Moderator: Community Team
Symmetry wrote:Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.
Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.
I don't understand the question. Are you talking about an illegal immigrant? Are you speaking of a particular case?
Symmetry wrote:Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.
I don't understand the question. Are you talking about an illegal immigrant? Are you speaking of a particular case?
More of a hypothetical. Could an immigrant be presumed illegal under the law without due process, which assumes innocence.
Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.
I don't understand the question. Are you talking about an illegal immigrant? Are you speaking of a particular case?
More of a hypothetical. Could an immigrant be presumed illegal under the law without due process, which assumes innocence.
I think in some cases, it's possible to do so. However, if there is any question at all, then there should be some sort of due process. I'm not sure a trial is specifically necessary, but something certainly.
Nobunaga wrote:... Interesting.
... Could a person be declared "under the influence", intoxicated without due process?
... Of course there is a process - a breathalyzer / blood test.
... What's the process on suspected illegals?
...
jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.
Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.
You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.
Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.
If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.
Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.
You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.
Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.
If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to do most things in the USA without having much documentation of any kind at all? Go to school, get a job, rent an apartment, buy a car, etc. Isn't it the case that there's no requirement in the USA to have any ID of any kind? We've already learned that birth certificates are sketchy at best and even they can get lost or never get issued in the first place.
As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.
If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?
MeDeFe wrote:jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.
Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.
You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.
Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.
If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible to do most things in the USA without having much documentation of any kind at all? Go to school, get a job, rent an apartment, buy a car, etc. Isn't it the case that there's no requirement in the USA to have any ID of any kind? We've already learned that birth certificates are sketchy at best and even they can get lost or never get issued in the first place.
As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.
If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?
One study published last year looking at cases in which deported Americans have later been able to prove they're US
citizens contends that about 1 percent of those detained and deported in any given year are, in fact, Americans. That's about 20,000 people since 2003, it concludes.
72o wrote:MeDeFe wrote:As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.
If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?
It is also possible to drive a car without a license or insurance. That does not make it acceptable. Anyone giving birth to a child in this country should take the necessary steps to get documentation for their child. If the weirdos who want to live "off the grid" don't want documentation for their child, so be it. Let their child get deported.
Woodruff wrote:72o wrote:MeDeFe wrote:As I understand things, it's possible to be born in the USA, to parents who're both US citizens, and have absolutely no documentation to prove this.
If I'm correct about this, wouldn't that mean that "lack of documentation" being the criterion for determining whether someone is a so-called "illegal immigrant" could make actual US citizens appear to be illegal immigrants?
It is also possible to drive a car without a license or insurance. That does not make it acceptable. Anyone giving birth to a child in this country should take the necessary steps to get documentation for their child. If the weirdos who want to live "off the grid" don't want documentation for their child, so be it. Let their child get deported.
Where exactly do you recommend they be deported TO?
John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!
jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.
Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.
You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.
Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.
If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.
Symmetry wrote:Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:Kind of a test of how far you believe in due process this one.
I don't understand the question. Are you talking about an illegal immigrant? Are you speaking of a particular case?
More of a hypothetical. Could an immigrant be presumed illegal under the law without due process, which assumes innocence?
jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.
Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.
You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.
Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.
If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.
PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.
Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.
You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.
Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.
If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.
It REALLY depends upon the circumstances. In particular, that bit about documentation is a very, very touchy subject. See, most of us are not required to walk around with ANY documentation, so the assumption that not having it means you are here illegally basically comes down to "if you look like you or sound like you are not born here, you had better have documentation" That is very much the crux of the problem with recent Arizona laws.
In the border patrol cases, the reason it is justified is that the people are "caught in the act". If they are caught outside of the border, different rules apply, just like police are allowed to act in one manner if they come upon someone actually in the process of stealing TVs from a store or robbing a bank, versus finding someone who they believe to have done so, after the event. (and then, if they run, avoid the police.. that is yet another element).
Symmetry wrote: Innocent until proven illegal and all that.
fadedpsychosis wrote:hell, deport me to denmark... nicest place I've ever been, even if a tad expensive
jimboston wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:jimboston wrote:In a criminal case, obviously you are innocent until proven guilty.
Being an "illegal alien" is not the same as committing a criminal act.
You are either a legal alien (legal resident) or you aren't... there's really no "gray area" here.
Should the law have to "prove" someone is illegal aline before deporting them... yes to an extent.
The prove is the lack of documentation... so onus fails on the individual.
If border patrol catches someone crossing a border... not through a normal check-point or crossing... then they should simply turn them back. There's no reason for due process in a case like this. It's not the same as a criminal act, even though we use similar terms. Equating the two is illogical.
It REALLY depends upon the circumstances. In particular, that bit about documentation is a very, very touchy subject. See, most of us are not required to walk around with ANY documentation, so the assumption that not having it means you are here illegally basically comes down to "if you look like you or sound like you are not born here, you had better have documentation" That is very much the crux of the problem with recent Arizona laws.
In the border patrol cases, the reason it is justified is that the people are "caught in the act". If they are caught outside of the border, different rules apply, just like police are allowed to act in one manner if they come upon someone actually in the process of stealing TVs from a store or robbing a bank, versus finding someone who they believe to have done so, after the event. (and then, if they run, avoid the police.. that is yet another element).
No. It's very easy for authorities to verify that we are who we say we are. There's no reason to randomly stop people. .
Funkyterrance wrote:fadedpsychosis wrote:hell, deport me to denmark... nicest place I've ever been, even if a tad expensive
Was it the castles or the prostitutes that sold you?
jimboston wrote:
So... what is "due process" to determine if a person is legally in this country?
... simple, you ask for documentation. If said person can't produce it after a reasonable amount of time then they are illegal.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users