Judge: Holding Arrested Immigrants For ICE Is Unconstitutional

Hello FBI.

Do you have any $109 Glocks for sale?

Are they just making up laws now? It's not unconstitutional, they aren't US citizens therefore they aren't subject to the rights guaranteed to US citizens who haven't broken federal law. These judges need to be disbarred. What a god damn joke.

Forgot to clear the name field, fuck me.

They did the same thing for trumps immigration ban. "WAHHH ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL" while it's fully in legal power to do so. They only get away with it if people are willfully ignorant to the laws and dont question it.

Mein Gott they are going to keep doing this aren't they. Fucking (((lawyers))) and definitions.

So you keep them in a heavily secured vehicle and therefore they are "in transit" not being held. See we can all use language for loopholes you fuckers.

These two do deserve the gas though

You're in denial.

They are interpreting the law as such: that the constitution applies to immigrants in transit. It's useless to go bonkers, denying there's logic to and all is bollocks.

THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO

Unless Trump uncucks himself and stops them.

This is just getting ridiculous.

What fucking amendment says "oh btw you can't hold criminals to be arrested'

Why should constitutional rights protect non-citizens?

The good news is this is going to get thrown out immediately.

The appeal is going up to Tallahassee in deep deep red Florida panhandle (if you remember election night they tipped the scales in the Florida election since they know they are the in charge of keeping Florida balanced by denying liberal South Florida).

The panhandle is one of the hottest pro-Trump spots in the nation.

...

They are rewriting the constitution in front of our eyes, in case you were wondering. It is not something ridiculous and crazy, it's sweeping the rug under Trump's feet if he doesn't stop them NOW.

I never said it is in their right, you fucking idiot. They took the power to themselves to do so.

POWER IS TAKEN

What I'm saying is that the parade of dumbfounded people here is pathetic. There is no "are they stupid?" or "do they really think they can get away with this?". Subversion works like this, it's all in Yuri's. An actual executive action is needed to stop them, this cannot be handwaved away.

I'm not tired of winning but I could use a break from Holla Forums always being right.

Be careful about using their language.

They deserve constitutional rights only so far as human rights (we can't just torture a Canadian legally visiting the US on vacation for example), but illegals aren't being arrested, they're being deported.

Anyone who can't prove that they're in the nation legally can be simply scooped up and shipped out. There is no legal protections at all for deportation. That's not how rights work.

I'm cool with it if they're from BC or Ontario.

t. Ontarian

True. The Judges need killed

t. FBI

Should we have ICE just kill the illegals instead of holding them since they're not citizens and the constitution and its rights are only for citizens?

Exactly how much longer are these activist judges going to be allowed to just make shit up from the bench? They are literally ignoring all laws and replacing them with personal opinions at this point.

How do you uphold the rule of law when judges won't?

Two things:

First, Reizenstein. Fucking shocked.

Second, there's no authority for states to take fucking money from the federal government, either, but I think Florida is cool as beans with that. And yes, if a federal law enforcement agency has requested a prolonged detention on suspicion of violations of federal law, as long as the suspect is getting federal due process, it's none of the local court's fucking business.

I'm really going to savor our final victory. The kikes are putting up a really spirited fight for now, which will make the champagne taste that much sweeter in the end.

...

Not an argument.

Make up your mind dumbfuck shill

The Bill of Rights actually protects all people that are within the territory of the United States. The only specific times the Constitution makes a distinction between citizens and non-citizens is with respect to voting rights and whether someone can run for a federally elected position. The rest of the constitution refers to people in a general sense, rather than citizens. The Supreme Court has said quite a few times that the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States, regardless of whether their presence is legal or illegal, although from what I understand a lot of these affirmations were within the past couple decades and the SC has been pretty pozzed. Regardless, that is generally accepted to be the current interpretation.

