In order to ensure you leave Canada, the CBSA may assign an escort officer to accompany you on your departure.
 
exoplanet said:
Yes, you said you didn't understand my comparisons, and then I tried to give you the proper context.

Look, you asked about the relative harm to society, I answered your question, then you followed it up with your point that seems to make no connection to harm to society at all. I'm not sure what you're trying to debate at this point.
Click to expand...

I accept you aren't interested in the fact that these individuals were ordered deported. The rest of your discussion with the other poster is dross to me. I was reacting to the silly observations about illegal immigration being no big deal in the context of this story.

I'll trouble you no further.
 
j-mac said:
It is...And I believe that Federal agents should walk into these offices and arrest those Governors that are actively aiding in blocking these warrants from being executed...
Click to expand...

Hard not to feel that way. Seems to me aiding and abetting criminals is against the law. I'm wondering why that isn't being pursued.

Don't know enough about the nuance of the law, or perhaps the politics, to understand how State and Local government officials can operate that way.

Apply their actions to some other criminal enterprise...…

Would that be allowed to go on?

I can't imagine it would.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Again, I'm not sure what news outlets are supposed to do if there's nothing made secret about the plan after Trump announced that there was going to be a push by ICE to do exactly what they're reporting on. I'm sure with the initial announcement, whoever was aware they fit that category was already going to take the steps to avoid capture. The other thing to remember is the way Trump painted it isn't the way it's going to happen since people can appeal their deportation and potentially extend their stay here. There's not going to be millions of people magically deported; Trump often speaks to things too simplistically.
Click to expand...
Well, I won't disagree there...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
AliHajiSheik said:
These individuals were not convicted of a crime, and these people were notified at the location where they told the court where they would be or to their lawyer. Are you presuming to tell me that these people don't have lawyers?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the word "some"?

AliHajiSheik said:
Others have posted that entering the country illegally is on par with trespassing or a traffic stop. Well if I don't show up in traffic court, regardless of the reason, then I lose the case.
Click to expand...

Indeed you do, but if no one tells you when/where you are supposed to appear, or if "The State" moves the time/location without informing you, then you have pretty solid grounds for an appeal.

AliHajiSheik said:
Civilized countries have these procedures, or are you suggesting that countries such as Canada isn't civilized?
Click to expand...

Not in the least, and if someone in Canada is issued a deportation order because "The State" did not properly inform them of where/when the deportation hearing was to be held, the deportation order is suspended pending an appeal and set aside if they establish that they were not properly informed of where/when the deportation hearing was to be held (at which point a new deportation hearing is scheduled).

Are you saying that that should NOT be the case in the United States of America?

If you are, then the US government can save a ton of money simply by holding all deportation hearing in secret (even from the people whose deportation is under consideration) and issuing all deportation orders ex parte.

AliHajiSheik said:
TArrests, detentions and removals - Removal from Canada
Failure to Leave
Once a Removal Order takes effect, you must leave Canada immediately.

If you fail to appear for a removal interview or a scheduled removal date, the CBSA will issue a Canada-wide warrant for your arrest. Once arrested, the CBSA may detain you in a holding facility before removal.

In order to ensure you leave Canada, the CBSA may assign an escort officer to accompany you on your departure.
Click to expand...

And there is also Step 1: How to start a removal order appeal isn't there?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Did you miss the word "some"?
Click to expand...

All speculation on your part that there are any.

Did you miss the part about the Canada-wide arrest warrant. Presumably those aren't ignored in British Columbia.

Every country has a list of reasons for denying entry into a country, you seem to be objecting to the reasons the US uses, many of which are the same reasons used by Canada.

Assuming there might be a few people that might not have received notification, then those people can seek legal counsel up until the point they are caught: Ordered Removed in Absentia: What Can I Do? | Nolo.

Are you suggesting that people who entered the country illegally didn't know they entered the country illegally?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
All speculation on your part that there are any.
Click to expand...

Not in the least bit "speculation" if you actually follow the news. A leading case is "In re Otoniel VILLALBA-Sinaloa, Respondent". MATTER OF PATEL is also relevant. As is UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Jose MENDOZA-LOPEZ and Angel Landeros-Quinones.

AliHajiSheik said:
Did you miss the part about the Canada-wide arrest warrant. Presumably those aren't ignored in British Columbia.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it at all. Did you miss the fact that the ex parte orders CAN be appealed, and that one of the grounds for appeal is that no proper notice of place/time was given?

AliHajiSheik said:
Every country has a list of reasons for denying entry into a country, you seem to be objecting to the reasons the US uses, many of which are the same reasons used by Canada.
Click to expand...

