The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Cygnus]

The very power to detain and deport someone shows that there is jurisdiction over them.

Damn you and your logic Spock!


And to keep the thread theme going, I think the question is interesting as far as his ability ot do so. I have always heard that it's never been tested in court. Is this the case INGO folks who know?

 

[Denny347]

I know, right? Still probably not as bad as taking an oath to uphold the law, then having lawbreakers over for dinner.

Officer discretion. Especially regarding a law I have no legal authority to enforce. No one here has ever complained about officer discretion when finding a "law abiding citizen" who might be carrying a handgun without a license, or carrying one onto school property but meant no harm and the officer decided to NOT arrest them.

 

[Dead Duck]

So who do I talk to about adding some modifications to the border wall?

 

[jamil]

Anybody that ever believed this EO would be signed and go into effect without a slew of billable hours being generated is delusional.

I believe the time has come to rescind this practice and it appears there is constitutional argument(s) that can be made to do so. After watching Trump for over a year now, I also know this is likely just part of the art of negotiation. This may well be him nudging the republicans into action. It wouldn't surprise me if it was.

What we've learned about EO's over the last couple of years is that both sides have a pen and a phone. Dems worshiped Obama for his pen and phone, just to have so much of that nonsense get wiped out by Trump's. Trumpers will get the same when the next socialist takes the pen.

 

[Route 45]

Officer discretion. Especially regarding a law I have no legal authority to enforce.

I didn't say anything about you enforcing any laws. I'm well aware that you can't enforce federal law.

You either believe that people should respect the law, or you don't care. Pretty clear which side of the wall you fall on.

 

[mmpsteve]

In the event of an alien in a foreign country, detained by that country, does not their country of origin wield power and influence as to the aliens disposition, extradition, etc...? Status, as it were? If not, how does the country of origin wield ANY power? Seems to me, the US has historically claimed jurisdiction, at some level, on it's citizens, even when said citizen is detained on foreign soil, if only for extradition 'privalege' (jurisdiction?). Is this now meaningless, due to the 14A?

Simplified: can the US claim jurisdiction over Honduran nationals, merely by their prescence on US soil?

 

[jamil]

I didn't say anything about you enforcing any laws. I'm well aware that you can't enforce federal law.

You either believe that people should respect the law, or you don't care. Pretty clear which side of the wall you fall on.

You know that's not a binary, right? There are some options in between. One can believe that it's not not respecting the law, for example.

 

[Route 45]

You know that's not a binary, right? There are some options in between. One can believe that it's not not respecting the law, for example.

I'd like to hear a coherent argument on how talking about an eagerness to harbor illegal aliens is in any way respectful of our laws.

 

[jamil]

I'd like to hear a coherent argument on how talking about an eagerness to harbor illegal aliens is in any way respectful of our laws.

It's clear that you're speaking of a context I'm unaware of. Which cops are inviting lawbreakers over for dinner?

Not that it matters. That doesn't make it a binary. It looks to me like you're stating it in a way that fabricates a convenient binary for rhetorical purposes.

 

[T.Lex]

Backtracking a bit... what did you think about all of the debate regarding "Indians not taxed"? I thought it interesting that there seemed to be at least some thought that taxation played a significant role in determining whether or not there was jurisdiction.

It raises another question... considering that illegal immigrants often pay taxes, and the IRS accepts those taxes, does that play a role? Or is it trumped by the fact that they aren't supposed to get a SSN?

None of this really changes my mind about the issue overall (it doesn't confirm my previous opinion either), but it is interesting to think about what could play a role in a court decision.

The end of the debate about the Indians seemed to be settled on the idea that since "Indians not taxed" don't count for apportionment, then they couldn't be "subject to jurisdiction" and the amendment wouldn't apply to them. That could be another argument regarding modern illegal immigrants, if they count for apportionment, then the amendment applies to them.

There is also another side question in all of this that I hadn't ever really given any thought to. Reading these debates makes it clear that there were at least some members at the time that felt like the amendment would grant citizenship to anybody that was born here, while others felt like it would be more restrictive than that. How do courts decide which view takes precedence in deciding what they meant when they passed it? It's not clear to me at all.

Yeah, it shows that - even pretty early on - the Indians were viewed as "nations" or "quasi-nations." We joke about the gambling profits and things like that, but at least the effort to treat them as separate was there.

How about the Chinese? Dang, but that's REALLY awkward through today's lens. There's one part where they talk about how the Chinese don't bring over their women, so there aren't many Chinese kids born here. Because of that, they aren't worried about giving the kids citizenship, because there won' be very many of them.

That's not exactly what I'm saying.

I don't believe your average citizen can be deported for committing a crime, while an illegal alien can. I don't know what it is that is on the tip of my tongue to articulate this point but I'm sure T Lex could possibly explain what I'm getting at.

Sorry, mate. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, either.

