The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Can Immigrants be Deported Without a Trial?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last weekend, President Donald Trump argued that those foreigners who enter the United States unlawfully should simply be taken to the border, escorted across it and let go. According to the president, this would save precious government resources, avoid the business of separating children from their parents and free up the Border Patrol and other federal assets to do their jobs.

He is undoubtedly correct on the beneficial consequences to the government of forced deportation without due process. Yet deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional.
Here is the back story.

The nation has been torn apart by the images of immigrant children — some are babies — being forcibly separated from their parents by U.S. immigration authorities, who were getting orders from the Trump administration, which was misreading federal law so as to require the separation.

The government has essentially taken the position that those physically present in the U.S. illegally have few constitutional rights and thus family members who arrive together can be separated, no matter the psychological or physical consequences. This forced separation is not novel to the Trump administration, but its massive scale in the present toxic national political environment has painfully brought it to our collective conscience.

The forced separation by the government of children from their parents without a trial when neither is a danger to the other is child abuse or kidnapping or both. When federal authorities engage in such morally repellant behavior — whether as a negotiating technique to bring the president’s political adversaries to the bargaining table or to coerce the immigrants to go home — it exposes them to state prosecution because of the acute and long-term harm they have caused to the children.

After a tidal wave of public opinion against this practice finally resonated in the White House, President Trump signed an executive order last week that permitted, but did not require, immigration authorities to reunite the children and their parents. Then, in the wake of a slow reunification — some of the children had been sent from Texas to New York while their parents were kept in Texas — the president uttered his exasperation regarding due process.

If he had asked his lawyers first, he would have learned that there is no legal basis for his official antipathy to due process.

The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial.

ORDER IT NOW

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. “Person,” in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported.

Hundreds of books and law review articles have been written about due process. Here we are addressing procedural due process, which has three components. The first is notice. The person against whom the government is proceeding is entitled to a written statement specifically articulating his alleged wrongful behavior sufficiently prior to trial. Once notice is given, the government is hard-pressed to alter the charges.

The second component of due process is the requirement of the government to prove its charges against the person to whom it has given notice before a neutral judicial official, not one who works for the entity that is proceeding against him.

The third component of due process requires that the entire proceeding against the person be fair, that it appear to be fair and that the outcome be rational. The judge can decide whom to believe, but she cannot, for example, decide that 2+2=22, as that would be irrational. Fairness also includes the right to an appeal.

The dangers of rejecting the plain meaning of the Constitution (“person”) and the dangers of taking a class of people and refusing to recognize their fundamental constitutional rights because of an immutable characteristic of birth (alienage) cannot be overstated.

President Trump is my friend. I like him dearly and wish him well and want him to succeed. But he is profoundly wrong here. He cannot lawfully or morally reject his oath to uphold the Constitution. Denying due process on the basis of alienage is tantamount to denying the personhood of undocumented foreigners as the U.S. once did to slaves and does today to babies in the womb. And that denial is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie tyranny and misery.

Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned against the denial of due process when he remarked that the history of human liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards by the government. The whole reason we thrive here and the reason others want to come here is that our Constitution guarantees respect for humans’ personhood, which has spawned freedom and prosperity. If the due process guarantee were to go by the wayside, all other liberties would soon follow.

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
Hide 55 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I can’t stomach Andy’s bull shit any more. He is a cartoon. No longer worth reading.

    Read More
    • Agree: artichoke
    • Replies: @Bubba
    This column should be re-titled "The Law is an Ass." Libertarians and liberals are their own worst enemies. And President Trump has been great at putting assorted jackasses like Judge Napolitano & his ilk in a circular firing squad. Judges with opinions like Napolitano should all be impeached by the Senate and state legislatures as they are the biggest danger to America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Well, judge, your title mentions deportation without a trial, which is wholly constitutional, but you then proceed to blather on about separating families, which I agree requires some form of due process.

    So what is your point? Mr. Trump is dead on right to say we should dump the entire family back across the border, but since there is that law that says persons from non-contiguous countries can ask for asylum, I say we presume any person crossing the land border into the US should be presumed to be a subject of the country they are crossing from. So a Haitian arriving from Canada is a Canadian subject; we can presume that if they are an asylum seeker that they could have sought it in Canada before coming to the US. Same goes for Central Americans coming from Mexico.

    As for families, they had better be prepared to present documentary proof that they are a family if they are not being immediately retuned across the border, because we can presume the children need the full protection of the US, in a segregated camp, if the persons presenting them as their children can’t prove they are indeed their children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Does anyone here believe that either of these statements of Mr. Napolitano is sincere?

    > “This forced separation is not novel to the Trump administration, but its massive scale in the present toxic national political environment has painfully brought it to our collective conscience.” Telling the sheeple what “we” are supposed to feel is standard statist propaganda.

    > “President Trump is my friend. I like him dearly and wish him well and want him to succeed.” One often sees Mr. Napolitano throw in the first sentence. It’s usually merely nauseous upsucking that he thinks may impress some of his audience. But here, with the second sentence, it comes across as a threat. (See below.)

    And what kind of judicial sideshow is he barking up here?