One reason the Constitution was written this way goes back to James Madison. In the absence of language that included all people under the umbrella of the Constitution, he argued, aliens (non-citizens) within the U.S. willingly obeying the laws of the U.S. would be afforded no protection by the Constitution, while citizens would be afforded those protections. My read on his words is that he believed granting Constitutional protection to all persons was a mechanism to mandate their compliance with U.S. laws. It's a trade off - we'll make sure your rights are respected, but in return you must obey all the laws on the books. If you don't think the laws on the books apply to you, then it is implied you are also disclaiming any legal protections of the Constitution. The Constitution is effectively the original authority in making things legal or illegal, and U.S. law simply goes further in establishing what is legal or not. The power of U.S. law is established by the Constitution, so the act of declaring a person's presence within the U.S. being illegal ultimately relies on the existence of the Constitution.

In addition, the framers of the Constitution believed all people had certain fundamental or inalienable rights, and set about to explicitly disclaim the government's ability to infringe on those rights without consequences - which ultimately became the Bill of Rights, the First through Tenth amendments. If you'd like to argue the framers did not mean all human beings when when they said "people", I'd give that a fair amount of credence although I am not well informed on that specific aspect. I would say that it is clear they saw a distinction between "people" and "citizens" however.

On a slightly off topic note, not all Constitutional amendments pertain to the enumeration of fundamental rights. Certainly there have been many amendments that are pretty fucking stupid - prohibition comes to mind. I don't look at those in terms of representing fundamental or inalienable human rights however, and the primary purpose of the Constitution was never to create a master list of inalienable rights, but to establish the basic architecture of government within the United States. The framers felt that some fundamental rights were so important, or were likely to be infringed upon by the government, that they established explicit protections.

They also wrote the Ninth Amendment which goes even further, stating that the explicit protection of some rights by the Constitution does not negate the protection of implicit rights retained by the people. In other words, implicit rights - those that are commonly believed or understood to exist - are still legally protected even if they are not explicitly identified in the Constitution itself. The vast majority of criminal trial procedure is protected under the Ninth Amendment - most of the rules of the court system were never explicitly identified, like the ability to present evidence on behalf of your own defense. If you were prevented from doing so, you'd have a great case with the Ninth Amendment on your side. As an aside, some Constitutional scholars argue that the right of all people to use weapons for self defense would be protected by the Ninth Amendment were it ever ruled the Second did not cover it, because the right to self defense is not explicitly identified but is still fundamental.

I GIVE MY ENERGY TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
TRAITOROUS JUDGES SHOULD BE PUNISHED

But this does not apply to issue of ICE in this case and barring that, there are easy work-arounds that can be implemented at various levels of government that the courts cannot rule against, lest they find themselves ruling against standard laws which would beyond a shadow of a doubt reveal their intentions.

So some low ranking judges can simply overrule the commander in chief?

President Trump really needs to reduce the amount of power they have so they can't blatantly abuse it, or better yet lock them up for treason.

Not enough nationalist pride yet to reach that level of commitment. All we have are retards shooting up black churches and screaming nigger at birthday parties.

Why don't you go do it then mr fbi agent

You're not at all wrong - in fact James Madison argued about the necessity of the government having the ability to remove aliens that they deem unacceptable or which pose a threat. I wrote what I wrote mostly in response to anons thinking that illegal aliens aren't entitled to protection under the Constitution, which is incorrect. Illegals are not, however, entitled to ALL the protections that exist in the law, because those protections are often specific as to the circumstances to which they apply.

Keep in mind that non-citizens have the right to an attorney and to have a court trial. This is only if they are physically in the United States, by the way, which is why people can be turned away at airport customs departments. That is not considered physically inside the U.S. so they are completely unprotected by the Constitution, which is a rather creative solution. Those that manage to actually be physically present on U.S. soil are considered "people" by the Constitution and the wording permits them protections under it.