Plus, the historical definition of "jurisdiction" has some different layers to it. As in the debates above about Indians. At one point, a senator makes a rhetorical point that if one Indian kills another Indian, no one is really going to do anything about that. It would be up to their tribe to enforce whatever laws they wanted against those people. The tribe would have jurisdiction over the individuals and the crime. That is, they would enforce THEIR laws.

That's a fundamentally different approach than what we have now. But, it also, obliquely, gets to Houghs point. If one illegal Guatemalan kills another illegal Guatemalan in the US, we're still going to enforce US murder laws against the perpetrator. Guatemala doesn't have jurisdiction; the US courts do.

There's also a bit of an anachronistic historical issue: state citizenship. During the slavery era, different states - with some constitutional authority - had the right to determine what made someone a "citizen" of their state. But, only the federal government could determine what made a citizen of the US. That was a VERY important distinction that is now irrelevant.

It will be really interesting to see how a conservative court, a SCOTUS basically designed by Trump at this point, would handle this issue.

Heck, another layer of this is that it was the Republican party (basically) that pushed for the 14A.

 

[Route 45]

It's clear that you're speaking of a context I'm unaware of. Which cops are inviting lawbreakers over for dinner?

Not that it matters. That doesn't make it a binary. It looks to me like you're stating it in a way that fabricates a convenient binary for rhetorical purposes.

Really not concerned how it looks to you, considering that by your own admission, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[2A_Tom]

What we've learned about EO's over the last couple of years is that both sides have a pen and a phone. Dems worshiped Obama for his pen and phone, just to have so much of that nonsense get wiped out by Trump's. Trumpers will get the same when the next socialist takes the pen.

I agree completely, the only way to fix this is for us to tell our representatives to get off of their **** ***** and get to work making the President's agenda into law. Get them to take the ability for non elected bureaucrats to make binding regulations with the force of law.

Here in Indiana we have a preemption law for firearms and that needs to constrain IAC as well as municipal entities.

 

[Tombs]

What we've learned about EO's over the last couple of years is that both sides have a pen and a phone. Dems worshiped Obama for his pen and phone, just to have so much of that nonsense get wiped out by Trump's. Trumpers will get the same when the next socialist takes the pen.

Once pandora's box is open, it can't be closed.

Might as well reap what benefits you can while you can, because you're not going to have that power for ever. The torch must be passed, and the next person is going to use that pen and phone and whether you use it or not will not make a difference.

Look at the senate nuclear option, for example. That genie is never going back in the bottle without an amendment.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The very power to detain and deport someone shows that there is jurisdiction over them.

Can't those with diplomatic immunity be deported? Declare them persona non grata and they have 72 hrs to leave the country iirc. What happens if they don't leave within those 72 hrs?

In the event of an alien in a foreign country, detained by that country, does not their country of origin wield power and influence as to the aliens disposition, extradition, etc...? Status, as it were? If not, how does the country of origin wield ANY power? Seems to me, the US has historically claimed jurisdiction, at some level, on it's citizens, even when said citizen is detained on foreign soil, if only for extradition 'privalege' (jurisdiction?). Is this now meaningless, due to the 14A?

Simplified: can the US claim jurisdiction over Honduran nationals, merely by their prescence on US soil?

They can wield power and influence, but not in a sense of having jurisdiction. They can do so in various ways, threatening to cut diplomatic relations, threatening sanctions, are two examples. Trading citizens that are being held is another. Extradition is done by treaties and for crimes that are against the law in the home country. Generally committed in the home country where the person fled to another, but I don't believe that is always necessary.

I'd like to hear a coherent argument on how talking about an eagerness to harbor illegal aliens is in any way respectful of our laws.

I'd like to hear a coherent argument how simply having someone over for dinner is harboring. Generally as you used it means to intend to help evade capture/prosecution/punishment.

 

[KG1]

Pretty sure that R45 isn’t referring to having someone over for dinner in the literal sense.

 

[Sylvain]

Can't those with diplomatic immunity be deported? Declare them persona non grata and they have 72 hrs to leave the country iirc. What happens if they don't leave within those 72 hrs?

If they don't leave within 72 hours they are deported, while keeping their diplomatic immunity.
It happened in the past in the US.

It's been tried. President Bill Clinton took similar action against a Cuban diplomat named Jose Imperatori, who was given a similar deadline to leave, but declined to do so. He charged that he'd been falsely accused of spying and that he intended to fight the charge, giving up his claims to diplomatic immunity. As The Post reported at the time, his bid to stay was unsuccessful.

FBI agents arrived at Imperatori's Bethesda apartment building at 8:40 p.m. Two agents spent five minutes inside his apartment before returning to the basement garage with the diplomat, who wore a blue trench coat, carried no luggage and was not handcuffed. Accompanied by his attorney, former Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke (D), he was driven to Reagan National Airport, where a bureau plane was waiting to fly him to Montreal. He was booked on a Cubana Airlines flight tonight from Montreal to Havana.