    > “When federal authorities engage in such morally repellant behavior — whether as a negotiating technique to bring the president’s political adversaries to the bargaining table or to coerce the immigrants to go home — it exposes them to state prosecution because of the acute and long-term harm they have caused to the children.” Don’t be surprised if some grandstanding prosecutor announces such a proceeding, perhaps in New York. (“[S]of the children had been sent from Texas to New York while their parents were kept in Texas.”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. user_s says:

    I am going with your friend on this one. Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the state from whence they came and therefore are owed no due process, assuming we are sticking to the Talmudic interpretation of “due process” as meaning “having a trial”. Or, one could assert that due process for illegal immigration simply IS deportation. What other just outcome could there be? Why do we need courts and all that other crap for this? The logical conclusion otherwise would be absurd, as no member of an invading army could be shot once he touched down on American soil without first getting his day in court, preferably the 9th circuit of course.

    Anyway, if you are so concerned with tyranny check out what decades of anchor babies and “due process” for illegal immigrants have done for the constitution, and “freedom” in California. But maybe you are right, and this is what the authors of the 14th amendment had in mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Yes, this is indeed slippery reasoning from Napolitano leading to an illogical result: an invading Russian battalion could simply invoke the 14th Amendment. Therefore, "person" must be read in its historical context of extending the Bill of Rights to emancipated slaves. Language of the drafters will not be construed to an illogical result, and Napolitano has doubtless penned this very principle in his opinions. So he's being blatantly and consciously dishonest.

    Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction--they are under such protection as their home country may be able to render--and so not entitled to US due process. The US could shoot border jumpers on sight if it so wished, like Indians do to Bengalis and nobody does anything about it, because nobody can. Life is good if you're a sovereign.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Realistic says:

    From Reuters:

    Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor

    From Reuters:

    Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.
     

    If it's Constitutionally-valid within 100 miles of the border and 14 days, it's Constitutionally-valid anywhere in the US, indefinitely.

    As for a hearing, fine, put them in an area on the border fenced in on 3 sides, give them a judge to hear them 1 at a time, and nothing else. They'll get the point wander off eventually.

    Mexico is not a warzone; genuine asylum-seekers will be fine there. They're all economic migrants.

    All the Chinese Army has to do is put their troops in civilian clothing, and instruct them to claim to be refugees. Never mind those Norinco assault rifles; the 2nd Amendment guarantees their right to bear arms.

    How to win a war vs. the United States, "if Judge Napo was in charge" edition.

    How libertarianism makes you stupid, lesson #8491.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @user_s
    I am going with your friend on this one. Illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the state from whence they came and therefore are owed no due process, assuming we are sticking to the Talmudic interpretation of "due process" as meaning "having a trial". Or, one could assert that due process for illegal immigration simply IS deportation. What other just outcome could there be? Why do we need courts and all that other crap for this? The logical conclusion otherwise would be absurd, as no member of an invading army could be shot once he touched down on American soil without first getting his day in court, preferably the 9th circuit of course.

    Anyway, if you are so concerned with tyranny check out what decades of anchor babies and "due process" for illegal immigrants have done for the constitution, and "freedom" in California. But maybe you are right, and this is what the authors of the 14th amendment had in mind.

    Yes, this is indeed slippery reasoning from Napolitano leading to an illogical result: an invading Russian battalion could simply invoke the 14th Amendment. Therefore, “person” must be read in its historical context of extending the Bill of Rights to emancipated slaves. Language of the drafters will not be construed to an illogical result, and Napolitano has doubtless penned this very principle in his opinions. So he’s being blatantly and consciously dishonest.

    Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction–they are under such protection as their home country may be able to render–and so not entitled to US due process. The US could shoot border jumpers on sight if it so wished, like Indians do to Bengalis and nobody does anything about it, because nobody can. Life is good if you’re a sovereign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yes, this is indeed slippery reasoning from Napolitano leading to an illogical result: an invading Russian battalion could simply invoke the 14th Amendment. "

    Except...it's an official arm of the Russian military, and thus their invocation would be DOA.

    "Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction–they are under such protection as their home country may be able to render–and so not entitled to US due process."

    And you call yourself a lawyer?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. It is astonishing that this single, childless terd offers opinions that are so detrimental to families in the USA? Is he getting his tiny peen sucked by a Chicano?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. densa says:

    The dangers of rejecting the plain meaning of the Constitution (“person”) and the dangers of taking a class of people and refusing to recognize their fundamental constitutional rights because of an immutable characteristic of birth (alienage) cannot be overstated.

    There is also a danger in assuming that the word “person” means we have no nation and the entire world is entitled to be supported by taxpayers. The cost of worrying about whether the world is welcome is never mentioned. Every orphan Obama invited to live out their lives here at our expense will cost about $20,000 a year for bilingual education alone. Are citizens and taxpayers not persons? Have we no constitutional right to our life and property?

    If everyone presenting at the border has a right to enter our seriously broken legal system, game it and win benefits forever, how many more millions should we expect? At what point do bleeding heart conservatives decide it isn’t immigration and human rights but an invasion that comes with an increasingly unbearable price for the citizens the constitution was written to protect.

    If the border had been enforced, we would not have this problem. The “immutable characteristic of birth (alienage)” applies to the entire world, meaning the 9th Circuit will not shut down this slow motion invasion before our quality of life is completely wrecked. The disloyal Democrats and Rinos never think of their fellow citizens as they try to out do each other’s concern for everyone’s children except our own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Begemot says:

    From the above comments it looks like the Conservative defense of strict construction of the Constitution goes out the window when it conflicts with Conservative prejudices. These people are as despicable as the people they despise, those damned liberals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The Constitution is a contract between the people (citizens) of the United States of America and the US government it doesn't apply to everybody in the world.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    Another Neo-American here to tell Americans what their founding charters and history are all about.
    , @artichoke
    Strict construction? Not when you consider that each "person" then considered probably had to have State citizenship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. MarkinLA says:

    These never deporting “immigration courts” were created in response to the 1986 amnesty and were likely created to make sure nobody ever got deported. They probably got the idea from Britain. We were fine with them prior to 1986 when we just loaded the illegals on buses and sent them home.

    This clown thinks the Constitution has to apply to everybody in the world, no matter where they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I meant to say fine without them but didn't proofread well enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. MarkinLA says:
    @Begemot
    From the above comments it looks like the Conservative defense of strict construction of the Constitution goes out the window when it conflicts with Conservative prejudices. These people are as despicable as the people they despise, those damned liberals.

    The Constitution is a contract between the people (citizens) of the United States of America and the US government it doesn’t apply to everybody in the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. MarkinLA says:

    The nation has been torn apart by the images of immigrant children

    I am calling BS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. MarkinLA says:
    @MarkinLA
    These never deporting "immigration courts" were created in response to the 1986 amnesty and were likely created to make sure nobody ever got deported. They probably got the idea from Britain. We were fine with them prior to 1986 when we just loaded the illegals on buses and sent them home.

    This clown thinks the Constitution has to apply to everybody in the world, no matter where they are.

    I meant to say fine without them but didn’t proofread well enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Begemot
    From the above comments it looks like the Conservative defense of strict construction of the Constitution goes out the window when it conflicts with Conservative prejudices. These people are as despicable as the people they despise, those damned liberals.

    Another Neo-American here to tell Americans what their founding charters and history are all about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Dr. Doom says:

    Eventually people will just start shooting them. Vigilantes have to do it when the authorities are corrupt. Don’t quote worthless statutes to me. We have a Rump Court of Nine Buffoons who believe they can just make shit up. This failed state can no longer govern. Its running out of that monopoly money and has virtually ZERO SUPPORT out in the world. Those lousy crooks are AFRAID to show their face here now. Without security they would rather fly over like the cowards they are.
    You Swamp Cretins are the Provincials. You are nothing. WE ARE LEGION.

    When Civil War II starts in earnest,, forget about your “papers”. There is me and mine and DEAD.
    Collaborators are also gonna get shot I’d expect.

    You go too far. And you CANNOT WALK IT BACK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. David JW says:

    Er… FAIL! Deporting someone who shouldn’t be in the US doesn’t take away their life, liberty or property. Note to Unz: get rid of this dufus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Napolitano needs a new hair stylist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bubba
    And a new fashion consultant - his large pinstripe suits look like prisonwear from black & white, vacuum-tube TV shows. Napolitano looks like Elliot Ness' archnemesis (the treacherous and evil Frank Nitty) in those ridiculous suits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Rich says:

    The former Judge is playing a little game with the Constitution and with the English language. He calls these law-breaking invaders “immigrants” because it sounds nice and reminds many people of great grandpa and grandma coming to America years ago. He forgets that for close to 200 years illegal immigrants could be, and were denied entry to the US and it was considered perfectly legal and perfectly Constitutional.

    There is a legal process in place for an individual to immigrate into the US. A person who follows the law can be called an “immigrant”. Someone who enters the country illegally, is an illegal alien, or invader, and the US would be perfectly within its rights to shoot these people on the spot if it chose to do so. Were Pancho Villa and his band of merry (armed) men eligible for “due process” in the former Judge’s opinion?

    The former Judge has set himself up as a spokesman for those usually wealthy people who want cheap labor they can exploit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Dan Hayes says:

    I don’t like to hear what the good judge is saying. That is more reason to pay attention to what he is saying.

    In retrospect it appears that the lawyering class has spun a fine web of rules and regulations to embellish their way of life. I believe it is unconscionable but we have to recognize what it is and what we are up against.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. bartok says:

    I tried to warn ya, the Judge is an open borders freak. Even Ayn Rand (d. 1982) would have had to reconsider her open borders view once it started to seriously conflict with her “scum of the third world” assessment of the Global South. Those still carrying her banner for open borders are really “hippies of the right,” the epithet she coined for libertarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Immigrants are foreign nationals and should be given diplomatic immunity.

    Diplomatic immunity

    Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country’s laws, but they can still be expelled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    “Repel Invasions” is Constitutional, and I don’t think the Founders had legal rigamarole in mind like the soft-headed judge.

    And what else is massive illegal immigration but an Invasion with the goal of re-conquering land?

    “Many Mexicans are nourishing the ground in the U.S., but those lands were once ours. Those same lands, which now with intelligence, with love and with a lot of work, we are re-conquering again for our Mexico.” [Gloria Ramirez Vargas, a Mexican politician from Baja, California, All Things Considered, May 1, 2006.] http://www.vdare.com/articles/reconquista-is-real

    The due process conquering invaders deserve is a bullet, as for any home invader.

    Read More
    • Agree: Them Guys
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    The Clauses in US Const. Specify that it is the Militia members, aged 17-45 males, females as long as also in army-reserve(?) or nat guard too, who's Duty it is and who should be tasked with performing what the militia clause states....#1 Enforce Statues/Laws...…#2. Stop insurrections (negro Riots/looting/torching cities etc) and #3. REPEL Invasions/Invaders. Like mex illegals etc at border.


    Same US Const authorizes the US Prez, and state governers to Call Out said state or every states militia members....Once called out per related us fed laws, each militia member must come equipped and prepared with their Own firearms and ammo provided by themselves.


    All and Any such militia members who reject a call out or fail to comply is the same as army deserter status and against fed law etc.


    ANY and EVERY day of every week this entire fiasco of flooding America with whoever and whatever illegal entry, regardless who or how many or what age illegal is , Can and Should be Halted ASAP pronto Fast. Regardless of what "bad press" may arise, against Trump or State Governers or militia members or the 2nd amendt etc....SO WHAT? Matters not a whit.


    #1 JOB of usa fed govnt and us prez is to secure and protect, safety and security and freedoms of US Citizenery.


    NO such rights pertains to Criminal Illegals or their tons of kiddies or extended families of 87 extra undesirables period....BOOT OUT ALL such criminal INVADERS!


    Use proper US Const Clauses and Laws already On the fed law books, use the Militia of several states and make damn good use of 2nd amendt.


    PS: In all Three founding docs, Const+BOR+Declaration Independence,,,,ONLY one specific place do the words appear of …"Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State" No Other place than in the 2nd ammendt.


    This is because Founders Knew that The Most totally important issues for a nation and its peoples is to have and maintain and keep, it and its peoples, in a state of "Security and Freedom" and you cannot have one without the other. Ergo reason 2nd amendt worded as it is. You can't have freedom unless also have security, can't have security unless the citizenery are Free to Own firearms in order to Maintain said security of a secure nation and its BORDERS. (unless you rather trust fed gov to provide it all eh?...We know from many past histories how That worked correct?).


    Ergo, Main reasons for the 2nd amendt. Where the word "right of the "People" to keep and bare arms, People means Two or more Persons...A citizen Personal Right that's Not to be Infringed period. What do antigun clowns not as yet get eh?


    And is also reason for us const clauses pertaining to us citizen Militia members in every state and by fed law also.


    Why do you think all them anti gun/anti personal freedom clowns keep trying so hard to Disarm Us usa citizens so well armed eh?....So Nobody and nothing will stand in their way of a total dictator state in America, very alike their prior take over in 1917 Russia with a jewish commie Bolshevik revolt against usa citizens, especially them what are Euro Whites.


    I bet states armed militia members can also be called out to deal with such Bolshevik culprits at a proper time too eh.


    PS: EVERY usa and Fed Judge who claims as article states that word of "Person" applies and counts for Every individual Human being within lands of usa….BUT Then Same usa/fed judges claim that the word of "People" in the 2nd amendt, somehow don't apply to usa citizens, or that somehow "people" don't mean same as "Person", only People means more than one aka Two or more persons equals People....Any such judges need be Impeached/Fired/and replaced with a justice that understands what words mean.


    Because every antigun "law" to date, always is caused by some fraud lib commie lefty judges who seem to believe the words of Persons and People always pertain to individual Humans or multitude of people humans...UNLESS they are dealing with wording of 2nd. amend. and firearm rights for USA Citizens gun rights etc.


    They are Loons period...Loons do Not belong on any judge bench nor deciding what can only be defined as a citizens Most important Right, along with the Equally important Right of Free Speech as in 1st amendt as stated.....Tommy Jefferson when us prez eliminated positions of around Half of All fed ct judges, and had congress re-align the fed ct districts, and the issues fed judges allowed to deal with. This can be done again by Trump as us prez and the current congress.


    Perhaps time has come for New Massive major nationwide protests, only this time by Euro Whites and while Fully Well Armed to proverbial Teeth as a show of solidarity eh...And with a long list of OUR Demands for America and Us.


    PSS: A study was done a few yrs ago compared all combined official Military/armys of all branches and every global nation etc, along with every nations Police forces.....


    And also of the grand Total of Just the Lic usa Hunters, and Known firearm owners within all 50 states of usa….Armed usa citizens and Hunters had a grand total number over, 2 Times the total number globally of a combo police and military armed personal.


    Globalwide armys and cops equaled around 55-Million total in entire world.


    USA Armed Citizens= Well Over a Hundred Million Legit gun owners, with no way to tell how many more own a firearm illegally. Citizens just in America can produce well Over Twice number of armed persons, as entire worlds cops and military combined.


    Just an FYI for naysayers or doubters who always cry and whine to get out of a discussion of actually doing something about our basic rights and maintaining said rights. Maintaining a majority euro white nations is also very Valid and necessary, unless one is an insane whitey eh.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Would a 1954 mile long x 300 yard wide strip of landmines be unconstitutional? Cheaper than a wall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. TG says:

    Suppose some poor Americans try to trespass onto the grounds of a gated mansion or private estate of a billionaire like Mark Zuckerberg ‘in search of a better life’. They will simply be turned away by large unsmiling security guards. There will be no due process, no appeals, no temporary protected status where they get to stay on their property until appeals get through the court system. No. And if they press the issue, and force their way in, they will be arrested, and if they have a child present, that child will absolutely be taken from their parents. And nobody will shed a tear.

    This whole splitting families up a the border nonsense is a manufactured outrage, and its purpose is not morality, but to hammer down resistance to a cheap-labor immigration policy that is designed to do one thing: lower wages for the many and raise profits for the few. Period.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Them Guys says:
    @Anonymous
    "Repel Invasions" is Constitutional, and I don't think the Founders had legal rigamarole in mind like the soft-headed judge.

    And what else is massive illegal immigration but an Invasion with the goal of re-conquering land?

    "Many Mexicans are nourishing the ground in the U.S., but those lands were once ours. Those same lands, which now with intelligence, with love and with a lot of work, we are re-conquering again for our Mexico." [Gloria Ramirez Vargas, a Mexican politician from Baja, California, All Things Considered, May 1, 2006.] http://www.vdare.com/articles/reconquista-is-real
     
    The due process conquering invaders deserve is a bullet, as for any home invader.

    The Clauses in US Const. Specify that it is the Militia members, aged 17-45 males, females as long as also in army-reserve(?) or nat guard too, who’s Duty it is and who should be tasked with performing what the militia clause states….#1 Enforce Statues/Laws……#2. Stop insurrections (negro Riots/looting/torching cities etc) and #3. REPEL Invasions/Invaders. Like mex illegals etc at border.

    Same US Const authorizes the US Prez, and state governers to Call Out said state or every states militia members….Once called out per related us fed laws, each militia member must come equipped and prepared with their Own firearms and ammo provided by themselves.

    All and Any such militia members who reject a call out or fail to comply is the same as army deserter status and against fed law etc.

    ANY and EVERY day of every week this entire fiasco of flooding America with whoever and whatever illegal entry, regardless who or how many or what age illegal is , Can and Should be Halted ASAP pronto Fast. Regardless of what “bad press” may arise, against Trump or State Governers or militia members or the 2nd amendt etc….SO WHAT? Matters not a whit.

    #1 JOB of usa fed govnt and us prez is to secure and protect, safety and security and freedoms of US Citizenery.

    NO such rights pertains to Criminal Illegals or their tons of kiddies or extended families of 87 extra undesirables period….BOOT OUT ALL such criminal INVADERS!

    Use proper US Const Clauses and Laws already On the fed law books, use the Militia of several states and make damn good use of 2nd amendt.

    PS: In all Three founding docs, Const+BOR+Declaration Independence,,,,ONLY one specific place do the words appear of …”Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State” No Other place than in the 2nd ammendt.

    This is because Founders Knew that The Most totally important issues for a nation and its peoples is to have and maintain and keep, it and its peoples, in a state of “Security and Freedom” and you cannot have one without the other. Ergo reason 2nd amendt worded as it is. You can’t have freedom unless also have security, can’t have security unless the citizenery are Free to Own firearms in order to Maintain said security of a secure nation and its BORDERS. (unless you rather trust fed gov to provide it all eh?…We know from many past histories how That worked correct?).

    Ergo, Main reasons for the 2nd amendt. Where the word “right of the “People” to keep and bare arms, People means Two or more Persons…A citizen Personal Right that’s Not to be Infringed period. What do antigun clowns not as yet get eh?

    And is also reason for us const clauses pertaining to us citizen Militia members in every state and by fed law also.

    Why do you think all them anti gun/anti personal freedom clowns keep trying so hard to Disarm Us usa citizens so well armed eh?….So Nobody and nothing will stand in their way of a total dictator state in America, very alike their prior take over in 1917 Russia with a jewish commie Bolshevik revolt against usa citizens, especially them what are Euro Whites.

    I bet states armed militia members can also be called out to deal with such Bolshevik culprits at a proper time too eh.

    PS: EVERY usa and Fed Judge who claims as article states that word of “Person” applies and counts for Every individual Human being within lands of usa….BUT Then Same usa/fed judges claim that the word of “People” in the 2nd amendt, somehow don’t apply to usa citizens, or that somehow “people” don’t mean same as “Person”, only People means more than one aka Two or more persons equals People….Any such judges need be Impeached/Fired/and replaced with a justice that understands what words mean.

    Because every antigun “law” to date, always is caused by some fraud lib commie lefty judges who seem to believe the words of Persons and People always pertain to individual Humans or multitude of people humans…UNLESS they are dealing with wording of 2nd. amend. and firearm rights for USA Citizens gun rights etc.

    They are Loons period…Loons do Not belong on any judge bench nor deciding what can only be defined as a citizens Most important Right, along with the Equally important Right of Free Speech as in 1st amendt as stated…..Tommy Jefferson when us prez eliminated positions of around Half of All fed ct judges, and had congress re-align the fed ct districts, and the issues fed judges allowed to deal with. This can be done again by Trump as us prez and the current congress.

    Perhaps time has come for New Massive major nationwide protests, only this time by Euro Whites and while Fully Well Armed to proverbial Teeth as a show of solidarity eh…And with a long list of OUR Demands for America and Us.

    PSS: A study was done a few yrs ago compared all combined official Military/armys of all branches and every global nation etc, along with every nations Police forces…..

    And also of the grand Total of Just the Lic usa Hunters, and Known firearm owners within all 50 states of usa….Armed usa citizens and Hunters had a grand total number over, 2 Times the total number globally of a combo police and military armed personal.

    Globalwide armys and cops equaled around 55-Million total in entire world.

    USA Armed Citizens= Well Over a Hundred Million Legit gun owners, with no way to tell how many more own a firearm illegally. Citizens just in America can produce well Over Twice number of armed persons, as entire worlds cops and military combined.

    Just an FYI for naysayers or doubters who always cry and whine to get out of a discussion of actually doing something about our basic rights and maintaining said rights. Maintaining a majority euro white nations is also very Valid and necessary, unless one is an insane whitey eh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Nobody can be deported without trial? Huh? Is this numbskull on the short list to replace Kennedy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Svigor says:

    The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial.

    Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. “Person,” in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

    Well, there you have it. If the Chinese ever invade, they win automatically, because muh Fifth Amendment. Thanks for your infinite wisdom, Napo.

    I guess “due process” just means whatever you say it does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Svigor says:
    @Realistic
    From Reuters:

    Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.

    — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal

    From Reuters:

    Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.

    If it’s Constitutionally-valid within 100 miles of the border and 14 days, it’s Constitutionally-valid anywhere in the US, indefinitely.

    As for a hearing, fine, put them in an area on the border fenced in on 3 sides, give them a judge to hear them 1 at a time, and nothing else. They’ll get the point wander off eventually.

    Mexico is not a warzone; genuine asylum-seekers will be fine there. They’re all economic migrants.

    All the Chinese Army has to do is put their troops in civilian clothing, and instruct them to claim to be refugees. Never mind those Norinco assault rifles; the 2nd Amendment guarantees their right to bear arms.

    How to win a war vs. the United States, “if Judge Napo was in charge” edition.

    How libertarianism makes you stupid, lesson #8491.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. KenH says:

    So as usual judge nappy is arguing that the Constitution is a suicide pact. If illegal aliens have due process rights because of a semantic faux pas in the Bill of Rights then do they also have second amendment rights because it’s “the right of the people to be armed”? After all it doesn’t say citizens it says “the people” so any Latino, Muslim, Asian and African can sneak in illegally or via the refugee or asylum program, walk into a gun store and purchase guns.

    Eisenhower rudely deported over one million Mexicans in the 1950′s. He didn’t extend due process rights first because the common sense belief was that illegal aliens have absolutely no rights whatsoever and they don’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    I agree. And perhaps what America now also needs is more...Antisemantics eh.hehehe.


    OyVey! Ve Iz being Swamped wit doz antisemantics! not Again! Vy oh Vy Us?
    , @Dissident

    So as usual judge nappy is arguing that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
     
    I recall the late talk radio icon Bob Grant, during a conversation with Judge Napolitano, using those very words: "The constitution is not a suicide pact". As I recall the interview, the topic was the Patriot Act or similar matters, framed as liberty vs. security.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. *meme pic of the black guy pointing to his forehead, but with a kippah photoshopped on his head*

    Text reads:

    You don’t have to give them due process if you shoot them before they cross the border.

    Deadly protests explode on Israel-Gaza border, with 23 Palestinians killed over the past week

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Them Guys says:
    @KenH
    So as usual judge nappy is arguing that the Constitution is a suicide pact. If illegal aliens have due process rights because of a semantic faux pas in the Bill of Rights then do they also have second amendment rights because it's "the right of the people to be armed"? After all it doesn't say citizens it says "the people" so any Latino, Muslim, Asian and African can sneak in illegally or via the refugee or asylum program, walk into a gun store and purchase guns.

    Eisenhower rudely deported over one million Mexicans in the 1950's. He didn't extend due process rights first because the common sense belief was that illegal aliens have absolutely no rights whatsoever and they don't.

    I agree. And perhaps what America now also needs is more…Antisemantics eh.hehehe.

    OyVey! Ve Iz being Swamped wit doz antisemantics! not Again! Vy oh Vy Us?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Re: "anti-semantic":

    Reminds me, many people became anti-Symantec after experience with Norton security software...
    (At least as of some years ago; no idea what it's like now.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Are they illegals? They have no business being here.

    Kick them out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Harold says:

    “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

    In other words: no one can be killed, have their stuff taken, or be locked up without due process of law.

    Giving them a free trip back out of the country isn’t depriving them of their liberty. Certainly not what the writers of the constitution meant by the phrase. Making them go to court could equally well be considered depriving them of their liberty. Ridiculous.

    The law should be adjudicated by people capable of basic common sense and logic. Computer scientists, maybe, instead of judges and lawyers who are obviously incapable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. llloyd says: • Website

    If they are illegals, then they should be deported. It is not a case of finding the person who has committed a crime. I have been deported twice for accidently but illegally trying to cross into China. But if there are destitute children therefore blameless, Uncle Sam should give them a small sum of money and deport them with whoever is accompanying them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. unit472 says:

    No, probably not but not for any legitimate legal reason. The real problem is there are far to many shabby lawyers in the US desperate to earn a living and not enough real legal work to be done. So the detritus of our law schools unable to get a job as a TV legal ‘analyst’, a judgeship , working in the criminal justice industry or ambulance chasing is forced to turn to lobbying to create laws that no one wants but do provide employment for this parasite class of humanity.

    When a penniless illegal immigrant appears in court or before an administrative law judge with an attorney you know you are looking at human garbage and its not the illegal immigrant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Sara says:

    What about all the US citizens in jail that are separated from their children? How many Americans are put in jail and if they can’t afford bail and don’t accept a plea bargain could be imprisoned for years without a trial? Not only are most of the crimes millions of US parents are in jail for non-violent and victimless they will be thrown in jail for an inability to pay child support? When do Americans get the same rights as illegals? Perhaps we should start flooding Latin America countries demanding refugee status…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. artichoke says:
    @Begemot
    From the above comments it looks like the Conservative defense of strict construction of the Constitution goes out the window when it conflicts with Conservative prejudices. These people are as despicable as the people they despise, those damned liberals.

