Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Link?See last postAnyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system). Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling. That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.
The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.
Only citizens are entitled to due process
What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org
It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.
As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
Link?See last postAnyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system). Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.Only citizens are entitled to due process
What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org
It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.
As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
you said.........Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs. Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem. Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
Tell that to them.you said.........Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs. Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem. Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
He's enforcing the laws of this country........killed Catch and Release............so what's the problem........why are they mad...................what don't they like.............they haven't funded it..............they haven't changed anything........and have no reason to bitch.........
His immigration policy is THEIR POLICIES.......their laws..............change it.
If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber. A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien. In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so. That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant. No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so. What you call the person is immaterial.Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling. That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.FALSE! A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection. The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:
Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore. Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore. However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented. Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.
- Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.
- The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.
I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero "benefits" you claim there are.
Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of "absorption into our culture " (aka assimilation). And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.
There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal". Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so. But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal. Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant. The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities: you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty. No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber. A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien. In both cases you woulld probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so. That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant. No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so. What you call the person is immaterial.Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling. That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.FALSE! A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection. The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:
Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore. Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore. However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented. Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.
- Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.
- The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.
I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero "benefits" you claim there are.
Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of "absorption into our culture " (aka assimilation). And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.
There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal". Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so. But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal. Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant. The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities: you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty. No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
You seemed so willing to bring up this issue perhaps you should. You were playing the I hate Trump game...........Now weren't you.................tsk tsk.Tell that to them.you said.........Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs. Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem. Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.
He's enforcing the laws of this country........killed Catch and Release............so what's the problem........why are they mad...................what don't they like.............they haven't funded it..............they haven't changed anything........and have no reason to bitch.........
His immigration policy is THEIR POLICIES.......their laws..............change it.
Donald Trump is not the GOP, and there are Republicans who don't like his immigration policy. And the illegals, are still here, so Trump isn't doing enough.The truth is the illegals fulfill a role in capitalism it's called cheap labor, but yet idiots seem to think only one party allows the illegals to stay when over forty years since the invaders were allowed to stay it has been both parties that have facilitated the problem and the rich which save money.
This may be true, but now Republicans are taking notice of what their constituents want, and it's not invaders taking our jobs. Every other candidate in the primary besides Trump had very weak answers for our immigration problem. Only one stood out against illegal immigrants, and that was Donald Trump.
Wow. That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.Link?See last postAnyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system). Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.
What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org
It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.
As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
I said what you call the person is immaterial. What judges, laws, and the government calls the person is certainly material because of the need for presumption of innocent.If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber. A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien. In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so. That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant. No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so. What you call the person is immaterial.Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling. That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.FALSE! A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection. The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.Undocumented Immigrant is the correct term because:
Having undocumented immigrants in the country does have some undeniably negative effects which the left would like to ignore. Likewise there are benefits that the right prefers to ignore. However, we should question how much of the negative effects are due to the lack of upward mobility and lack of absorption into our culture which is a direct result of being undocumented. Without upward mobility and absorption, undocumented immigrants are frozen into a subculture that is unhealthy for them and the nation.
- Undocumented refers to the lack of genuine documentation of the right to be in a country. The presence of a person in a country is not illegal until a court makes that decision.
- The word immigrant means a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country with or without property documentation.
I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero "benefits" you claim there are.
Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of "absorption into our culture " (aka assimilation). And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.
There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal". Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so. But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal. Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant. The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities: you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty. No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
Actually, if I see ANYONE running away from the border where I live, I'm going to assume they're committing some sort of crime, because no one would be out in the Arizona desert otherwise.
And yes, they ARE guilty. Being caught doesn't magically make you guilty; it just makes you prosecutable. Why am I not surprised that a leftist has no concept of guilt?
YOU may refer to them as "accused" and "undocumented". I don't hide behind legalisms because I'm incapable of producing a moral compass without government guidance.
OF COURSE what they're called is "immaterial". That's why you leftist shits work so damned hard to relabel and redefine things; because it's "immaterial".
I said what you call the person is immaterial. What judges, laws, and the government calls the person is certainly material because of the need for presumption of innocent.If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber. A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien. In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so. That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant. No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so. What you call the person is immaterial.Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling. That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.FALSE! A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection. The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero "benefits" you claim there are.
Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of "absorption into our culture " (aka assimilation). And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.
There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal". Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so. But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal. Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant. The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities: you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty. No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
Actually, if I see ANYONE running away from the border where I live, I'm going to assume they're committing some sort of crime, because no one would be out in the Arizona desert otherwise.
And yes, they ARE guilty. Being caught doesn't magically make you guilty; it just makes you prosecutable. Why am I not surprised that a leftist has no concept of guilt?
YOU may refer to them as "accused" and "undocumented". I don't hide behind legalisms because I'm incapable of producing a moral compass without government guidance.
OF COURSE what they're called is "immaterial". That's why you leftist shits work so damned hard to relabel and redefine things; because it's "immaterial".
