Will president Trump's jackbooted thugs go door to door searching for illegals?

[HereWeGoAgain]

This hyperbole only shows ignorance. Trump has stated when illegals come into contact with law enforcement they will get deported, some may have to wait until they serve out their sentence. He has also stated he will institute E-verify, which will limit their ability to work, forcing some to simply return back home. Hopefully he institutes Employer checks again like Bush did, and he wants to do away with Sanctuary Cities like SF.

Cruz has stated pretty much the same thing. Rubio wants to still give them amnesty once it is "proven" to the public that illegal entry and visa overstays are under control.

Trump said those things? Well, then. It must have been Trump's evil twin who said that he would deport 12 million illegal immigrants in the first two years of his office. Does the REAL Trump think that all 12 million illegal immigrants are going to "come in contact with law enforcement" in the first 2 years of his presidency, or is that his evil twin talking again? Unless he plans on unreasonable search and seizures, which is prohibited under constitutional law, he must assume that all 12 million illegal immigrants are going to be arrested while in the act of some criminal activity (and being "undocumented" is not a criminal activity).

As I said, neither Trump, nor his followers give a rat's ass about the constitution.

If the laws on the books are enforced 12 million in 2 years is doable. The great thing about illegals is their constitutional protections are limited. Being in violation of orders of deportation (40%) is an infraction, EWI (60%) is a Federal Misdemeanor/felony dependent on prior EWI convictions.

And how does Donald propose we pay for this? Do you realize the back log of cases there would be? Our court system is already clogged up! Is he going to raise taxes? What's the plan?

There are many ways you could cover the costs.
Stop giving mexico money,start taxing monies sent back to mexico.
Really the cheapest route would be to eliminate all types of gov assistance and make hiring an illegal to expensive with huge fines levied on business owners.

Here we go again. Another Trump supporter who thinks that the president has the authority to create a tax, regardless of the fact that the constitution says that only the House of Representatives can do that...not to mention that it would shut down trade with Mexico and cost American businesses billions of dollars.

So where did I say Trump was going to create a tax?
And mexico already costs the US billions so whats your point?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Trump said those things? Well, then. It must have been Trump's evil twin who said that he would deport 12 million illegal immigrants in the first two years of his office. Does the REAL Trump think that all 12 million illegal immigrants are going to "come in contact with law enforcement" in the first 2 years of his presidency, or is that his evil twin talking again? Unless he plans on unreasonable search and seizures, which is prohibited under constitutional law, he must assume that all 12 million illegal immigrants are going to be arrested while in the act of some criminal activity (and being "undocumented" is not a criminal activity).

As I said, neither Trump, nor his followers give a rat's ass about the constitution.

If the laws on the books are enforced 12 million in 2 years is doable. The great thing about illegals is their constitutional protections are limited. Being in violation of orders of deportation (40%) is an infraction, EWI (60%) is a Federal Misdemeanor/felony dependent on prior EWI convictions.

And how does Donald propose we pay for this? Do you realize the back log of cases there would be? Our court system is already clogged up! Is he going to raise taxes? What's the plan?

There are many ways you could cover the costs.
Stop giving mexico money,start taxing monies sent back to mexico.
Really the cheapest route would be to eliminate all types of gov assistance and make hiring an illegal to expensive with huge fines levied on business owners.

Here we go again. Another Trump supporter who thinks that the president has the authority to create a tax, regardless of the fact that the constitution says that only the House of Representatives can do that...not to mention that it would shut down trade with Mexico and cost American businesses billions of dollars.

So where did I say Trump was going to create a tax?
And mexico already costs the US billions so whats your point?

Ok, so apparently you understand that Trump is lying when he says that he is going to establish taxes on money sent to Mexico, and violate congressionally approved NAFTA treaties by putting tariffs on Mexican products (which would be paid by American consumers when they buy those products). Welcome to the world of reality.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If the laws on the books are enforced 12 million in 2 years is doable. The great thing about illegals is their constitutional protections are limited. Being in violation of orders of deportation (40%) is an infraction, EWI (60%) is a Federal Misdemeanor/felony dependent on prior EWI convictions.

And how does Donald propose we pay for this? Do you realize the back log of cases there would be? Our court system is already clogged up! Is he going to raise taxes? What's the plan?

There are many ways you could cover the costs.
Stop giving mexico money,start taxing monies sent back to mexico.
Really the cheapest route would be to eliminate all types of gov assistance and make hiring an illegal to expensive with huge fines levied on business owners.