    Strict construction? Not when you consider that each “person” then considered probably had to have State citizenship.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Entry to the US – and any other nation with enforced borders – is a permissive act by the government of that nation. Those who wish to enter must have permission from that government, or its agents, to do so. A visa is a temporary license – permission – granted by the government to enter the US, an act which is generally prohibited on pain of expulsion. People who cross the border without a visa don’t have this permission, and are thus subject to expulsion, no due process rights apply. On the other hand, if they get a visa – permission to enter – then they have certain due process rights, as set out in the visa, or included by implication. And that’s it – cross the border with permission of the US government or its agents, and you have certain rights to due process, or cross the border without such permission, and you not only lack due process rights, you may be expelled at will. That seems to be a good logical analysis. Judge Napolitano is out to lunch on this one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    Yes, this is indeed slippery reasoning from Napolitano leading to an illogical result: an invading Russian battalion could simply invoke the 14th Amendment. Therefore, "person" must be read in its historical context of extending the Bill of Rights to emancipated slaves. Language of the drafters will not be construed to an illogical result, and Napolitano has doubtless penned this very principle in his opinions. So he's being blatantly and consciously dishonest.

    Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction--they are under such protection as their home country may be able to render--and so not entitled to US due process. The US could shoot border jumpers on sight if it so wished, like Indians do to Bengalis and nobody does anything about it, because nobody can. Life is good if you're a sovereign.

    “Yes, this is indeed slippery reasoning from Napolitano leading to an illogical result: an invading Russian battalion could simply invoke the 14th Amendment. ”

    Except…it’s an official arm of the Russian military, and thus their invocation would be DOA.

    “Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction–they are under such protection as their home country may be able to render–and so not entitled to US due process.”

    And you call yourself a lawyer?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

    Read More
    • Replies: @streamfortyseven
    This is actually an open borders argument - the idea that if you cross a border, with or without permission to do so, that you obtain certain rights just by stepping foot on soil. It's analogous to saying that a trespasser obtains the right to remain in trespass by the act of trespassing, which is nonsensical. If you trespass against my property right to exclude you, I have the right to remove you from my property, at gunpoint if need be. And the same case for the border - if you come in without permission, you may be expelled at will of the property owner, in this case the US government acting in its sovereign capacity.
    , @artichoke
    Plyler v. Doe is an important SCOTUS decision. Everyone should read it.

    It says that if an illegal immigrant kid shows up at your school, you have to educate him. It also acknowledges that can be very expensive, so it provides a remedy if you don't want to educate him: Deport him and his parents.

    Yes it actually says that. SCOTUS advises us to deport these people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Corvinus
    "Yes, this is indeed slippery reasoning from Napolitano leading to an illogical result: an invading Russian battalion could simply invoke the 14th Amendment. "

    Except...it's an official arm of the Russian military, and thus their invocation would be DOA.

    "Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction–they are under such protection as their home country may be able to render–and so not entitled to US due process."

    And you call yourself a lawyer?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

    This is actually an open borders argument – the idea that if you cross a border, with or without permission to do so, that you obtain certain rights just by stepping foot on soil. It’s analogous to saying that a trespasser obtains the right to remain in trespass by the act of trespassing, which is nonsensical. If you trespass against my property right to exclude you, I have the right to remove you from my property, at gunpoint if need be. And the same case for the border – if you come in without permission, you may be expelled at will of the property owner, in this case the US government acting in its sovereign capacity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This is actually an open borders argument – the idea that if you cross a border, with or without permission to do so, that you obtain certain rights just by stepping foot on soil."

    I get that. I was merely pointing out how decidedly wrong The Anti-Agnostic was in his statement. Actually, I am in favor of limiting immigration and prosecuting owners who employ illegals. The problem is that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are courting immigrants.

    "And the same case for the border – if you come in without permission, you may be expelled at will of the property owner, in this case the US government acting in its sovereign capacity."

    Except we have a series of Supreme Court decisions that apparently state otherwise in certain cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. artichoke says:
    @Corvinus
    "Yes, this is indeed slippery reasoning from Napolitano leading to an illogical result: an invading Russian battalion could simply invoke the 14th Amendment. "

    Except...it's an official arm of the Russian military, and thus their invocation would be DOA.

    "Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction–they are under such protection as their home country may be able to render–and so not entitled to US due process."

    And you call yourself a lawyer?

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

    Plyler v. Doe is an important SCOTUS decision. Everyone should read it.

    It says that if an illegal immigrant kid shows up at your school, you have to educate him. It also acknowledges that can be very expensive, so it provides a remedy if you don’t want to educate him: Deport him and his parents.

    Yes it actually says that. SCOTUS advises us to deport these people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. MarkinLA says:

    Immigration law does not apply to citizens. So trying to say there is a 14th amendment protection that requires them to have court proceedings rather than just a 5 minute hearing and booted out of the country is the kind of stupidity pushed by lawyers and Napolitano.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. So, the Constituion turns out to be a suicide pact after all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Bubba says:
    @WorkingClass
    I can't stomach Andy's bull shit any more. He is a cartoon. No longer worth reading.