Some of the ICE deportation arrests you see are aliens being arrested because of immigration violations, but it doesn't mean they immediately get thrown on a bus back to Mexico. It usually means they have been detained for committing a crime, often the crime of residing in the U.S. without permission, at which point the usual criminal legal process moves forward. Most of the "fast" deportations occur because the alien is willing to sign a deportation agreement and waive their right to a trial, which can sometimes prevent a deportation order from showing up on their record. Ironically that makes them harder to find and deport when they inevitably return, but that is a procedural problem that USCIS needs to address. If an alien wants to go to court over it, there are immigration courts to hear those specific cases and it's more or less similar to regular criminal court proceedings, although some of the rules of evidence are not applicable.

In addition, a lot of the illegals that are being removed have outstanding deportation orders against them. In some of these cases, an immigration court ruled that they be deported, but USCIS was restricted from removing them by restrictions placed by the Obama administration, or the fear of reprisal by the administration if they proceeded forward. Regardless of that, these people have effectively been convicted of violating U.S. immigration law, on punishment of physical removal, and it is simply that the punishment has yet to be doled out. But it's coming, and fast.

There is probable cause the illegal is a fucking illegal, case fucking closed.

Mr. Grayyed, is that you is this me?

It's not probable cause it's a prima facie fucking case he's illegal, at least this kike didn't rush him out the back through his chambers.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT APPLY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS. PROBABLE CAUSE IS ANY VIOLATION, OR SUSPECTED VIOLATION OF LAW. "illegal alien" illegal=violating the law, alien=the cunt that did it. immigration law is a law, you violating it is a criminal act. this shit is seriously not hard to understand.

fuck these people piss me off

"Holding people suspected of committing a crime is unconstitutional"

Can anyone explain this? Is that really their argument?

Don't be retarded. The Bill of Rights applies to people and not just citizens, and even non-citizens suspected of being in the U.S. illegally are still entitled to due process. It stops applying to them once they go back to Mexico. You are more or less right about probable cause though, if ICE has evidence enough that they believe someone is here illegally it should be enough probable cause to detain them and go through the deportation process. The biggest obstacle is activist leftist judges that are trying to oppose the illegals being removed. We need a judicial purge badly.

This case is a little different in that the alien appears to have been arrested for something else (driving without a license) and ICE wants to have him held for a longer time than he otherwise would be. Normally, police can only hold you for X number of hours or days depending on a variety of factors, so this looks kind of like local PD held him for a given amount of time, intended to release him, and ICE asked them to hold on to him longer. The utility of that is clear - it's obvious this nigger is going to go underground as soon as he gets out, especially now that he knows ICE is after his ass, and they want to make sure they can still find him. I'm sure they're stretched thin given how many of these people need to be detained and deported. The judge is somewhat within the letter of the law in that you cannot hold people for an unreasonable amount of time, but the problem is he's really only making that ruling instead of cooperating with ICE because he's a multikulti marxist kike fuck.

So say they're being held for crime A, then during that time it's discovered they may be guilty of crime B, surely it's lawful that they can be then held further for the new crime which has come to light? Surely they wouldn't be forced to release them just for them to have to immediately arrest them again?

Actually they don't. This is why they find themselves in dire straits in looking for one and often times why they have to pay for it out of pocket. I've seen a number of these illegals (mostly Africans), looking for an immigration lawyer to fight deportation. I used to think they would get a lawyer but they apparently don't and have to find one on their own.

As I understand it, the issue there is that depending on how long it takes to look into crime B and how strong the evidence is, that could end up interfering with due process. If Paco gets detained for driving without a license but someone in the police department gets a tip from someone who heard it from their uncle who heard it from their co-worker who heard it from their niece who heard it from her sister who heard it from her girlfriend that Paco committed crime B, how long can they justifiably hold Paco on the grounds that they're looking into crime B before his civil rights are being violated?

It's unfortunate (especially since these parasites play dumb for each other) but it's intended as a safeguard against the government abusing "it's an ongoing investigation" to deprive you of your rights.