Here we go again. Another Trump supporter who thinks that the president has the authority to create a tax, regardless of the fact that the constitution says that only the House of Representatives can do that...not to mention that it would shut down trade with Mexico and cost American businesses billions of dollars.

So where did I say Trump was going to create a tax?
And mexico already costs the US billions so whats your point?

Ok, so apparently you understand that Trump is lying when he says that he is going to establish taxes on money sent to Mexico, and violate congressionally approved NAFTA treaties by putting tariffs on Mexican products (which would be paid by American consumers when they buy those products). Welcome to the world of reality.

I dont have a problem paying more for US made products if it means jobs for Americans.
How about you?

 

[Unkotare]

...

There are many ways you could cover the costs.
Stop giving mexico money.....

Think it through...

 

[Vandalshandle]

And how does Donald propose we pay for this? Do you realize the back log of cases there would be? Our court system is already clogged up! Is he going to raise taxes? What's the plan?

There are many ways you could cover the costs.
Stop giving mexico money,start taxing monies sent back to mexico.
Really the cheapest route would be to eliminate all types of gov assistance and make hiring an illegal to expensive with huge fines levied on business owners.

Here we go again. Another Trump supporter who thinks that the president has the authority to create a tax, regardless of the fact that the constitution says that only the House of Representatives can do that...not to mention that it would shut down trade with Mexico and cost American businesses billions of dollars.

So where did I say Trump was going to create a tax?
And mexico already costs the US billions so whats your point?

Ok, so apparently you understand that Trump is lying when he says that he is going to establish taxes on money sent to Mexico, and violate congressionally approved NAFTA treaties by putting tariffs on Mexican products (which would be paid by American consumers when they buy those products). Welcome to the world of reality.

I dont have a problem paying more for US made products if it means jobs for Americans.
How about you?

Well, then buy a Buick (It is going to be made in China) Or, buy a Kia (It is made in Georgia). Or, buy a Ford (It is made in Canada and Mexico). Me? I drive a Honda, because I am tired of the crap that GM has been selling me for 40 years. I also like fresh vegetables all year, and during the winter, 2/3rd of them come from Mexico. I shop at Walmart, over 90% of everything in the store is made outside America. Maybe you can buy one of Trump's shirts. They are made in Mexico. Personally, mine are made in Vietnam.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There are many ways you could cover the costs.
Stop giving mexico money,start taxing monies sent back to mexico.
Really the cheapest route would be to eliminate all types of gov assistance and make hiring an illegal to expensive with huge fines levied on business owners.

Here we go again. Another Trump supporter who thinks that the president has the authority to create a tax, regardless of the fact that the constitution says that only the House of Representatives can do that...not to mention that it would shut down trade with Mexico and cost American businesses billions of dollars.

So where did I say Trump was going to create a tax?
And mexico already costs the US billions so whats your point?

Ok, so apparently you understand that Trump is lying when he says that he is going to establish taxes on money sent to Mexico, and violate congressionally approved NAFTA treaties by putting tariffs on Mexican products (which would be paid by American consumers when they buy those products). Welcome to the world of reality.

I dont have a problem paying more for US made products if it means jobs for Americans.
How about you?

Well, then buy a Buick (It is going to be made in China) Or, buy a Kia (It is made in Georgia). Or, buy a Ford (It is made in Canada and Mexico). Me? I drive a Honda, because I am tired of the crap that GM has been selling me for 40 years. I also like fresh vegetables all year, and during the winter, 2/3rd of them come from Mexico. I shop at Walmart, over 90% of everything in the store is made outside America. Maybe you can buy one of Trump's shirts. They are made in Mexico. Personally, mine are made in Vietnam.

Our trade agreements are lopsided as hell.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Here we go again. Another Trump supporter who thinks that the president has the authority to create a tax, regardless of the fact that the constitution says that only the House of Representatives can do that...not to mention that it would shut down trade with Mexico and cost American businesses billions of dollars.

So where did I say Trump was going to create a tax?
And mexico already costs the US billions so whats your point?

Ok, so apparently you understand that Trump is lying when he says that he is going to establish taxes on money sent to Mexico, and violate congressionally approved NAFTA treaties by putting tariffs on Mexican products (which would be paid by American consumers when they buy those products). Welcome to the world of reality.

I dont have a problem paying more for US made products if it means jobs for Americans.
How about you?

