Asylum seekers can't be held w/out hearing

[Agent0range]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

who said it was?   those people did not go thru checkpoints, thus were apprehended and in custody, a federal agent would know it, 

Uh, no.  The majority are being detained at border checkpoints, and being held while waiting for their asylum hearing.  You can't be caught in the middle of the desert, and request asylum.  THAT is against the law.

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, Agent0range said:

Uh, no.  The majority are being detained at border checkpoints, and being held while waiting for their asylum hearing.  You can't be caught in the middle of the desert, and request asylum.  THAT is against the law.

Actually, you still can.  But they can charge you with the illegal border crossing.  The wording of the law requires you to be on US soil (but not an embassy) to apply and doesn't say anything about how you get on the soil.

[RavenHawk]

4 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Actually, whether you agree with it or not, requesting asylum at a border checkpoint is not breaking the law...

But crossing the border illegally is breaking the law.  If they walk almost 2000 miles for asylum and they can’t walk a few hundred more and wait at a checkpoint?  But the asylum story is lost anyway if they haven’t sought asylum in Mexico.

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

But crossing the border illegally is breaking the law.  If they walk almost 2000 miles for asylum and they can’t walk a few hundred more and wait at a checkpoint?  But the asylum story is lost anyway if they haven’t sought asylum in Mexico.

Trump policy is to "meter" the checkpoints.  It's causing a huge backlog and making some of the more easily frustrated asylum seekers to cross the border and turn themselves in.  The non-asylum seekers just cross and don't turn themselves in and go to where ever it is they were planning on going.  They aren't applying in Mexico because it isn't considered a "safe" nation.  Something about drug cartels executing politicians and stuff.

[aztek]

6 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Uh, no.  The majority are being detained at border checkpoints, and being held while waiting for their asylum hearing.  You can't be caught in the middle of the desert, and request asylum.  THAT is against the law.

uh yes,

at check point they are turned away, unless they want to be detained voluntarily.   detainees are the ones who was caught crossing illegally,  

and you are right it is against the law

 

[aztek]

18 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

But crossing the border illegally is breaking the law.  If they walk almost 2000 miles for asylum and they can’t walk a few hundred more and wait at a checkpoint?  But the asylum story is lost anyway if they haven’t sought asylum in Mexico.

that is exactly what border agent in this video said, https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/06/19/border-patrol-agent-explains-separation-baldwin-nr-bts.cnn

Edited July 3, 2019 by aztek

[aztek]

38 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Trump policy is to "meter" the checkpoints.  It's causing a huge backlog and making some of the more easily frustrated asylum seekers to cross the border and turn themselves in.  The non-asylum seekers just cross and don't turn themselves in and go to where ever it is they were planning on going.  They aren't applying in Mexico because it isn't considered a "safe" nation.  Something about drug cartels executing politicians and stuff.

lol, nope, 

Quote

The U.S. embassy in Mexico City and the nine U.S. consulates (Ciudad Juarez, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, Matamoros, Merida, Monterrey, Nogales, Nuevo Laredo, and Tijuana) issued almost 1.5 million nonimmigrant visas in FY 2014.

we are also not so safe, we got, guns, gangs, cops. politicians. white supremacists, christian terrorists, killer pools,  street gangs from every country, including theirs, (which means if gangs want to find them, in usa they will easily do it as well)., why don't they apply in their own country,  i guarantee you vast majority of immigrants are looking for better life, not runaways from life threatening situations,  and many go back and forth so it is neither cartels or politicians, 

lets be reasonable, we accept as many as our capacity to accept allows. of course if we have huge backlogs, cuz we started catching those who jumped before and detain them, why hasn't it happen before?  cuz previous administration did not enforce the law.  finally someone does

Edited July 3, 2019 by aztek

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Well, yeah.  That would involve a court date and a preliminary hearing.  Stuff that Trump didn't want to do.  Now that these guys can actually go to court, what you stated is possible.

It is customary to detain people upon apprehension until a court date can be set.  If it's good enough for legal citizens, both adults and minors, then it's good enough for illegal aliens.

[aztek]

legal citizens\resident belong here, thus let out on bail, citizens of other countries with no visa are not. not even someone here who would take custody\responsibility. for them.  we can't let them in. if we do why bother having immigration control, and borders at all?