Well then. Go. Start target practicing.

Because of jurisdiction, most likely. The guy was serving a short sentence in county jail for driving without a license but is suspected (well, he's probably guilty) of breaking federal immigration law. The kike judge and attorney are probably taking exception to the guy being held in county jail longer than his 7 day sentence just to coordinate his release so ICE can grab him. Also, everybody in this thread is a faggot that didn't really read the article, because it says towards the bottom:

So ICE fucked his ass anyway. The issue seemed to be that ICE is under-staffed at the moment and didn't have the manpower to be there as soon as LaCroix got released, but they ended up making it work anyway. The legal case continues on regardless.

You're correct and I mis-spoke. What I mean is that they have the right to defend themselves, with or without an attorney, in a court of law. Immigration court rules are different than criminal court, and I believe you are correct that you are not provided with an attorney if you cannot afford one. There are apparently different rules of evidence in immigration court as well, probably because of beaners trying to get all manner of ridiculous things entered in to evidence on their behalf, or trying to muddy up the process with all seventy five of their cousins testifying as witnesses.

The key point really is that non-citizens are still entitled to Constitutional protection, whether anybody likes it or not. Even if you disagree with that in practice, and I myself do to an extent, there are important philosophical reasons for why that is the case and ultimately it makes sense. The thing is, the problems we're having were not meant to ever happen, and the Constitution is not the tool to use in fighting this issue. All of the aliens in America should have never been here in the first place, and none of this would be an issue. The few non-citizens could still have Constitutional protection and the rest of us would be happy. Instead, our legal system has to potentially handle the millions and millions of cases, and all that can be done is to incentivize them to waive their rights in exchange for things.

Fuck Hart-Celler, fuck LBJ, fuck US v. Wong Kim Ark, fuck Plyler v. Doe, and fuck William J. Brennan.

Yep.

Ice detainers have been a thing for decades. Is it suddenly an issue because the judge is bias? Surly this ameican judge would not legislate from the bench.

This is the case and if you are a career criminal or regular annoyince to the police it is not unusual to be charged with one crime and upon completion get nailed with additional charges. Dont be a dick or career criminal as it is perfectly legal.

But as an illegal alien he is guilty of violations of immigration law. So shouldn't they be able to hold him at the request of ICE?

Wtf? When did Miami start letting foreigners into cuba?

Top kek, no way there's any kiked judicial activism going on! As I said I think the issue was raised primarily because of jurisdiction. The guy was held for 7 days in county jail, and then ICE requested they hold him longer so they could arrange to pick him up. That's why they requested the 48 hour additional hold. There's two potential problems there. First, the guy served his 7 days and is free to go, you can't keep someone in jail past their release date, and if you tried to set that precedent you are going in to very dangerous territory indeed. Convenient as it may be in this case, it would be potentially disastrous for everyone else, and in this sense the kikes are right to oppose it even though they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

Second, he's being held in a county jail and not a federal facility. My presumption is that when ICE picks these people up, they go to a federal holding facility and not a local or county jail. There are probably procedural issues with holding him in a county facility at the behest of federal authorities, who in theory should have the larger budget and manpower to handle cases like this. So it's a combination of judicial activism mixed in with some legitimate jurisdictional issues.

His illegal status was not yet been proven in immigration court, as far as I can tell from the article. He's very likely a non-citizen, and ICE clearly had probable cause because they ended up nabbing him as soon as he got out of jail, even without their requested 48 hour hold. I'm sure that nigger expected he'd disappear back in to the shadows as soon as he got out, and instead jumped in to the back of an ICE car.

That said, ICE still has to prove in immigration court that the guy is here illegally in order to get a deportation order and actually physically remove him, and technically he isn't an illegal alien until after that determination has been made. Practically speaking he's illegal as fuck and probably always was, but the law requires certain formalities. Part of the reason why things like this exist is that it's possible actual citizens could be accused of being illegals, and there needs to be a venue for someone to establish their legality (or not).

