Davin News Server

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:48:16 -0800, Kenito Benito
<Kenito@Benito.naw> in alt.atheism with message-id
<dt62kk9jasjii3ket7um66keop6s2m45ql@4ax.com> wrote:

>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.


They can detain pending status verification and release if
proper status is verified.  Are you say a court is required
to effect such a release?

>
>>>>>>>     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.

If no supporting documentation is provided no court hearing
should be necessary.

If they are legal they will have such documentation.  They
received it when they received legal status.  If they do not
have it they are illegal and should be deported.

>
>>>>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.

A currently valid green card?  As shown to ICE?

>     Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident, with a green card, from
>El Salvador who the Trump administration LIED and claimed is a gang
>member. 

That case has been politically screwed up.

>     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.

Accidents will happen.

>
>>
>>>     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.

We are at an impasse.  I do not have the resources to verify
what you say and as the same time I do not believe you.

I suspect there are other factors you are not mentioning.

I agree the involvement of the court system means delays
that makes deportation of large numbers difficult.  There
are several remedies - temporary immigration courts could be
established to clear these cases as fast as possible and
SCOTUS could modify existing law to the same result.  The
practice of releasing detainees with a future court date
should be immediately stopped.

Obviously if they are here illegally they are not about to
return to court so this can be legally established,  Only a
fool would expect them to do this.

>
>>>>
>>>>>>>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.

I know many more are detained and then released rather than
arrested.  Why are they being released?

>
>>
>>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. 

If the alternative is to be arrested no such law would be
necessary.  Why would any sane person fail to show such
documentation unless they are trying to deliberately cause a
problem?

>
>>>
>>>>>>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? 

A social security card cannot be used for identification. It
says so right on the card.

>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?

In my state my DL is marked with a code that shows my birth
certificate was presented when the license was issued.

>     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.

I do have such documentation.

1. Primary Identification

An original of one of the following documents with complete
name:

U.S. birth certificate, including some U.S. territories and
District of Columbia (birth certificates from Puerto Rico
must have an issue date after July 1, 2010); or
Valid U.S. passport or passport card; or
Consular Report of Birth Abroad; or
Certificate of Naturalization, form N-550 or form N-570; or
Certificate of Citizenship, form N-560 or form N-561.
NOTES

Only a birth certificate issued by a county health
department or the CDC Bureau of Vital Statistics will be
accepted. Hospital birth certificates are not considered a
certified document and will not be accepted.
Please come prepared to present one of the above listed
identification documents as proof of citizenship or legal
presence.
When applicable, marriage certificates, court orders or
divorce decrees must be provided to link the name on the
primary identification to the name on the driver license or
ID card.
If a valid U.S. passport has the customer’s current name,
they are not required to present additional name change
documents.

https://www.flhsmv.gov/driver-licenses-id-cards/what-to-bring/u-s-citizen/#:~:text=1.,the%20customer's%20current%20name);

Other documentation is required for non-citizens.

>
>>>>>>>>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.

I will leave that to others.  I have neither the time or
interest to be that involved.

>
>>>>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.

As do I.  I support deportation as rapidly as possible.  You
wish to prevent as many as possible.

My signature makes my position clear.  I support laws
requiring all government and healthcare officials to
determine citizenship status for anyone they assist or come
into contact with and report all illegals to ICE immediately
with details like address and any other information that
could be used to locate them.

-- 


Every person in the US is here either  
legally or illegally. Those that are 
here illegally should be afraid.  
Be very afraid.  It does not matter 
how long you have been here.  It does 
not matter why you are here. It does not 
matter what you have done legally while you 
were here. It does not matter what any 
relative may have done while you were here. 
It only matters that you are here illegally. 
It may take a day, a week, a year, or longer 
but we will find you and we will deport you. 
Be prepared.

Deport them all.

Due process:
Q. Are you here legally?  If so, where is 
the documentation to establish that?


All politicians are trained to lie
and make those lies sound like 
the truth.  They start with the biggest 
lie of all: Politicians are public
servants.

The Dims have an appropriate party
symbol: A jackass.

Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting 
and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I support:

A Constitional Amendment establishing
the Freedom of Choice.

The elimination of public expression, 
display or support of religion or 
religious positions.