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

It is customary to detain people upon apprehension until a court date can be set.  If it's good enough for legal citizens, both adults and minors, then it's good enough for illegal aliens.

Yup.  Don't forget the 6th amendment for a speedy trial as well.  Asylum hearings can take upwards of three years.

 I forget, are you arguing for or against this judges ruling?  So far the stuff you said kinda goes along with it.  Treating legal aliens and asylum seekers the same as citizens under the Constitution and all that.  Trump's previous stance was to treat them differently and deny them Constitutional rights and protections. 

[Big Jim]

5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Yup.  Don't forget the 6th amendment for a speedy trial as well.  Asylum hearings can take upwards of three years.

 I forget, are you arguing for or against this judges ruling?  So far the stuff you said kinda goes along with it.  Treating legal aliens and asylum seekers the same as citizens under the Constitution and all that.  Trump's previous stance was to treat them differently and deny them Constitutional rights and protections. 

You didn't forget.  I'm not arguing for or against either side.  I'm trying to find some consistency in our laws and suggesting possible solutions.  I don't believe that illegal aliens who are here by subterfuge should have the same rights under the Constitution as American citizens.  After all, it's not their constitution.  They left theirs behind.  Ours was written as the basis of a new and unique country for the benefit of its citizens.  It was never intended to apply to the entire world's population.  It clearly lays out the procedures for entry into the country and for becoming a citizen under its protection.  They can't claim it's protection on one hand while violating our laws on the other.  

Like all people accused of a crime they can waive their right to a speedy trial.  Or go home.  Any hardship they incur by coming here they brought on themselves and they can end it just as easily.  No one forced them to come, no one is keeping them from leaving.  The point of detention is to keep them from dispersing in a country that is not theirs.

[Gromdor]

Just now, Big Jim said:

You didn't forget.  I'm not arguing for or against either side.  I'm trying to find some consistency in our laws and suggesting possible solutions.  I don't believe that illegal aliens who are here by subterfuge should have the same rights under the Constitution as American citizens.  After all, it's not their constitution.  They left theirs behind.  Ours was written as the basis of a new and unique country for the benefit of its citizens.  It was never intended to apply to the entire world's population.  It clearly lays out the procedures for entry into the country and for becoming a citizen under its protection.  They can't claim it's protection on one hand while violating our laws on the other.  

Like all people accused of a crime they can waive their right to a speedy trial.  Or go home.  Any hardship they incur by coming here they brought on themselves and they can end it just as easily.  No one forced them to come, no one is keeping them from leaving.  The point of detention is to keep them from dispersing in a country that is not theirs.

You got that wrong.  Our Constitution was written by our forefathers as how we treat all people we deal with.  Similarly, if they were exempt from our Constitution, they are exempt from our laws. 

Here's an example:  Mexican teen shot in Mexico by a border guard in US: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/07/lonnie-swartz-border-patrol-shooting-case-765898

“The court made clear that the Constitution does not stop at the border and that agents should not have constitutional immunity to fatally shoot Mexican teenagers on the other side of the border fence," he said in a statement. - from the article

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, Big Jim said:

Typically, suspects have to have ties to the community and other factors that provide a reasonable assumption that they won't flee before bond is set.  Also, who is posting bond for potential immigrants who come here with nothing?  Can they be detained if they can't post bond, like any citizen would be?

That’s why this is really just virtue signaling from this judge. No bond company will loan them the money as it is at best 50/50 that they report in once released.

[Big Jim]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You got that wrong.  Our Constitution was written by our forefathers as how we treat all people we deal with.  Similarly, if they were exempt from our Constitution, they are exempt from our laws. 

Here's an example:  Mexican teen shot in Mexico by a border guard in US: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/07/lonnie-swartz-border-patrol-shooting-case-765898

“The court made clear that the Constitution does not stop at the border and that agents should not have constitutional immunity to fatally shoot Mexican teenagers on the other side of the border fence," he said in a statement. - from the article

The passage you quoted refers to how the Constitution applies to the border agents, not to the Mexican teenagers.