This is more along the lines of the philosophical reasons of why the Constitution protects all people, not just citizens - you can't accuse someone of wrongdoing without giving them a means to establish their innocence, and for you to conclusively establish their guilt. When the accusation is of being an illegal non-citizen, the default assumption must be that they are innocent, and ICE attorneys must prove they are in fact violating U.S. immigration law.

By the way, can you imagine being an RWDS immigration judge? Holy fuck that must be the job of a lifetime right now, I can't imagine how happy I'd be at the end of each workday.

Anyhow, as much as the deportation process is horrible, again as I mentioned towards the end of , it's not really the fault of the framers of the Constitution. I doubt they ever envisioned the legal protection of non-citizens being a significant procedural obstacle to removing them by the tens of millions - I doubt they ever expected it would get this bad. This is why the biggest fix is removing the influx of illegals no matter their origin, otherwise you're fighting against a kind of horrible compounding interest that you may never pay off. If you can curb immigrant entry, you have a better chance at removing all of the illegals, and if someone like Rep. Steve King has his way, we can reclaim the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and kick all the illegals and their anchor babies the fuck out.

DO THE CRIME, DO THE TIME. ON MEXICO'S DIME.

Has anyone done the math I wonder. How many illegals do we have to deport anually just to keep up with the illegals shitting out anchor babies? Tricky considering no firm numbers on who's even here.

I'd start with census results over the past few decades and focus on hispanic population growth. Couple that with immigration statistics of how many are coming here and how often and you should be able to derive the rate of population increase minus immigrants. Or just ask Kris Kobach, he probably knows exactly how bad it is. I'm still fuming he didn't get to be Secretary of Homeland Security because of those traitorous neocon faggot fuckbuddies McCain and Graham. Kobach is so anti-immigration and so against amnesty that those globalist motherfuckers torpedo'd his nomination as Secretary of Homeland Security. Getting Kelly instead isn't too bad, but god damn those two senators must pay for their crimes.

There might be more than 50 million illegals. For sure it is over 15 million.

So at minimum, Trump needs to remove over 5,000 illegals everyday for 8 years.

5,000 a day seems like an inhuman feat of logistics. Surely no technology exists that can process THAT many bodies!

Kikes in black robes think they control us. Hopefully Holla Forums comes up with a solution.

My sides, user. Where did they go? I can't seem to find them anymore.

Nice try FBI.

What about state's rights?

Just toss them off of a cliffside. Nice free cliff.

They're not immigrants in transit if they're living illegally.

The in-transit distinction is almost moot anyway. The Constitution applies as soon as a person, citizen or not, is within the confines of U.S. soil. Keep in mind that customs controlled areas, even if they are physically inside the U.S., do not count as such. That gives DHS the power to turn away anybody for any reason within those zones, because they have zero constitutional protection.

If you're Justin Trudeau and you're immigrating to Mexico and driving through the United States, and you don't have permission from the United States, you are breaking U.S. immigration law. But you are still protected by the Constitution for the duration of your drive through the U.S., and still protected by it even if you are caught and arrested. And if you were Justin in that situation, you'd probably say something like

Would you mind showing Holla Forums the part of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights that explains how non-citizens are protected by the Constitution?

Don't have time at the moment to spoonfeed, but the basic distinction is that the Constitution mentions both "people" and "citizens" explicitly, so it's clear the framers were drawing a distinction. The Constitution mentions citizens only with respect to voting rights (i.e. only actual citizens can vote) and holding federally elected office (which usually requires citizenship as a bare minimum if not natural born citizenship which is an even higher distinction). Everywhere else the Constitution makes mention of "people" instead and draws no distinction between citizen and non-citizen. Philosophically it makes sense as well, and as I mentioned before, James Madison wrote a decent amount about why the Constitution should in fact protect citizens and non-citizens alike. I suggest you read my other posts in this thread as well as I went over some of those points.