 

[rob63]

Yeah, it shows that - even pretty early on - the Indians were viewed as "nations" or "quasi-nations." We joke about the gambling profits and things like that, but at least the effort to treat them as separate was there.

How about the Chinese? Dang, but that's REALLY awkward through today's lens. There's one part where they talk about how the Chinese don't bring over their women, so there aren't many Chinese kids born here. Because of that, they aren't worried about giving the kids citizenship, because there won' be very many of them.

I thought the parts about the Chinese were the most awkward parts of all, even worse than the slavery issues. However, that may just be because I'm more used to reading that type of language since I have a long interest in the Civil War.

Sorry, mate. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, either.

Plus, the historical definition of "jurisdiction" has some different layers to it. As in the debates above about Indians. At one point, a senator makes a rhetorical point that if one Indian kills another Indian, no one is really going to do anything about that. It would be up to their tribe to enforce whatever laws they wanted against those people. The tribe would have jurisdiction over the individuals and the crime. That is, they would enforce THEIR laws.

That's a fundamentally different approach than what we have now. But, it also, obliquely, gets to Houghs point. If one illegal Guatemalan kills another illegal Guatemalan in the US, we're still going to enforce US murder laws against the perpetrator. Guatemala doesn't have jurisdiction; the US courts do.

There's also a bit of an anachronistic historical issue: state citizenship. During the slavery era, different states - with some constitutional authority - had the right to determine what made someone a "citizen" of their state. But, only the federal government could determine what made a citizen of the US. That was a VERY important distinction that is now irrelevant.

It will be really interesting to see how a conservative court, a SCOTUS basically designed by Trump at this point, would handle this issue.

Heck, another layer of this is that it was the Republican party (basically) that pushed for the 14A.

Something I was thinking about overnight in regard to all of this, particularly in regards to interpreting the original intent of the amendment. There literally were no US immigration laws at the time it was written. There may have been state laws, but the first US immigration law was not passed until 1875. Thus, the very concept of an illegal immigrant didn't exist in US law at the time. How do you determine what the original intent of the amendment was in regards to an illegal immigrant when there literally was no such thing at the time when it was written?

That leads me to think that a conservative court is far more likely to use the simple text of the amendment since original intent seems like such a worm-hole.

The funny thing is when I started reading the link you posted I was hoping for guidance, regarding what was meant by the passage about the amendment not applying to foreigners or aliens. However, I not only haven't resolved that in my mind but, now I'm left wondering at this point how exactly they even defined a foreigner at the time? I'm guessing it had more to do with where your allegiance lies rather than your birthplace.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Pretty sure that R45 isn’t referring to having someone over for dinner in the literal sense.

I'm pretty sure he was, it's from an other thread. Here is the quote he is talking about.

Having actually dealt with "hardened" criminals on a daily basis, illegally entering the US, without other factors, hardly qualifies. I've interacted with many illegal immigrants and have no problem having them to my house for a visit/dinner. Bubble? Yup. There are many bubbles for many different groups and this forum is no exception.

If they don't leave within 72 hours they are deported, while keeping their diplomatic immunity.
It happened in the past in the US.

Yep. So by Hough's definition the US has jurisdiction over them, so...

 

[Shadow01]

I thought the parts about the Chinese were the most awkward parts of all, even worse than the slavery issues. However, that may just be because I'm more used to reading that type of language since I have a long interest in the Civil War.



Something I was thinking about overnight in regard to all of this, particularly in regards to interpreting the original intent of the amendment. There literally were no US immigration laws at the time it was written. There may have been state laws, but the first US immigration law was not passed until 1875. Thus, the very concept of an illegal immigrant didn't exist in US law at the time. How do you determine what the original intent of the amendment was in regards to an illegal immigrant when there literally was no such thing at the time when it was written?

That leads me to think that a conservative court is far more likely to use the simple text of the amendment since original intent seems like such a worm-hole.

The funny thing is when I started reading the link you posted I was hoping for guidance, regarding what was meant by the passage about the amendment not applying to foreigners or aliens. However, I not only haven't resolved that in my mind but, now I'm left wondering at this point how exactly they even defined a foreigner at the time? I'm guessing it had more to do with where your allegiance lies rather than your birthplace.

I would argue the point since there was no “illegal immigrants “ when this was written, then there was no way for the framers to have the intent of this covering illegal immigrants.

 

[Denny347]

I didn't say anything about you enforcing any laws. I'm well aware that you can't enforce federal law.

You either believe that people should respect the law, or you don't care. Pretty clear which side of the wall you fall on.

Few things in life are so black and white... for the record, I've never advocated NOT securing the border OR deporting those illegals I arrest. But if you live a more productive life than most of the Citizens I come into contact with, I'm not going to cause you grief. i also refuse to be led by the nose by the media (Fox News or CNN) whose slant either way is pushing an agenda.