Wow. That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.Link?See last post
It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.
As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights. Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing. The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial. Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.
Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
Good guess but no cigar. The quote comes from the Madison Report on Virginia Resolutions in 1800 when the country was embroiled in the Revolutionary War. There was certainly no demand for immigrants in the colonies because of their fear of spies and sedition. In fact, the report contains Madison view of how aliens, spies, and those accused of sedition should be treated in a court of law. This was over 10 years before the BIll of Rights. So yes, I believe he would be very supporter of constitution rights for accused terrorist.Wow. That's exactly the same argument, liberal make so often in defending the "the living constitution" when conservatives drag out the federalist papers and quotes of Jefferson or Madison.Link?
It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.
As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
And if Madison was alive today to see what's going on, do you really believe he would continue to hold that opinion?
I think if Madison was alive today, I certainly think he would agree that anyone charged with a crime regardless who they are should have constitutional rights. Without constitution rights there would be no guaranteed of a fair trial or hearing. The defendant could be denied legal council or a jury trial. Without the protection of the 5th amendment the person could be tried in absentia, never given the charges or the right to defend himself.
But Madison made that statement when this country was in need of new people; people from other countries to help build what we have today. Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
Do you really think if Madison were alive today, he would support constitutional rights of captured terrorists that want to kill as many Americans as they could?
No one defends the rights of terrorists. We defend the rights of people accused of being terrorists. Because any of us can be accused.
Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.
Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.
"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.
It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.
I said what you call the person is immaterial. What judges, laws, and the government calls the person is certainly material because of the need for presumption of innocent.If you see a person running down the street holding a gun, a bag of money, and a store owner is screaming, "I've been robbed", it's likely that you would call that person a robber. A Latino boy caught running away from the border that doesn't have any identification would probably lead you to believe that he's an illegal alien. In both cases you're probably be right but in the legal sense, neither is guilty of anything until the court says so. That's why we refer to the robber as the accused and the boy as an undocumented immigrant. No matter how guilty a person may look, there is always the presumption of innocent in America. You are are not guilty in the eyes of the law until the judge says so. What you call the person is immaterial.Nope, a person is not guilty of any illegal act without a court ruling. That ruling can take the form of agreeing to deportation and waving a hearing or trial.FALSE! A person illegally crossing the border may or may not have been adjudicated as such, but he's illegal the second he crosses that border without inspection. The court decision is merely a confirmation of that fact.
I mentioned 17 negative harms of immigration. You mentioned zero "benefits" you claim there are.
Immigrant is a person who has gone an immigration process, by the proper authorities.
As for the harms, except for # 14 (cultural erosion), they exist regardless of "absorption into our culture " (aka assimilation). And with regard to cultural erosion, there doesn't seem to be much of it (like the thugs in San Jose, CA, who chased and attcked Trump rallygoers, while waving Mexican flags)
The days when Latinos were thrown in the back of a truck and dumped across the boarder with no due process aren't here yet, but it's on the way.
There's a difference between "a person is not guilty" and "the act is not illegal". Murder is always illegal, and requires no court ruling to be illegal; I personally am not guilty of murder until a court finds me so. But even if the court can't find sufficient evidence, if I actually DID kill someone, I'm still a murderer.
Likewise, entering this country without permission is always illegal. Thus, the person who enters this country without proper permission is always an illegal immigrant. The fact that they haven't been convicted of it yet doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it wasn't against the law.
You're running up against one of the classic leftist stupidities: you have no morality, so you think legality can replace it.
And yes, people who are accused of crimes have always had the option to waive (not "wave", dimwit) a trial and simply plead guilty. No one can make them do it; it is THEIR choice, THEIR right.
Actually, if I see ANYONE running away from the border where I live, I'm going to assume they're committing some sort of crime, because no one would be out in the Arizona desert otherwise.
And yes, they ARE guilty. Being caught doesn't magically make you guilty; it just makes you prosecutable. Why am I not surprised that a leftist has no concept of guilt?
YOU may refer to them as "accused" and "undocumented". I don't hide behind legalisms because I'm incapable of producing a moral compass without government guidance.
OF COURSE what they're called is "immaterial". That's why you leftist shits work so damned hard to relabel and redefine things; because it's "immaterial".
Link?See last postAnyone living in the U.S. — legally or not — has constitutional rights, including the right to equal protection of the law and that of due process (fair treatment in the judicial system). Immigration officers are not required nor do they advise detainees of their rights so they often assume they have none. That's why most detainees do not have lawyers and wave their rights and accept deportation which of course is really dumb.Only citizens are entitled to due process
What Constitutional Rights Do Undocumented Immigrants Have When on American Soil? - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org
It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution is "We the People," not "We the People and anyone who legally or illegally resides on our territory." Game, set and match.
As for the idiocy of what you're arguing, name another country that grants the rights of citizens to foreigners, much less ones there illegally ...
That's your opinion and a lot of people share it. However the US Supreme Court does not. The Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights
