Posted on 06/26/2018 3:27:43 PM PDT by Lazamataz
Philip Rucker and Dave Weigel, two of the Washington Post’s most incorrigibly biased anti-Trumpers, lead off their latest editorial thinly disguised as a news report this way:
President Trump on Sunday explicitly advocated for depriving undocumented immigrants of their due-process rights, arguing that people who cross the border into the United States illegally are invaders and must immediately be deported without trial or an appearance before a judge.
Trump’s attack on the judicial system sowed more confusion. . . .
Rucker and Weigel are among the confused. Either that or they are hiding the ball.
8 U.S.C. §1182(f) of the U.S. Code confers on the president the power to turn away immigrants at the border. It provides:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Rucker and Weigel do not mention this presidential power. But its existence undermines their suggestion that Trump would be denying “due-process rights” if he decided to deny entry to immigrants without granting them a trial or an appearance before a judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Bush and Obama let them in. Trump can say NO.
They would have due process if they came through a port of entry... we’d have a record of their entry to prove they they are not invaders and can get them a court date if they seek asylum.
When you don’t come through the door where the Welcome Mat’s been placed, but come through the a window instead, or brok a lock to get in, you are an invader, not an asylum seeker.
And the main job of a president is to stop invasions.
Goldman Sachs and the Wall Street gang will have a hissie-fit.
WS & GS are the 800 pound globalist gorilla in the room most want to ignore.
Muh, muh, muh ‘K.
Muh, muh, muh ‘folio.
Muh, muh, muh ‘tirement.
Muh, muh, muh ‘vestments.
How about 'fhayek' robbed the liquor store. He was only seeking a better life for his family.
Weird.
The fact that we’re asking this question is just insane, but we live in insane times.
Supreme Court says POTUS can have any sort of travel ban, including the La Raza scum
Send them all back to Mexico and tell them that they had to apply their first before applying here. Kick every last stinking one of them and then seal the border with the Marines and tell the world that Woodrow Wilson stopped immigration and now like that democrap, he will too until the wall is built.
Pretty safe bet he should try it.
Makes a lot of sense, actually...
No court appearance.
No detention beyond waiting for the bus.
Limited ‘support’ required; maybe some food and a quick medical assessment.
Apply it to ALL persons, regardless of age, who attempt to enter the US at any place other than an approved entry point.
Hell, it’s worth a try...
You should do some research on "expedited removal." It does not apply to first time offenders (not easy to determine in the field) and only if within 14 days of crossing.
Folks, don't get upset with me for pointing out the facts. Build the wall and then go back to zero tolerance.
“Once on US soil, they have due process and equal protection.”
They gain rights just by virtue of committing a crime?
That’s insane.
No, I reject that categorically. You gain those rights by dint of citizenship, not mere presence.
The only right they should have is the right to try and outrun the bullets fired at them by border guards.
“Because the courts have long said so.”
Would those be the same courts that legalized the murder of the preborn?
The 14th amendment. Misinterpreted
by the left.
He can if he can get the support of the states involved. But getting California alone, to cooperate and not find ways to either use questionable states rights as give their people the order to ignore the law or presidential executive order, or congressional law, (doubt this one), or turn their head the other way with innovative ways to lie to the citizens, is going to be close to impossible.
California already ignores the enforcement of federal laws and is claiming Sanctuary cities. The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term “sanctuary city” is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.
To me this creates an act of accessory after the fact by the officials that will not tell federal officials where these lawbreakers are. But it appears the feds are not going to make an example of one to let the liars know they can get into deep $hit this way.
So the only way I see to fight back on this is to prosecute by forcing an oath on people being questioned and cutting off federal funds for the states’ lack of support of the law.
Last Year, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the Obama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.
The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a “sanctuary city,” and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds. Working for the feds as a Chicago official, and being asked as a private citizen for information concerning a lawbreaker, are two different things.
rwood
I believe that in the instance of those seeking asylum from Cuba, a person may illegally enter not at a port of entry and yet be considered for asylum.
I think Cuba is a special case under the law and highlights the difference from the Southern border.
I’ll go with whatever our REAL president decides, but personally, I’d like the entire Southern border turned into a military base (Fort Wetback), one mile wide and 3,000 miles long. Then, bomb the crap out of the Drug Cartels. When the morons running mexico complain, tell them to shut up.
Yes, I don’t like salads, so I don’t need lettuce. ;>)
Declare invasion. Deploy Army, with live ammo.
Just stop every truck crossing into the USA carrying produce from Mexican farmers and tell them they have to be searched top-to-bottom for terrorists trying to sneak into the country...now it might take a few weeks/months to search them, so just park them on the side there until we have time...and if the apples, oranges, mangoes, go bad well that’s life...but if Mexico would help us control the border, maybe we’ll have time to search them quicker.
Yes. Build the wall, enforce the law, deport them all!
Due process, in this case, is being deported by a duly enacted border enforcement agency.
The law already proscribes such behavior. For any president, the Chief Law Enforcement Executive in the land, to not so enforce would be a dereliction of his duty and a violation of his Oath of Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.