From: Kenito Benito <Kenito@Benito.naw>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.gooks,soc.culture.flips,uk.legal,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.guns,soc.culture.canada,nyc.general,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.tv,alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.greek,alt.abortion,alt.atheism,can.politics,uk.politics.misc,alt.checkmate,alt.slack.goathead,alt.life.sucks,soc.culture.israel
Subject: Re: More on Trump Derangement and I.C.E.
Organization: The Kenito Foundation (a 100% fictional company)
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:48:16 -0800
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:44:22 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:25:02 -0800, Kenito Benito
><Kenito@Benito.naw> in alt.atheism with message-id
><dukvjk9k4abmatd2jfhkmm417j0g5jtem7@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 07:25:51 -0500, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>>>>>>ICE is doing
>>>>>>>>>what they are required to do under federal law as passed by
>>>>>>>>>Congress and signed by the President.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Exactly what is ICE doing that is illegal?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deporting people WITHOUT due process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They came here without any due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet we have learned, and are learning, of MANY who were here
>>>>>>legally being deported.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even when they showed documentation supporting their status?
>>>>
>>>> Since they're denied due process, they've not been allowed to
>>>>show documentation supporting their status.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. They can show supporting documentation without a
>>>scheduled and drawn-out court appearance. How about showing
>>>it to ICE officials?
>>
>> ICE officers have no jurisdiction.
>
>ICE officers have jurisdiction in any part of the US which
>is not restricted for security reasons. Since they are
>federal officers no state or local laws can impede them.
>
This doesn't allow them to determine legality of a resident. This
is what you were suggesting.
>>>>>> When refugees come here and are granted asylum, they're legal.
>>>>>
>>>>>With limitations. Legal status is not a permanent key to
>>>>>the vault.
>>>>
>>>> But the government must be able to prove any violations. This
>>>>isn't being done. People are being declared guilty by ICE and deported
>>>>without any trials or deportation hearings. This violates the
>>>>Constitution AND Federal statutory regulation (Please see 8 U.S.C. §
>>>>1534 and INA §§ 239, 240, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.12 et seq., 1240.1 et
>>>>seq.).
>>>
>>>The fact that they are physically present in the US without
>>>proper authorization is sufficient to deport them.
>>
>> This must be proved.
>
>They must have their documentation to show this.
>
Which is why one reason deportation hearing are required.
>>>8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
>>>U.S. Code
>>>
>>>(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or
>>>inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
>>>Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United
>>>States at any time or place other than as designated by
>>>immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or
>>>inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter
>>>or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false
>>>or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a
>>>material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such
>>>offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
>>>6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any
>>>such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not
>>>more than 2 years, or both.
>>>
>>>(b)Improper time or place; civil penalties
>>>Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting
>>>to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
>>>designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a
>>>civil penalty of
>>>(1)at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry
>>>(or attempted entry); or
>>>(2)twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case
>>>of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil
>>>penalty under this subsection.
>>>Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to,
>>>and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties
>>>that may be imposed.
>>>
>>>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
>>
>> The regulation you cite does NOT apply to persons who are here
>>legally. But, as has been explained, people are not being allowed to
>>present evidence that they are here legally.
>
>Do you have specific examples of legal residents being
>deported?
>
Yes.
Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and Columbia University
student.
Fabian Schmidt, a legal green card holder.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident, with a green card, from
El Salvador who the Trump administration LIED and claimed is a gang
member.
There are MANY more, but three is enough to prove my point.
There are NO records showing any sort of deportation hearing was
held for any of the three mentioned. You are free to present your best
evidence that a hearing each was held.
>
>> 8 U.S. Code § 1325 (a) (1)(2)(3) don't apply to the discussion at
>>hand. No one disputes illegals do not have a legal right, or
>>privilege, to be here. But those who are legal do. Your disregard for
>>the reality that legal aliens are being deported without an
>>opportunity to present evidence that they are legal doesn't alter
>>this.
>
>DO you know of any case in which documentation was shown to
>federal agents and the person was deported anyway? Valid
>documentation, not forged documentation.
I cite three above.
>>>
>>>>>>They may violate a law, or laws, that causes that protection to be
>>>>>>removed. But without due process, how can we know they committed such
>>>>>>an act?
>>>>>> Without due process, there is no means for them to prove they are
>>>>>>here legally. ICE could grab you and deport you, claiming you're
>>>>>>actually illegal. Without due process, you couldn't present evidence
>>>>>>proving that you are legal.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can show it to anyone upon request.
>>>>
>>>> Without due process, there is no request. You could find yourself
>>>>in a maximum security prison in El Salvador within a week. And there
>>>>is no way for you to prevent it.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. There must be some degree of rationality involved
>>>here and showing proper documentation to an immigration
>>>official should be sufficient to at least lead only to
>>>detention until the documentation can be verified.