Well, then buy a Buick (It is going to be made in China) Or, buy a Kia (It is made in Georgia). Or, buy a Ford (It is made in Canada and Mexico). Me? I drive a Honda, because I am tired of the crap that GM has been selling me for 40 years. I also like fresh vegetables all year, and during the winter, 2/3rd of them come from Mexico. I shop at Walmart, over 90% of everything in the store is made outside America. Maybe you can buy one of Trump's shirts. They are made in Mexico. Personally, mine are made in Vietnam.

Our trade agreements are lopsided as hell.

What? You disapprove of the fact that Vietnam officially has "most favored nation" trade status? I'm surprised that Trump hasn't insulted them yet, too!

 

[Zander]

Treaties and trade deals are renegotiated all of the time. Only a jackass continues with a bad deal when he can renegotiate....

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Why would he overcome it? It is what Bush did and what Obama does.

You may have overlooked the fact that every one of these people has to be found guilty in a court of law, and the system is totally maxed out.

They don't have to be found guilty in a court of law, they can be given waivers. Those caught at the border can be fingerprinted, photographed, and then returned back across with no court appearance required.

Don't give up your day job to become a lawyer. Nobody can be deported unles:
1. They are convicted in a court of law of being in the country illegally, or
2. They VOLUNTARILY give up that right and agree to be deported without a trial, which means that they are not guilty of any prior offenses the next time they do it.

Love the snide insults from people that think they know what they are talking about, when the reality of it is they only know half of what they think they know. SMFH

Those caught at the border can be returned with a simple fingerprint, photograph and/or a waiver. Those charged with EWI at the border (which is what Obama is doing at the border to increase his appearance of deporting more illegals than any other President in History) can be given a court appearance (see your own link for Operation Streamline) or offered the waiver which is an admission of guilt to which if they cross the border again they can be charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor.

Visa overstays with order of deportation against them have already had their day in court and were denied, that's why they were ordered removed.

Again, illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, they have very, very few.

Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first. Additionally, you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry. But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You may have overlooked the fact that every one of these people has to be found guilty in a court of law, and the system is totally maxed out.

They don't have to be found guilty in a court of law, they can be given waivers. Those caught at the border can be fingerprinted, photographed, and then returned back across with no court appearance required.

Don't give up your day job to become a lawyer. Nobody can be deported unles:
1. They are convicted in a court of law of being in the country illegally, or
2. They VOLUNTARILY give up that right and agree to be deported without a trial, which means that they are not guilty of any prior offenses the next time they do it.

Love the snide insults from people that think they know what they are talking about, when the reality of it is they only know half of what they think they know. SMFH

Those caught at the border can be returned with a simple fingerprint, photograph and/or a waiver. Those charged with EWI at the border (which is what Obama is doing at the border to increase his appearance of deporting more illegals than any other President in History) can be given a court appearance (see your own link for Operation Streamline) or offered the waiver which is an admission of guilt to which if they cross the border again they can be charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor.

Visa overstays with order of deportation against them have already had their day in court and were denied, that's why they were ordered removed.

Again, illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, they have very, very few.

Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first. Additionally, you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry. But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.

Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"

 

[Liquid Reigns]

They don't have to be found guilty in a court of law, they can be given waivers. Those caught at the border can be fingerprinted, photographed, and then returned back across with no court appearance required.

Don't give up your day job to become a lawyer. Nobody can be deported unles:
1. They are convicted in a court of law of being in the country illegally, or
2. They VOLUNTARILY give up that right and agree to be deported without a trial, which means that they are not guilty of any prior offenses the next time they do it.

Love the snide insults from people that think they know what they are talking about, when the reality of it is they only know half of what they think they know. SMFH

Those caught at the border can be returned with a simple fingerprint, photograph and/or a waiver. Those charged with EWI at the border (which is what Obama is doing at the border to increase his appearance of deporting more illegals than any other President in History) can be given a court appearance (see your own link for Operation Streamline) or offered the waiver which is an admission of guilt to which if they cross the border again they can be charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor.

Visa overstays with order of deportation against them have already had their day in court and were denied, that's why they were ordered removed.

Again, illegals are limited in their constitutional protections, they have very, very few.

Liquid, for Christ sake, you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying except that I call it pleading "guilty" in a court of law, and you call it "offered a waiver". The fact is that it is a guilty plea, and the court has to find him guilty for him to be deported.

On the other hand, those crossing the border are often given the option of being driven back over the border with no trial, in which case, they also have no record of having done anything illegal..