That is total horseshit. Do you mean to tell me that illegal aliens are permitted to keep and bear arms? Laughable.

Do you know what you call a group of people illegally being in your country while still being able to hold rifles? An invasion force. This whole illegal alien issue has grown into a full blown invasion due to the fact that subversives in our government threw open our doors to them deliberately starting with Hart-Celler in 1965. And until Trump started actually enforcing laws that were already on the books but purposefully ignored, it had only gotten worse.

Illegal aliens do not have rights under our constitution. Full stop.

I match your energy output!

I just got back from Enterprise with a rental because I have to spend the day down in Miami tomorrow. I never drive my own car when I'm there because half the drivers are Haitians or illegals in unregistered cars with no insurance or license. Theyll crash into you them immediately start with the "No habla!" or that French-Ebonics creole babble.
I'd rather spend an extra $40 than deal with the headache of one of assholes wrecking my car.

Only more reason to hate the Constitution tbh

hello fellow scot

Definitely says "citizens" and not "people" there, user. You're also wrong about your last sentence, the distinction being that aliens, having been found by an immigration court to be residing in the U.S. in violation of federal immigration law, are still protected by the Constitution while they are still within U.S. territory. As soon as illegals are across the border back in Mexico, they have no rights in the U.S. anymore. I don't care if your opinion is that illegals should have no rights - I myself find it objectionable we have to go to all this trouble given the horde of illegals in this country - but that is simply what the Constitution says.

I do agree with your sentiments with regards to the 2A and I suspect there are other laws, valid under the Constitution, that would define an invasion force similarly to what you stated. Also, the Second Amendment being somewhat hotly debated as it is, you'd probably be able to make a case that only citizens should be considered part of the Militia, rather than just people in general. There are a few other cases in the amendments where these small distinctions apply. The Fourteenth is a good example:

The key point there is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and the fact that the Citizenship Clause is predicated on BOTH sub-clauses being true, not one or the other. This is primarily where Justice Brennan and Plyler v. Doe fucked us because of his retarded interpretation of the Fourteenth. The "proper" interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is effectively that a person born in the United States is not subject to its jurisdiction if that person's parents are not themselves citizens or naturalized citizens of the United States. Rep. Steve King has a bill, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017, which aims to clarify this sub-clause with more specific language. You can see the text of it here: congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/140 but here's the whole thing since it's short.

As much as I like Rep. King, he's still a cuck for including points (2) and (3), as well as the non-retroactive clause. It really should be naturalized citizens only, there's no need to include the other classes. I understand why he added the non-retroactive clause because it would effectively strip the citizenship of all anchor babies and that would be extremely controversial and would make it unlikely to pass, and it's better to make some forward progress than none, but god damn it we need to get all of the anchor babies out of here regardless.

There are some philosophical reasons why the Constitution protects all persons, not just all citizens, but I can't really explain it properly without being extremely long-winded. At the end of the day, the framers never intended for the unlawful immigrant population to be as big as it is and to be such a source of problems for the United States, and it was an oversight to let the Constitution protect them so much. As mentioned, we got fucked by communist infiltration and it lead to a lot of the pro-immigration viewpoints that exist among the globalists in both political parties.

What about illegals have no rights under our law do they not understand? The constitution applies to citizens, not illegals. This isn't complex. Where in the constitution does it make clear that it applies to the entire planet?

Jesus christ read the fucking thread you dumb nigger. Better yet, read the Constitution and the writings of the framers instead of just assuming that the version of the Constitution that exists in your head is the real one. And I still have the common decency to check your dubs.

I thought the amendments only apply to Americans.

t.Aussie.

heiled

because that's exactly what the people who wrote the constitution had in mind, right?