[Big Jim]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That’s why this is really just virtue signaling from this judge. No bond company will loan them the money as it is at best 50/50 that they report in once released.

You're being generous.  I'd say about 1 in 10 show up for the hearing and I'm also being generous.

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

they could not care less, they will cut them off, and hide in any sanctuary city. we need a wall so they do not come pouring like rice out of a cut up bag

Sanctuary city won’t matter once there is a warrant. They will be finger printed before they can go. If they miss the hearing a warrant for their arrest will be issued and if they’re picked up for anything and brought in they’ll be identified and turned over. That will not violate anything to do with sanctuary status and I’m sure the cops wouldn’t hesitate to process them.

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

The passage you quoted refers to how the Constitution applies to the border agents, not to the Mexican teenagers.

The kid's fourth amendment rights were violated.

"Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Swartz violated the Fourth Amendment. It is inconceivable that any reasonable officer could have thought that he or she could kill J.A. for no reason," Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote in the majority opinion. "Thus, Swartz lacks qualified immunity."

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Sanctuary city won’t matter once there is a warrant. They will be finger printed before they can go. If they miss the hearing a warrant for their arrest will be issued and if they’re picked up for anything and brought in they’ll be identified and turned over. That will not violate anything to do with sanctuary status and I’m sure the cops wouldn’t hesitate to process them.

but that is not the case in real world.  

who will arrest them? locals will not get involved in anything ice does, they will ignore ice warrants, we had a judge arrested in such city not long ago for letting an illegal run from ice,

[Big Jim]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Sanctuary city won’t matter once there is a warrant. They will be finger printed before they can go. If they miss the hearing a warrant for their arrest will be issued and if they’re picked up for anything and brought in they’ll be identified and turned over. That will not violate anything to do with sanctuary status and I’m sure the cops wouldn’t hesitate to process them.

From what I keep hearing, one of the characteristics of a sanctuary city is a prohibition for local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE or other Federal officials and to not prosecute immigration related crimes on their own.  I think you have it backwards, once they reach a sanctuary city the warrant won't matter.

[aztek]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

The kid's fourth amendment rights were violated.

"Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Swartz violated the Fourth Amendment. It is inconceivable that any reasonable officer could have thought that he or she could kill J.A. for no reason," Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote in the majority opinion. "Thus, Swartz lacks qualified immunity."

does us constitution apply to every citizen in the world?

[Big Jim]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The kid's fourth amendment rights were violated.

"Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Swartz violated the Fourth Amendment. It is inconceivable that any reasonable officer could have thought that he or she could kill J.A. for no reason," Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote in the majority opinion. "Thus, Swartz lacks qualified immunity."

Again, by your own quote, the speaker is referring to how the Constitution applies to the officer, not the teenager.

[Big Jim]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

does us constitution apply to every citizen in the world?

Not only does it not apply to every citizen in the world, it seems to be written above the comprehension level of many, both here and abroad.

[+OverSword]

10 minutes ago, aztek said:

but that is not the case in real world.  

who will arrest them? locals will not get involved in anything ice does, they will ignore ice warrants, we had a judge arrested in such city not long ago for letting an illegal run from ice,

If they are picked up for something else. Drunk in public, shoplifting, drugs, whatever the case. The cops will be doing their regular job when they process them, come across a warrant and extradite them. 

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Not only does it not apply to every citizen in the world, it seems to be written above the comprehension level of many, both here and abroad.

I'll second that. 

 

10 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Again, by your own quote, the speaker is referring to how the Constitution applies to the officer, not the teenager.

Well if you want to go by that logic- in the case of the asylum seekers the Constitution applies to the Trump administration and how he he can't violate multiple Constitutional protections and amendments regarding the treatment and jailing of them.

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

From what I keep hearing, one of the characteristics of a sanctuary city is a prohibition for local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE or other Federal officials and to not prosecute immigration related crimes on their own.  I think you have it backwards, once they reach a sanctuary city the warrant won't matter.

You’re mistaken. It won’t matter what the warrant is for. They don’t have to check their immigration status or any part of ICE’s job. When a warrant pops up it’s automatic from that point on. They contact the court and ship them out. It’s completely unlikely that any politician will be aware that it happens and you can bet the cops will get it done with a big fat smile.