I don't know what I am talking about? I live 30 miles from the Mexican border, and have attended Operation Streamline court sessions twice, personally.

Saying exactly the same thing? Then there was no need for your snide remark if all you are doing is repeating what I state. SMH

Returns are always fingerprinted and photographed and they also talk to an Immigration Officer if they choose to claim asylum. There is a record of their prior attempt if they are caught a second time, which is why they fingerprint and photograph them.

You seem to think all illegals can't be deported without first being found guilty in court, which isn't completely true, as they can sign a waiver and forgo the court all together, which, usually gets them out of custody much quicker, some go back home once deported, others turn around and try the next day to get back in.

Possibilities for Reentry to the U.S. After Removal | Nolo.com

If you do come back to the U.S. without permission after a removal order, the order could be “reinstated,” which is a process that allows an immigration officer to send you back to the country to which you were previously deported without letting you see an immigration judge first. Additionally, you could be charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry. But as discussed below, you can, if you have separate grounds upon which to request U.S. entry, apply for permission to return to the United States.

Nope. False again. Nobody in the US is guilty of a crime unless convicted in a court of law, including anyone who "signed a waiver" whatever the hell you are referring to by that. Look it up. You will find it in your 8th grade Civics text. Operation Streamline, which you argue is a procedure to deport without a criminal conviction is, in fact, a court of law, complete with a prosecutor, defence attorney, and a judge, as explained in my link, as a way to meet the constitutional requirements of a criminal conviction. Until, or unless that happens, no fingerprints, no, "Waiver", or anything else Trump can dream up, without a court conviction, can create a criminal record. These concepts are a package: Criminal charge, trial, criminal conviction, sentence, criminal record. None can be excluded. No one can become an "illegal alien" until a court determines that he broke a law. Until that moment, he is, at worst, an "undocumented alien"

No shit that Op Streamline is a court of law, it is in fact a criminal court and it is charging some EWI's with criminal activity as I already stated prior.

Again, you don't appear to know half of what you think you do, I just gave you a link that states that they can be deported without seeing a criminal court room at all and or convicted by a judge. Here is another link showing you to be wrong.

Overview of U.S. Deportation/Removal Proceedings - AllLaw.com

Non-citizens have the right to a lawyer, as well as other rights under the U.S. Constitution. The immigration authorities cannot simply deport someone without providing a chance to be heard.

Of course, the authorities often try to make the process go quickly, by asking the immigrant to sign something agreeing to depart without a hearing. In some cases, when the immigrant really is in the U.S. illegally with no defense to removal, leaving voluntarily can be the best way to go, because it avoids having an order of deportation on one's record.

That chance to be heard merely allows for the EWI to claim asylum to which that individual is interviewed by and immigration officer to determine if that person actually has a claim for asylum, if no claim is found, that person can be deported from the country via Expedited Removal, again, no court room, no judge.

Here's another link
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/01/22/Expedited Removal - English (17).pdf

There are several legal procedures DHS can use to remove you from the United States. This pamphlet is for individuals who are in Expedited Removal, Reinstatement of Removal or Administrative Removal. It does not apply to people in regular removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings. You can tell what type of proceedings you are in by the document you should have received from DHS that explains the reasons why you may be removed from the U.S.

Or how about from CRS
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/54512.pdf

Expedited removal, an immigration enforcement strategy originally conceived to operate at the borders and ports of entry, is being expanded, raising a set of policy, resource, and logistical questions. Expedited removal is a provision under which an alien who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or willful misrepresentation of facts may be removed from the United States without any further hearings or review, unless the alien indicates a fear of persecution. Congress added expedited removal to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in 1996, making it mandatory for arriving aliens, and giving the Attorney General the option of applying it to aliens in the interior of the country who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States and who cannot affirmatively show that they have been physically present in the United States continuously for two years. Until recently, expedited removal was only applied to aliens at ports of entry.

Surely you don't claim to know the law better than the laws themselves, do you? If you want to learn about immigration law, then don't claim to know things without backing up your claim and then telling me I am wrong when you have yet to begin to show that I am. Your words mean very little if you have no reputable links to back up those words.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you and/or he may contact USCIS to determine if they want him to detain you into custody for them. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID.

Now, if it was determined based on your answers, or non-answers, then it is the officers discretion or USCIS's to detain or not. Once you are turned over to USCIS they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you and you have no legal recourse. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID or you lie to them, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give. You could contact an attorney, but your going to be in a holding cell until he positively ID's you as being able to legally be in the US.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes.

