According to the donkeys at MSNBC, we are now running concentration camps.

El OchoCinco said:
the decision is that the U.S. can VOLUNTARILY keep them detained......after serving time for crimes.... you created a different response. You can kick them out if they committed a crime and served prison time but seems they are to be held indefinitely.. how is this a victory?
More...

Because Kavanaugh is how
 
elderado said:
pj0tr68jk2n21.jpg
More...
Why aren't liberals standing up and fighting for the liberals that bribed college admission officers? After all, these people just allegedly broke the law so that their children can have a better life. Liberals make the argument all the time that an illegal immigrant paying a coyote to help them illegally cross the border so that their children have a better life shouldn't be illegal.
 
Last edited:
El OchoCinco said:
the decision is that the U.S. can VOLUNTARILY keep them detained......after serving time for crimes.... you created a different response. You can kick them out if they committed a crime and served prison time but seems they are to be held indefinitely.. how is this a victory?
More...

Okay, if your comments were just related to the recent court decision a week ago or so, then I will direct my reply to that.

You were asking why the U.S. was voluntarily detaining them rather than just kicking them out.

But my reply to that builds upon the same point I made in the other reply....ie. the government does not have the authority to just boot them out. Illegals coming out of prison or jail or having committed crimes are still entitled to deportation hearing. The law may say that the government can legally deport criminals so the government is in a good position but it does not allow the government to bypass a hearing requested by the defendant/deportee and the government often wants a hearing too to establish a record for the defendant because it is a crime to re-enter after the first offense, etc.

The issue in the recent case was around whether the illegal was entitled to a bond hearing to determine whether he might be eligible for release on bond rather than being in detention while awaiting the deportation. The Court ruled that the government could detain without a bond hearing (based on interpretation of the statute) but they did not rule that the government could just boot the illegal out without a hearing on the underlying deportation issue. So the government wanted the illegal detained because he/she might skip if a judge allowed a bond hearing (which the 9th circus said he was entitled to but lost on appeal).

Like that. I guess.

Of course there are a lot of criminals who are booted out/escorted out immediately because the illegal waives his rights, does not request a hearing, and wants to get the hell out and go back home, wherever that is. But that is a different fact scenario.
 
OK but you could have saved me some time and just said:

"The Court ruled that the government could detain without a bond hearing (based on interpretation of the statute) but they did not rule that the government could just boot the illegal out without a hearing on the underlying deportation issue"

:):)
 
Here4money said:
So much for due process and speedy trials, and tourism.

The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, left open the possibility that some immigrants could challenge their detention. These immigrants potentially could argue that the use of the 1996 federal law involved in the case, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, against them long after finishing their sentences would violate their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Most of the plaintiffs in the case are legal immigrants.

The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers in the case argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime.
More...
This could all be solved if when caught we turned them around 180 degrees, give'em a bottle of water and say, enjoy your walk back.
 
exGOPer said:
We need to be very, very clear on this. Dictionary.com defines a concentration camp as so:

"Concentration camp. Noun.

A guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens,
members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc., especially any
of the camps established by the Nazis prior to and during World War II
for the confinement and persecution of prisoners."

Notice that. It's not a place where people are murdered on an
industrial scale; that's an "extermination camp". That's Auschwitz, etc.
There were only, like, six extermination camps in Nazi Germany. There
were *HUNDREDS* of concentration camps, perhaps thousands.

A concentration camp is a guarded compound built by the State to shove minorities into.

That's what we're building. Not "tent cities". Not "immigration facilities".

Concentration camps. For children.
More...
obama-cages.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top