You appear to be misreading my position. The US is bound (by American law) to allow people to MAKE APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status. Once that APPLICATION is made then the US can use any reason established by American law to either grant or deny the REQUEST contained in the APPLICATION. I have no issue with the second and the first is simply a fact.

What many people who are "concerned about the hordes of people flooding into the country" want to do is to REFUSE to allow those people to MAKE APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status and that, since it would be contrary to the laws of the United States of America, is something that I DO have an issue with. If the people who are "concerned about the hordes of people flooding into the country" want to do is to REFUSE to allow those people to MAKE APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status then they should get off their butts and CHANGE the laws of the United States of America and NOT advocate breaching them.

AliHajiSheik said:
Assuming there might be a few people that might not have received notification, then those people can seek legal counsel up until the point they are caught: Ordered Removed in Absentia: What Can I Do? | Nolo.
Click to expand...

And they can also do so afterwards.

AliHajiSheik said:
Are you suggesting that people who entered the country illegally didn't know they entered the country illegally?
Click to expand...

Once they have made application for refugee/asylee status, they are no longer "in the country illegally", rather they are "in the country pending a determination of their legal right to remain". Someone who has crossed the US border, then makes their way to a US Immigration office and files an application for refugee/asylee status is NOT "in the country illegally".

I have no difficulty in differentiating those people from people who have crossed the US border and then do not make their way to a US Immigration office where they file an application for refugee/asylee status (especially those who have no intention of doing so).

I also have no difficulty in concluding that any actions by ICE or any other portion of the Immigration and Naturalization Service which is specifically intended to deny someone who has entered the United States of America their right (under American law) to make an APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status is, in and of itself, a violation of American law.

PS - The fact that an application for refugee/asylee status is doomed to fail because the applicant has zero chance of establishing the basis for their claim and/or is unacceptable, under American law, for admission to the United States of America is irrelevant to the fact that such a person DOES HAVE the right, under American law, to make such an application and that they also have the right to have that application heard and adjudicated under American law. To complain about the cost is about as rational as complaining about the cost of a police department based on the fact that you haven't been murdered during a home invasion.
 
This is a pure win for the president, and the GOP. I know our DP TDS'ers won't like it, but to me this is a good barometer of whether it's a good idea or not. Trump, whether on purpose or not (Can't tell sometimes with his instincts) is baiting the dimwits on this stuff. he knows full-well, that American's agree with him on this issue.

They'll lose their collective minds on the MSM sites, and of course on the debate stage come Wednesday, and perhaps that is the goal all along.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
This is a pure win for the president, and the GOP. I know our DP TDS'ers won't like it, but to me this is a good barometer of whether it's a good idea or not. Trump, whether on purpose or not (Can't tell sometimes with his instincts) is baiting the dimwits on this stuff. he knows full-well, that American's agree with him on this issue.

They'll lose their collective minds on the MSM sites, and of course on the debate stage come Wednesday, and perhaps that is the goal all along.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Everything Trump has done with immigration has led to crisis and no resolution. Probably because everything he does is for show. This will be no different.
 
j brown's body said:
Everything Trump has done with immigration has led to crisis and no resolution. Probably because everything he does is for show. This will be no different.
Click to expand...

You're blaming the wrong person. This is all on the US Congress bud. I think most thinking people know this, and I think most people understand that the President is doing his level best to accomplish nhis campaign goals in spite of all of it.


Tim-
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not in the least bit "speculation" if you actually follow the news. A leading case is "In re Otoniel VILLALBA-Sinaloa, Respondent". MATTER OF PATEL is also relevant. As is UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Jose MENDOZA-LOPEZ and Angel Landeros-Quinones.



I didn't miss it at all. Did you miss the fact that the ex parte orders CAN be appealed, and that one of the grounds for appeal is that no proper notice of place/time was given?



You appear to be misreading my position. The US is bound (by American law) to allow people to MAKE APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status. Once that APPLICATION is made then the US can use any reason established by American law to either grant or deny the REQUEST contained in the APPLICATION. I have no issue with the second and the first is simply a fact.

What many people who are "concerned about the hordes of people flooding into the country" want to do is to REFUSE to allow those people to MAKE APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status and that, since it would be contrary to the laws of the United States of America, is something that I DO have an issue with. If the people who are "concerned about the hordes of people flooding into the country" want to do is to REFUSE to allow those people to MAKE APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status then they should get off their butts and CHANGE the laws of the United States of America and NOT advocate breaching them.



And they can also do so afterwards.



Once they have made application for refugee/asylee status, they are no longer "in the country illegally", rather they are "in the country pending a determination of their legal right to remain". Someone who has crossed the US border, then makes their way to a US Immigration office and files an application for refugee/asylee status is NOT "in the country illegally".

I have no difficulty in differentiating those people from people who have crossed the US border and then do not make their way to a US Immigration office where they file an application for refugee/asylee status (especially those who have no intention of doing so).

I also have no difficulty in concluding that any actions by ICE or any other portion of the Immigration and Naturalization Service which is specifically intended to deny someone who has entered the United States of America their right (under American law) to make an APPLICATION for refugee/asylee status is, in and of itself, a violation of American law.

PS - The fact that an application for refugee/asylee status is doomed to fail because the applicant has zero chance of establishing the basis for their claim and/or is unacceptable, under American law, for admission to the United States of America is irrelevant to the fact that such a person DOES HAVE the right, under American law, to make such an application and that they also have the right to have that application heard and adjudicated under American law. To complain about the cost is about as rational as complaining about the cost of a police department based on the fact that you haven't been murdered during a home invasion.
Click to expand...

You provide a single example, which I acknowledge could be. Yes, they can appeal, but once they are caught, their options are more limited but not totally so. It is you who are again making assumptions that these folks just didn't get around to applying for refugee status, but this is supposed to be done at the port of entry, not right before they are swept up by immigration authorities, missed out on their hearing and had a deportation order issued.

If Mexicans are seeking to escape Mexico, then showing up at the border to the US is relevant, those who are seeking refugee status from further south can seek that in Mexico. If they overstay a visa, I think we can agree that they are in a different category to this topic.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I always refer to president scumbag as 5 deferment cadet fake bone spurs. Nothing special for you. I see you are unable to defend your absurd post.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sinking to your level is unproductive....
 
j-mac said:
Sinking to your level is unproductive....
Click to expand...

Still unable to defend that absurd post. Using my denigration of president scumbag as an excuse. Figures.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You provide a single example, which I acknowledge could be.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that I spend hours researching responses to posts when single example can show that the basis for the post I'm responding to is flawed?

AliHajiSheik said:
Yes, they can appeal, but once they are caught, their options are more limited but not totally so.
Click to expand...

Indeed, their options on appealing are limited to applying to have the ex parte order set aside and their position returned to that which it was prior to the ex parte order being made. It's also true that the setting aside of the ex parte removal order does NOT grant their original request.

So what?

AliHajiSheik said:
It is you who are again making assumptions that these folks just didn't get around to applying for refugee status, but this is supposed to be done at the port of entry, not right before they are swept up by immigration authorities, missed out on their hearing and had a deportation order issued.
Click to expand...

The "assumption" is NOT that they didn't get around to applying but rather that they ended up subject to an ex parte removal order because they did not receive proper notice. Those who DID receive proper notice have a failure rate on applications to have their ex parte removal order set aside that runs so close to 100% that it isn't funny (absent situations where they can establish that it was not possible for them to attend the scheduled hearing)

You might want to take note of the fact that the laws of the United States of America are NOT as you believe them to be. In fact


If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.
[SOURCE]
​

Well, at least that is the law of the United States of America if you can believe the bunch of whackos who run that left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commie, website, it is.

AliHajiSheik said:
If Mexicans are seeking to escape Mexico, then showing up at the border to the US is relevant, those who are seeking refugee status from further south can seek that in Mexico.
Click to expand...

Indeed they CAN, but they are NOT required to do so. There is nothing in the laws of the United States of America which says "If someone had a chance to apply for asylum in some other country, they are NOT allowed to apply for asylum in the United States of America.".

What the laws of the United States of America DO say is that "If someone reaches the United States of America, then they ARE allowed to apply for asylum in the United States of America." and "All applications for asylum in the United States of America shall be considered and granted/rejected according to the laws of the United States of America."

If you want to make it a "disqualifier" for gaining asylum in the United States of America that the person had applied for asylum in some other country (even if that application HAD been rejected) or if they COULD have applied for asylum to some other country (even if that application would have been rejected), then the simply (and legally correct) way of proceeding would be to change the laws of the United States of America.

Until that happens, then the simple (and legally correct) way of proceeding would be to follow the actual laws of the United States of America.

AliHajiSheik said:
If they overstay a visa, I think we can agree that they are in a different category to this topic.
Click to expand...

With the caveat on the "within one year of your arrival" (which I'd be willing to interpret as "within 30 days of the expiry of your visa or your arrival, whichever comes last"), indeed we are in agreement on that point.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Do you really think that I spend hours researching responses to posts when single example can show that the basis for the post I'm responding to is flawed?