In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

I would suggest you learn your states laws.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you, and you will probably get turned over to USCI. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. Now, if it was determined based on your fingerprints that you were a prior EWI or VO, then they will turn you over to USCIS and they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes.

In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

I would suggest you learn your states laws.

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you, and you will probably get turned over to USCI. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. Now, if it was determined based on your fingerprints that you were a prior EWI or VO, then they will turn you over to USCIS and they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes.

In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

I would suggest you learn your states laws.

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested and quickly deported without being charged with a crime in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you, and you will probably get turned over to USCI. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. Now, if it was determined based on your fingerprints that you were a prior EWI or VO, then they will turn you over to USCIS and they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes.

In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

I would suggest you learn your states laws.

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.



As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.

 

[HUGGY]

Will Trump send jackbooted thugs into every neighborhood searching for illegals and anyone else deemed anti-American?

Of course he will ...and have Mexico pay for it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Want more examples of your constitutional rights?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Ok, Liquid. I am walking down the street, and I have no wallet. A cop approaches me, and asks for identification. I tell him I have none. he arrests me (without probable cause, which is unconstitutional). They take me in and give me a "waiver". I voluntarily give up none of my rights. They deport me, to....where....(My ancestors arrived from Scotland in 1678). I get an attorney, who wants to know under what authority the feds have determined that I am an illegal immigrant, without my having voluntarily given up my rights, or been convicted in a court of law. And, as they put me on the boat to Scotland, the feds who did this to me tell my lawyer what? I really want to know. It is important to me to discover just exactly where I lost my constitutional right to a trial on a criminal charge, without my voluntarily signing those rights way. Please, educate me. Was it my accent? Perhaps my skin color? Maybe because I live in Georgia and my name isn't "Bubba"? Maybe I didn't vote for Trump?

This is the dumbest analogy I ever heard, and shows you don't even know your own states laws regarding ID. A cop can't arrest you for not having ID (unless you are in certain states that their statutes allow for it), he may ask you questions to attempt to determine your ID. If you answer his questions and tell him you are here in violation of the law, then he may arrest you, and you will probably get turned over to USCI. If USCIS takes custody of you , then you are ran through more checks to determine your ID. Now, if it was determined based on your fingerprints that you were a prior EWI or VO, then they will turn you over to USCIS and they will go about processing you, if your fingerprints come back saying you are either a citizen, a naturalized citizen, or on an immigrant on a visa, then they will probably release you. If they are unable to ID you and you refuse to give them your ID, they may keep you in an immigrant detention center until someone ID's you, you may even be deported based on the information you give.
In The Rush To Deport, Expelling U.S. Citizens

None of your rights have been violated to this point, and you may be held liable for failing to provide ID, which is determined by your own states laws, Stop and Identify Statutes.

In four states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.

I would suggest you learn your states laws.

You went off course in the third sentence. After that, you diverted from my entire question. Google Sheriff Joe. As you know, he is a sheriff of a county close to where I live. He, too, thinks that a cop can stop and question you without probable cause, and then arrest you simply because he thinks that you are an illegal alien. As a result of this information, Maricopa County has been fined millions of dollars by the feds for unconstitutional unreasonable search and seizure. Joe, himself has been charged, found guilty, and fined for the racial profiling:

Joe Arpaio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After getting past that, you never did tell me how I can be deported without being found guilty of a crime, without my voluntarily agreeing to give up my rights. And, while I am at it, we will go back to English common law, which held that the government has to prove that I am guilty, I don't have to prove that I am innocent. I also can opt to remain silent. Therefore, your contention is, and I suspect that Trump's is, too, that I can be picked up off the street, remain silent, and be deported against my will, without being convicted of a crime, and without me giving up any of my rights.

Nope, Liquid. Tweet Trump right away. It ain't gonna happen, and someone should let him know.

I never went off course responding to you, nor did I divert anything, I suggest you learn the laws before exclaiming things you don't seem to know much about, I would add you need to comprehend as well, which you seem to be failing at.

Cops can stop and question you when they come into contact with you. Do you not understand what Stop and Identify Statutes are? Since you are in AZ here are your state statutes regarding it.
Format Document
and
Format Document

I could care less about Arpaio and what he claims, if he did so in violation of the laws, which if I'm not mistaken his office had 287(g) authority, and regarding illegals he was never shown to be in violation of the law, however Obama did pull his 287(g) status in 2011 based on racial profiling charges.

I don't need to tell you how you get deported if you are never convicted of a crime, since you don' t need to be convicted of a crime to be deported. Only your status needs to be determined, you may request a hearing, but if found to be in violation of the law EWI or VO, you don't have to be charged with a crime, you're only charged with a crime based on the discretion of the administration, i.e. the AG.

I have laid out how US Citizens are deported, you can look it up via google or the link I provided which shows a US Citizen having been deported (there are numerous instances of this happening). In immigration law you have to prove you are here legally and that proof may/may not be accepted.

You still show utter ignorance of the laws. I suggest you research your next reply to me much more thoroughly.

Here's a link in your neck of the woods explaining how not having ID can get you arrested in AZ. Police State: How the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency Turned All Local Authorities Into La Migra

And here we go. Sheriff Joe was not acting unconstitutionally. He was convicted of racial profiling by the corrupt OBAMA CONSPIRACY! And, that is the heart of this issue. I say that Trump is lying when he claims that he can deport 12 million illegals in 2 years while not violating the constitution. I say that he can't do it, and what happened to Sheriff Joe is proof. You say that Sheriff Joe was railroaded for political reasons by Obama. I say that it is established law that you can NOT arbitrarily asking anyone for proof of citizenship under the constitution. Well, I willnot about to argue with someone who has decided that Obama is conspiring to railroad people who are in favor of deporting illegal aliens. I offer, instead, the following proof that no can NOT require papers from anyone without probable cause.



As to your contention that people can be deported without being convicted, or without agreeing to waive their rights, that is too absurd to even discuss. If that were the case, anyone in America is at risk of being thrown out of the country. While that is impossible now, if Trump were to be elected, I suppose that he could figure out how to take away our constitutional rights...which is what this thread is all about.

Talk about diversion. SMH Arpaio was guilty on charges of racial profiling, not illegal immigration violations. Which fails to actually address what I stated and showed, since I already stated he had the racial profiling issue.

You can claim Trump can't deport 12M in 2 years all you want, however it is entirely possible, much to your dismay. Pulling someone over based on race is illegal, pulling someone over for failure to wear a seat belt or for having a light out, or for a cracked window, or a mirror missing are all legal. You failing to provide your ID as mandated by your states law could get you detained, and if you are here illegally, deported without ever being convicted of a crime. A Law Enforcement Officer only needs to come into contact with you, do you understand what that means? They can't just walk up to you and ask for ID, they must have a cause to come into contact with you as I have stated.

Your link is hilarious, He had to put corrections in captions in the bottom right corner. If this moron knew anything about permanent check points verse thinking he was a Constitutional Scholar he would refer to this case
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564.

(a) To require that such stops always be based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow the particularized study of a given car necessary to identify it as a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a requirement also would largely eliminate any deterrent to the conduct of well disguised smuggling operations, even though smugglers are known to use these highways regularly. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-557.

(b) While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited, the interference with legitimate traffic being minimal and checkpoint operations involving less discretionary enforcement activity than roving patrol stops. Pp. 428 U. S. 557-560.

(c) Under the circumstances of these checkpoint stops, which do not involve searches, the Government or public interest in making such stops outweighs the constitutionally protected interest of the private citizen. Pp. 428 U. S. 560-562.

(d) With respect to the checkpoint involved in No 74-1560, it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for limited inquiry on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop, since the intrusion is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it. Pp. 428 U. S. 563-564.

2. Operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387

The cases are older than he is.. LMFAO

Now to my contentions; they have all been shown via links and cites to be dead on accurate, you choosing to disregard them is your choice and a chance you are obviously willing to take based on your inept comprehension of actual laws and what is or is not Constitutional in your own mind. If being thrown out as a citizen via mistake or your own idiotic ideals as you have so graciously given us, was so impossible why has it happened under Obama? The rest is nothing more than your own inane ramblings.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Want more examples of your constitutional rights?

This is hilarious, what a fucking moron. Like the officer stated, he (the officer) only needs to be satisfied the person questioned may be a US citizen. That is done via answering the questions or thinking they are exclaiming constitutional protections when the officer only needs to be satisfied the person may be a citizen.

From even the ACLU that states CBP has constitutional authority within 100 miles of the border and admits The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status.
The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone

• In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
• Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).

This means that permanent checkpoints aren't the same as roving check points to which from the same link states

For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status.