Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is my "due process" so that the Constitution is followed. You get three days to prove you are here legally and are detained until then. If you can't do it in three days then out you go back to your homeland. What's unfair about that?
lol, making up new standards for due process as we go along!
based on US Immigration law and US Supreme Court rulings
just because someone is illegal dont meant US Constitution laws dont apply to him
If you have problem with that ask US Congress or Supreme Court to change the law Every democratic country needs checks and balances or people will be abused
I agree, That is why our immigration system plays such a big part.. People that are trying to find jobs "to feed their families" shouldn't have to compete with people that entered illegally.
Why? Once an American is convicted of a crime and deemed guilty they have to pay the price, don't they? Just how long should it take to prove you are here legally? Certainly not 5-6 years and in the meantime you get to work here.
Here is my "due process" so that the Constitution is followed. You get three days to prove you are here legally and are detained until then. If you can't do it in three days then out you go back to your homeland. What's unfair about that?
First illegal is not a criminal offense it is a civil offense
If you not happy with current immigration law ask your congressman to change it Till then US immigration has to go by current immigration law
They already under fire for being too strict on illegals
Good luck to you if you manage to change the law
Why? Once an American is convicted of a crime and deemed guilty they have to pay the price, don't they? Just how long should it take to prove you are here legally? Certainly not 5-6 years and in the meantime you get to work here.
Here is my "due process" so that the Constitution is followed. You get three days to prove you are here legally and are detained until then. If you can't do it in three days then out you go back to your homeland. What's unfair about that?
FYI dudes, the government bears the evidentiary burden in immigration cases. So, you know, you don't get to keep them in a cell until they prove they are innocent, which would kind of be antithetical to the entire theoretical foundation of the justice system.
FYI dudes, the government bears the evidentiary burden in immigration cases. So, you know, you don't get to keep them in a cell until they prove they are innocent, which would kind of be antithetical to the entire theoretical foundation of the justice system.
True but we do have a right to deny bail based on flight risk. Given thier history of illegal migration one can assume they are a genuine flight risk.
True but we do have a right to deny bail based on flight risk. Given thier history of illegal migration one can assume they are a genuine flight risk.
for those kind of people Immigration asks aliens to post cash bail It can be anywhere from $5000 to $20000 Lots of aliens have good support of community and churches who help them to post bail
moreover ICE has limited detention spaces and cant detain everyone
the government bears the evidentiary burden in immigration cases.
Not necessarily true, the government only needs to show the person is here in violation of immigration law (EWI or visa overstay). How many illegal aliens and deportable aliens are being held in detention centers? How long have some of them been in there?
In removal proceedings, the parties' burdens of proof depend upon whether the alien is "an applicant for admission" or has been admitted to the United States.The US Gov't or DHS must only establish by "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" that you, as the person in question, are in fact an alien. If you're not an applicant for admission to the US, then you have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that you're lawfully present in the U.S. under a prior admission. If you prove that you're lawfully present pursuant to a prior admission, the burden shifts to DHS. The DHS must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that you're "removable."
Also, those applying for asylum must prove that they are eligible for such relief.
True but we do have a right to deny bail based on flight risk. Given thier history of illegal migration one can assume they are a genuine flight risk.
That's not related to the evidentiary burden.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