Indeed, their options on appealing are limited to applying to have the ex parte order set aside and their position returned to that which it was prior to the ex parte order being made. It's also true that the setting aside of the ex parte removal order does NOT grant their original request.

So what?



The "assumption" is NOT that they didn't get around to applying but rather that they ended up subject to an ex parte removal order because they did not receive proper notice. Those who DID receive proper notice have a failure rate on applications to have their ex parte removal order set aside that runs so close to 100% that it isn't funny (absent situations where they can establish that it was not possible for them to attend the scheduled hearing)

You might want to take note of the fact that the laws of the United States of America are NOT as you believe them to be. In fact


If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.
[SOURCE]
​

Well, at least that is the law of the United States of America if you can believe the bunch of whackos who run that left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commie, website, it is.



Indeed they CAN, but they are NOT required to do so. There is nothing in the laws of the United States of America which says "If someone had a chance to apply for asylum in some other country, they are NOT allowed to apply for asylum in the United States of America.".

What the laws of the United States of America DO say is that "If someone reaches the United States of America, then they ARE allowed to apply for asylum in the United States of America." and "All applications for asylum in the United States of America shall be considered and granted/rejected according to the laws of the United States of America."

If you want to make it a "disqualifier" for gaining asylum in the United States of America that the person had applied for asylum in some other country (even if that application HAD been rejected) or if they COULD have applied for asylum to some other country (even if that application would have been rejected), then the simply (and legally correct) way of proceeding would be to change the laws of the United States of America.

Until that happens, then the simple (and legally correct) way of proceeding would be to follow the actual laws of the United States of America.



With the caveat on the "within one year of your arrival" (which I'd be willing to interpret as "within 30 days of the expiry of your visa or your arrival, whichever comes last"), indeed we are in agreement on that point.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people are able to provide a link or reference where they provide some kind of data about how many people are in the group they are describing, you did a google search and found a single example.

There is nothing in the laws of the United States that they can't keep people front reaching the border, so lets spend less time on what the law doesn't say.

I'll just say that those who are here illegally, and receive a deportation order, for whatever circumstance, make their appeal from custody.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Sometimes people are able to provide a link or reference where they provide some kind of data about how many people are in the group they are describing, you did a google search and found a single example.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is rather difficult to come up with data when the government doesn't keep/report it.

However, the Department of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Report (February 26, 2019 ) does make for interesting reading - especially the charts which show the actual extent of "The Problem".

AliHajiSheik said:
There is nothing in the laws of the United States that they can't keep people front reaching the border, so lets spend less time on what the law doesn't say.
Click to expand...

Indeed there isn't. In fact there is absolutely nothing in the laws of the United States of America that says that the US government can't simply machine gun anyone who approaches within 100 yards of the US/Mexican border and there is also nothing in the laws of the United States of America that says that it is a culpable act for a person in the United States of America to fire a bullet that crosses over the US/Mexican border after which (since the results of crossing over that border do not happen in the United States of America) the laws of the United States of America have no interest.

AliHajiSheik said:
I'll just say that those who are here illegally, and receive a deportation order, for whatever circumstance, make their appeal from custody.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that in the least. And if they win their appeal (against the ex parte removal order [which has nothing whatsoever to do with their ACTUAL claim]), then they are entitled to be released from custody PENDING DETERMINATION of whether they are actually in the United States of America "legally" or not.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I agree that it is rather difficult to come up with data when the government doesn't keep/report it.

However, the Department of Homeland Security Border Security Metrics Report (February 26, 2019 ) does make for interesting reading - especially the charts which show the actual extent of "The Problem".



Indeed there isn't. In fact there is absolutely nothing in the laws of the United States of America that says that the US government can't simply machine gun anyone who approaches within 100 yards of the US/Mexican border and there is also nothing in the laws of the United States of America that says that it is a culpable act for a person in the United States of America to fire a bullet that crosses over the US/Mexican border after which (since the results of crossing over that border do not happen in the United States of America) the laws of the United States of America have no interest.



I don't dispute that in the least. And if they win their appeal (against the ex parte removal order [which has nothing whatsoever to do with their ACTUAL claim]), then they are entitled to be released from custody PENDING DETERMINATION of whether they are actually in the United States of America "legally" or not.
Click to expand...

As I indicated: "so lets spend less time on what the law doesn't say."

It is your opinion in the last statement, there is nothing I could find that says that they are entitled to be released from custody should then win an appeal, they presumably could also be remanded to detention.

Of course, all these appeals might back up the system a little, so folks really shouldn't complain that the line is moving slowly. Perhaps the lines in Mexico are shorter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom