April 1Apr 1 5 minutes ago, BBE said: I would have to read more into the law to be able to answer that. Tom Hanks did make a movie about that. I remember that one. He had to survive on free condiments at first, and they tried to goad him into sneaking into the country so they could arrest him/no longer deal with him but he was too much of a rule follower. Good flick considering the premise was kinda boring.
April 1Apr 1 53 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: There isn't any reason for anyone to keep discussing this one with you. Bill is right. You are just being obtuse or simply disingenuous. You keep trying to argue that visas are an inalienable right backed by the constitution. They aren't. You're wrong.
April 1Apr 1 2 minutes ago, Gannan said: You keep trying to argue that visas are an inalienable right backed by the constitution. They aren't. You're wrong. I've never said that
April 1Apr 1 1 minute ago, Gannan said: You keep trying to argue the visas are an inalienable right backed by the constitution. They aren't. You're wrong. Due process is the inalienable right, you dolt. If you can’t understand how it’s applicable here, no one here can help you. Due process is a super basic legal concept, so if you can’t understand that you’re just not going to get it.
April 1Apr 1 36 minutes ago, GreenReaper said: Can this be overlooked like when the government just willy nilly letting anyone come into this country for the last 4 years? I tried to make that point earlier, is was pretty much ignored. This is a legitimate argument to be made that the legality of migrants seeking asylum is in question. The idea that if a billion people showed up with a smart phone and the asylum app, we'd have to let them in is absurd. The SC court is probably going ot have to settle it.
April 1Apr 1 Just now, Bill said: Due process is the inalienable right, you dolt. If you can’t understand how it’s applicable here, no one here can help you. Due process is a super basic legal concept, so if you can’t understand that you’re just not going to get it. No...it isn't. It was pointed out time and time again that you do not have an inalienable right to due process in the matter of your visa being revoked. It was in print a few pages back, and you keep ignoring it. The idea that once a visa is issued it can only be revoked by a court is just flat out wrong.
April 1Apr 1 4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I've never said that You keep saying "due process" It doesn't apply to visas. Vikas posted why it doesn't. You then ****ed about it being behind a pay wall, he copied and pasted it for and you all pretty much ignored him and kept rheeeeeing.
April 1Apr 1 1 minute ago, Gannan said: No...it isn't. It was pointed out time and time again that you do not have an inalienable right to due process in the matter of your visa being revoked. It was in print a few pages back, and you keep ignoring it. The idea that once a visa is issued it can only be revoked by a court is just flat out wrong. You're missing a big point here. These people are not just being deported back to their country of origin, they are being deported to JAIL. That is the problem. Jail and no due process.
April 1Apr 1 1 minute ago, Gannan said: No...it isn't. It was pointed out time and time again that you do not have an inalienable right to due process in the matter of your visa being revoked. It was in print a few pages back, and you keep ignoring it. The idea that once a visa is issued it can only be revoked by a court is just flat out wrong. The authority to issue and revoked visa lies with the Secretary of State.
April 1Apr 1 Just now, barho said: You're missing a big point here. These people are not just being deported back to their country of origin, they are being deported to JAIL. That is the problem. Jail and no due process. The streams have been crossed majorly here.
April 1Apr 1 Let me repost it. Maybe if you guys read it really, really slow it will sink in... Quote The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment applies to noncitizens in the United States when it comes to criminal and civil penalties. But those protections don’t necessarily apply to deportations, the court has found. The federal government has nearly absolute power over immigration, including its ability to deport noncitizens; it gets to decide who comes and then stays in this country, potentially at the expense of constitutional rights. Read the bolded parts out loud several times, and maybe you will get it.
April 1Apr 1 2 minutes ago, BBE said: The authority to issue and revoked visa lies with the Secretary of State. And I think Rubio is being reasonable in what he said.
April 1Apr 1 4 minutes ago, barho said: You're missing a big point here. These people are not just being deported back to their country of origin, they are being deported to JAIL. That is the problem. Jail and no due process. I've already said that's wrong, and they shouldn't do that...several times. Philly and Bill and Co want to argue that visas can't be revoked by Rubio. They absolutely can.
April 1Apr 1 1 minute ago, Gannan said: You keep saying "due process" It doesn't apply to visas. Vikas posted why it doesn't. You then ****ed about it being behind a pay wall, he copied and pasted it for and you all pretty much ignored him and kept rheeeeeing. I specifically replied to Vikas post and said that I put my hand in the air as I had failed to separate the two points of a visa being revoked and a person being deportation. The deportation part is 100% covered by due process rights. The visa being revoked is not.
April 1Apr 1 Just now, Gannan said: And I think Rubio is being reasonable in what he said. In this case, yes. Where things move into a gray area is the revoking of visas of students still in the US. If a crime is committed an individual could be detained prior to removal hearings. If no crime was committed then the law can be interpreted to not permit detention. The federal judges are treading into new territory which may not be permissible given case law.
April 1Apr 1 10 minutes ago, Gannan said: Let me repost it. Maybe if you guys read it really, really slow it will sink in... Read the bolded parts out loud several times, and maybe you will get it. Or maybe you could read the rest of the article. It really wasn't that long Quote Immigrants do have due process rights, and Khalil’s case is currently going through the courts. But the administration has tried to bypass even those protections in other cases. It cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants without any kind of hearing in court. It claimed, but did not prove, that these migrants were members of criminal gangs supported by the Venezuelan government. Like many here have pointed out immigrants absolutely have the right to due process. Dingus is just trying to work around it. It will be a court case and I imagine any reasonably fair court would tell him to get bent, but we'll see. Regardless acting like them circumventing the court in these deportation processes is legally completely in the clear because the Fed can revoke visas is silly. At best these loopholes are unsettled.
April 1Apr 1 3 minutes ago, Gannan said: I've already said that's wrong, and they shouldn't do that...several times. Philly and Bill and Co want to argue that visas can't be revoked by Rubio. They absolutely can. The entire argument from the beginning was about deportation AND visas being revoked, the package. All the articles I read included both of those. Once Vikas posted the NYT article I backed off on the part about a visa being revoked as that isn't specifically by due process. However, the deportation due process requirement part stands and that includes the people who protest the actions of Israel much as I disagree with them.
April 1Apr 1 6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I specifically replied to Vikas post and said that I put my hand in the air as I had failed to separate the two points of a visa being revoked and a person being deportation. The deportation part is 100% covered by due process rights. The visa being revoked is not. So you're argument is that should their visa get revoked, they should be allowed to stay here? That's what you're going with?
April 1Apr 1 3 minutes ago, BBE said: In this case, yes. Where things move into a gray area is the revoking of visas of students still in the US. If a crime is committed an individual could be detained prior to removal hearings. If no crime was committed then the law can be interpreted to not permit detention. The federal judges are treading into new territory which may not be permissible given case law. Exactly, detention is the 3rd aspect here. First, revoking a visa. Second, detaining someone. Third, deporting someone. #3 is very clear and due process is a right even for undocumented citizens. #2 is unclear. #1 is very clear and the power is held by the State Dept. In all of the cases we've been citing, Rubio has been discussing all three of these items. He's been right about #1 and wrong about #3 with #2 being unclear. Would you agree with that?
April 1Apr 1 9 minutes ago, Gannan said: No...it isn't. It was pointed out time and time again that you do not have an inalienable right to due process in the matter of your visa being revoked. It was in print a few pages back, and you keep ignoring it. The idea that once a visa is issued it can only be revoked by a court is just flat out wrong. Was it before or after the part in the article where it was written about immigrants having due process rights?
April 1Apr 1 Trump has dubbed April 2 ‘Liberation Day’ for his tariffs. Here’s what to expect What will happen on April 2? Details around Trump’s plans remain uncertain. Reciprocal tariffs could take the form of product-by-product duties, for example, or broader "averages” imposed across all goods from each country — or perhaps something else entirely. The rates could reflect what other countries charge as well as their value added taxes and subsidies to domestic companies. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told "Fox News Sunday” that the tariffs could raise $600 billion annually, which would imply an average rate of 20%. Trump has talked about taxing the European Union, South Korea, Brazil and India, among other countries, through these levies. On Monday, Leavitt said Trump had been presented with several proposals by his advisers. She added that the president would make a final decision, but right now was not contemplating any country-wide exemptions from the tariffs. Previously-delayed import taxes could take effect very soon. Trump’s month-long delay for many goods from Canada and Mexico, for example, is set to elapse in early April. Earlier this month, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the extension granted for Mexican imports covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement runs through April 2. But further confirmation around a specific date has not been issued since. https://apnews.com/article/trump-reciprocal-tariffs-liberation-day-april-2-86639b7b6358af65e2cbad31f8c8ae2b Which of Trump’s tariffs are about to start? Trump has said he will place a 25% tariff on all imports from any country that buys oil or gas from Venezuela, which includes the U.S. itself, starting Wednesday — in addition to imposing new tariffs on the South American country. His 25% tariffs on auto imports will start being collected Thursday, with taxes on fully-imported cars kicking off at midnight. The tariffs are set to expand to applicable auto parts in the following weeks, through May 3. The White House says it expects to raise $100 billion in revenue annually from these new duties, but economists stress this trade action will upend the auto industry’s global supply chain and lead to higher prices for consumers.
April 1Apr 1 7 minutes ago, BBE said: In this case, yes. Where things move into a gray area is the revoking of visas of students still in the US. If a crime is committed an individual could be detained prior to removal hearings. If no crime was committed then the law can be interpreted to not permit detention. The federal judges are treading into new territory which may not be permissible given case law. The simple answer is that this is going to have to end up at SCOTUS. Revoking the visa of a student based solely on things they say/write shouldn't be allowed, IMO. But current law does allow it, mainly do to actions taken in the 1950s red scare. My personal belief is that SCOTUS should adjust the law to provide for some kind of hearing in front of an immigration judge. The 5th amendment, which would apply to people with visas, states that one can't "be deprived of life, liberty, or property , without due process of law...." Well, the question is does the revocation of a visa qualify as being deprived of life, liberty or property? In the case of the doctor, it seems clear the administration ignored a court order, and there should be repercussions for that. They don't get to ignore court orders.
April 1Apr 1 10 minutes ago, BBE said: In this case, yes. Where things move into a gray area is the revoking of visas of students still in the US. If a crime is committed an individual could be detained prior to removal hearings. If no crime was committed then the law can be interpreted to not permit detention. The federal judges are treading into new territory which may not be permissible given case law. So if Rubio rescinds the visa of a student here, they would have to voluntarily leave. If they don't, then they would be here illegally and I guess could be detained at that point. But they couldn't be detained until after (i) they were notified of the revocation and (ii) did not leave willingly. How long do they have to leave? No clue.
April 1Apr 1 6 minutes ago, Bill said: Was it before or after the part in the article where it was written about immigrants having due process rights? For criminal charges. The fun part about arguing with you is that you just skip over the parts that don't fit your narrative.
Create an account or sign in to comment