Immigrant Pleas Crushing Federal Appellate Courts

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 2, 2005 | Solomon Moore and Ann M. Simmons

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Precisely! I wonder how many of these posters clamoring to deny due process to alleged illegals, would happily submit to the same treatment were they caught up in a dragnet by accident?"

You say allegedly illegal? I don't know of anyone out for 'alleged illegals'. I do, however, have a problem with our out-of-control border problem. What is your solution to this insane situation at the border? And what kind of furture president do you want to handle it?

[Kretek]

Very simply, if you want to deny due process rights to someone because they're an illegal immigrant, there would be no protection for you when some hostile government functionary decides to declare you an illegal immigrant and therefore deny you due process.

Any person is an alleged illegal immigrant until they have been proven as such beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Due process applies to citizens of the United States. There is no due process right for illegal aliens. I already agreed that we need to improve the vetting process for legal applicants. I even suggested expediting the vetting process. I also want fingerprints and DNA samples of all immigrants. But what is your solution to guarding our border from drug runners and Islamo-facists?

[Kretek]

Due process applies to citizens of the United States. There is no due process right for illegal aliens.

No, read the relevant Amendments. The Constituition clearly reads, "persons" and not "citizens" when discussing due process.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Check out this post up above:

"No, read the relevant Amendments. The Constituition clearly reads, "persons" and not "citizens" when discussing due process."

My response to kretek: I'm not concerned with 'due process' for illegal aliens. As things stand, they have superior citizenship, in some cases, literally getting away with murder. They have no constitutional rights, period. In fact, they could be shot on sight, for all the Constitution cares, for invading the United States. I'm not condoning that extreme measure. But you are acting as their defense lawyer. And I hope Boot Hill adds you to his list.