>>
>> Yet this is NOT being done. And I suspect you know this.
>
>Why?
Because I don't think you're stupid. As such, it is reasonable to
suspect you know.
>
>If I am stopped for speeding I don't need a court hearing to
>show I have a DL. I just show it to the officer.
>
Cite the law that requires people to show documents to ICE
agents.
>>
>>>>>I doubt anyone using
>>>>>documentation to support legal status is being deported
>>>>>without due process.
>>>>
>>>> But they are being deported without due process. Is anyone
>>>>denying this? I know Trump isn't. ICE isn't. Both are open about the
>>>>willful violation of the law.
>>>
>>>If they are validly subject to deportation under the law why
>>>should any court procedure be needed? The law involved is
>>>very clear.
>>
>> Why have any hearings or trials? By YOUR standards, the mere
>>accusation is proof of guilt.
>
>Nonsense. If documentation is requested and then shown no
>court hearing is needed. If there is no documentation then
>a hearing would be superfluous.
>
Do you keep your Social Security card on you? Or your birth
certificate? Something, other than a driver's license, since even
illegals can get them, that will prove you're not here illegally?
If you don't, you can be deported, and you won't be allowed an
opportunity to prove you have the legal right to be in the U.S.
>>>>>>>Why should they get
>>>>>>>the legal protection of a legal citizen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone within the boarders has a Constitutional right to due
>>>>>>process. Please see Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345
>>>>>>U.S. 206, 212 (1953), Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 215 (1982), and
>>>>>>Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). The last one is, perhaps,
>>>>>>the best since it holds that due process applies to all persons within
>>>>>>the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is
>>>>>>lawful, or not.
>>>>>> You will note the Constitution states in the Fifth Amendment, the
>>>>>>ones SCOTUS used, all PERSONS, not all citizens.
>>>>>> You are certainly free to lobby for an amendment that restricts,
>>>>>>or eliminates the right to Due Process. I don't think you will find
>>>>>>successes, but you guarantee failure if you don't try.
>>>>>> You may also file a writ of certiorari, either yourself or
>>>>>>through a lawyer, to argue to have a new ruling that negates the
>>>>>>previous ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect SCOTUS might reach a different conclusion post
>>>>>Biden invasion.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe so, maybe no. File a writ of certiorari. If chosen, you, or
>>>>your legal agent, may argue for an overrule of SCOTUS' previous
>>>>rulings. Or lobby for an amendment limiting, or removing, due process.
>>>>As it stands, all persons within the United States of America are to
>>>>be assured due process. You are still free to offer legal precedent
>>>>that would show due process is not required.
>>>> I am aware of the rule of expedited removal. Expedited removal
>>>>was codified in IIRIRA in 1996 as an amendment to the INA. And it
>>>>requires the alien be apprehended within 100 miles of the border and
>>>>have been present in the country for less than 14 days. Sadly, many
>>>>deportees who are not given due process do not meet these
>>>>requirements, making the rule of expedited removal irrelevant.
>>>
>>>This entire immigration process needs to be changed and new
>>>laws need to be enacted to reflect the reality of the
>>>situation.
>>
>> Lobby to get the changes you believe are needed.
>>
>>>If a person does not have legal status to be in
>>>the country they are subject to immediate deportation and no
>>>laborious court procedure should be required.
>>
>> The Constitution requires it.
>
>According to SCOTUS. That is subject to change.
>
Once again, file a writ of certiorari and argue your case that
due process is NOT a part of the Constitution. Or lobby for a
Constitutional amendment limiting, or removing, due process.
>>>Only their
>>>status should be determined as easily and quickly as
>>>possible.
>>
>> Which is what deportation hearings are for. But they're not being
>>used. People are just deported based solely on accusations.
>
>Specific example please.
>
I cite three above.
>>>Plus there should be severe limits to persons and
>>>departments who can grant any temporary exemptions, starting
>>>with the elimination of the state department.
>>
>> You do realize this means an end to DHS, ICE, and boarder patrol.
>
>Only a lot of the volume they handle. Too many sources can
>approve legal status for aliens. DHS, ICE, and Border
>Patrol should not be granting legal status. This should be
>concentrated in one department.
>
No problem. As you learned in seventh grade, such authority
resides with the office of the Attorney General. This is authorized
under INA (Immigration and Nationality Act).
>On reflection perhaps the State Department should do this.
>
I presume you mean the Department of State :)
Lobby to have such authority transferred. You may succeed.
>>An odd position for someone who wants them to have open permission to
>>do as they wish in regards to deportation.
>> I do hope I simply misunderstand what you're presenting.
>
>Obviously you are.
As it turns out, I am not. I understood, and understand,
perfectly.
--
Kenito Benito
Strategic Writer,
Psychotronic World Dominator.
And FEMA camp counselor.