In case you're being genuine and not an ebin Holla Forums poster, the idea behind the state's rights meme is to answer questions at the lowest possible level to maximize the amount of control a person has over their own life and minimize the chance of getting fucked over by somebody a thousand miles away in a different situation.

Allowing a person into one state is effectively giving them access to every state. So the decisions can only be appropriately made at a level where every state gets a say, ie. at the federal level.

The constitution lays out our system of government and its powers. All others are reserved for the states. The bill of rights list rights afforded to the people of the nation. Under your deranged assumption, enemy combatants who invade our country would be afforded rights under the constitution. Non-citizens can have privileges and immunities revoked by a state government. Equal protection clause only applies to the states. The same with life, liberty, and property. It is what has been used to enforce states to respect rights afforded to other US citizens such as gay marraiges. States do not need to recognize the rights afforded to citizens of other countries. The federal government doesn't either. The federal government can restrict or remove any non-citizen group.

This is related to the equal protection clause and states not being able to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process (they do this anyway). ICE can still deport these people. State law enforcement just aren't suppossed to detain them longer than they would any citizen. It is why getting help from the state isn't as valuable. We need to lower requirements for ICE agents and hire more of them. Plenty of people with criminal justice degrees out there who would jump at the opportunity.

It should be criminal to subject them to this sort of mental abuse.

The Constitution doesn't afford anybody rights, user. The Bill of Rights is meant to prevent the government from infringing on the inherent rights that the framers believed exist in all people, the so called natural or inalienable rights. State governments cannot move to restrict these rights otherwise they are in violation of the Constitution, and the violating law would be struck down by the judicial branch at some level. The Ninth Amendment also speaks to rights that are retained by the people but are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, which is what allows us to have things like the right to prevent evidence in your defense at a criminal trial. I mentioned that before but it's a good example - if a court infringed on that right, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, you would have a rightful lawsuit against the government using the Ninth as your basis.

Asserting that enemy combatants invading the country would be protected is a facetious argument for a number of reasons, the first of which is that martial law or declared states of emergency exist for those exact cases you describe, and in your hypothetical would consequently entail temporary suspension of civil rights and laws. In such cases the Constitution would not apply, either in a general sense or only with respect to the enemy combatants. Secondly, the fundamental rights established by the Constitution do not restrict ordinary citizens from employing deadly force in the defense of their own lives. That would potentially be another application of the Ninth Amendment, since it is implicitly understood by people in the U.S. and the right to defend one's self against attacks is certainly fundamental. One can look to nature to see the legitimacy of such a right. In that case, any enemy combatants that are directly threatening someone could rightfully be killed without ever being captured or put on trial. If they were in fact captured and put on trial, and martial law was not in place, they would be given the same rights as any other person, and their trial would be conducted according to the same procedures. They would obviously be charged with whatever crimes they had committed and would likely be put to death.

As a simple counterpoint, can you explain why the U.S. government has a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, outside of U.S. territory and jurisdiction, rather than within the borders of the United States?

As for the Haitian immigrant James LaCroix, ICE picked him up from the county jail for deportation Wednesday, where he was being held after completing his sentence of 7 days for time served.

SHITSKIN BTFO!!!

“They think 48 hours is a short period of time?” said Reizenstein. “Let them go sit in the jail for 48 hours and tell us how it feels. This is unconstitutional.”

The fuck, go and dont use your CCW when they rape the judges kids, lets see if he thinks 48h are longer than a life long trauma.

...

So you're saying we should be shooting anyone who crosses our border.

This is not taught anywhere in academia. In high school children are taught the constitution gives them some rights.

Will just point out that the non-retroactive part is most likely to cover cases where they've been in the US for over 20 years, their child was born on US soil, but their case to get a green card or the like has been stuck in the system for all that time as well. We would actually have less of that kind of issue if the judges would do their damned jobs instead of trying to write laws from the bench.

Wow that guy gives the I are the niggest guy a run for his money.