    This column should be re-titled “The Law is an Ass.” Libertarians and liberals are their own worst enemies. And President Trump has been great at putting assorted jackasses like Judge Napolitano & his ilk in a circular firing squad. Judges with opinions like Napolitano should all be impeached by the Senate and state legislatures as they are the biggest danger to America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Bubba says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Napolitano needs a new hair stylist.

    And a new fashion consultant – his large pinstripe suits look like prisonwear from black & white, vacuum-tube TV shows. Napolitano looks like Elliot Ness’ archnemesis (the treacherous and evil Frank Nitty) in those ridiculous suits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Nonsense.

    the constitutional guarantees are for citizens of the us

    anything else we do is a courteousy or by agreements with international practice —- but even that is a courtousy . . .

    .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Corvinus says:
    @streamfortyseven
    This is actually an open borders argument - the idea that if you cross a border, with or without permission to do so, that you obtain certain rights just by stepping foot on soil. It's analogous to saying that a trespasser obtains the right to remain in trespass by the act of trespassing, which is nonsensical. If you trespass against my property right to exclude you, I have the right to remove you from my property, at gunpoint if need be. And the same case for the border - if you come in without permission, you may be expelled at will of the property owner, in this case the US government acting in its sovereign capacity.

    “This is actually an open borders argument – the idea that if you cross a border, with or without permission to do so, that you obtain certain rights just by stepping foot on soil.”

    I get that. I was merely pointing out how decidedly wrong The Anti-Agnostic was in his statement. Actually, I am in favor of limiting immigration and prosecuting owners who employ illegals. The problem is that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are courting immigrants.

    “And the same case for the border – if you come in without permission, you may be expelled at will of the property owner, in this case the US government acting in its sovereign capacity.”

    Except we have a series of Supreme Court decisions that apparently state otherwise in certain cases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    You haven't cited any of those SCOTUS decisions. Your previous cite, Plyler v. Doe, goes the opposite way and invites legislation or regulatory change to promote deportation. Seems to me it's probably legislation and regulations, not SCOTUS, that are forcing us to allow a legal circus on the border. We can remove the anchor-baby interpretation of the 14th by legislation, for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. artichoke says:
    @Corvinus
    "This is actually an open borders argument – the idea that if you cross a border, with or without permission to do so, that you obtain certain rights just by stepping foot on soil."

    I get that. I was merely pointing out how decidedly wrong The Anti-Agnostic was in his statement. Actually, I am in favor of limiting immigration and prosecuting owners who employ illegals. The problem is that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are courting immigrants.

    "And the same case for the border – if you come in without permission, you may be expelled at will of the property owner, in this case the US government acting in its sovereign capacity."

    Except we have a series of Supreme Court decisions that apparently state otherwise in certain cases.

    You haven’t cited any of those SCOTUS decisions. Your previous cite, Plyler v. Doe, goes the opposite way and invites legislation or regulatory change to promote deportation. Seems to me it’s probably legislation and regulations, not SCOTUS, that are forcing us to allow a legal circus on the border. We can remove the anchor-baby interpretation of the 14th by legislation, for example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Even having to ask this question, shows the deep and profound stupidity and infantilism of Amurka.
    Court cases for crashers across the border? Imbecilic.

    This is an a priori guilt of criminal conduct. First offense: 1 year at a prison farm, 12 hours a day, making own clothes, shoes, etc., and growing own food. Totally self supporting with no government payment. Second offense: 3 years same labor, with initial severe flogging. Same with anyone who aids and abets illegal alien crossing.

    Stupidity and weakness are first cousins. “Good for Jews” (only).

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Was 100% with you there, until the Jew-blaming at the end. Jews didn't particularly cause these problems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. artichoke says:
    @Poupon Marx
    Even having to ask this question, shows the deep and profound stupidity and infantilism of Amurka.
    Court cases for crashers across the border? Imbecilic.

    This is an a priori guilt of criminal conduct. First offense: 1 year at a prison farm, 12 hours a day, making own clothes, shoes, etc., and growing own food. Totally self supporting with no government payment. Second offense: 3 years same labor, with initial severe flogging. Same with anyone who aids and abets illegal alien crossing.

    Stupidity and weakness are first cousins. "Good for Jews" (only).

    Was 100% with you there, until the Jew-blaming at the end. Jews didn’t particularly cause these problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Is this guy a real judge or a clown from some obscure TV show? Pardon my ignorance, I had assumed him to be a real judge but my doubts have been growing since some time now.

    The word play on “persons”, although common in law, is simply silly in this context. What if the “persons” seeking protection of the US constitution are illegal border crossers, criminals fleeing justice elsewhere, foreign agents, and the like? Entry into a country by outsiders is a privilege, not a right. Even a half-wit would defend his turf, his home, his property, and his country from uninvited “visitors”, more so if the visitors start arriving in droves.

    I am sure this judge can come up with legal arguments to assert that gender-segregated washrooms amount to human segregation and hence all washrooms must be gender-neutral.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Dissident says:
    @KenH
    So as usual judge nappy is arguing that the Constitution is a suicide pact. If illegal aliens have due process rights because of a semantic faux pas in the Bill of Rights then do they also have second amendment rights because it's "the right of the people to be armed"? After all it doesn't say citizens it says "the people" so any Latino, Muslim, Asian and African can sneak in illegally or via the refugee or asylum program, walk into a gun store and purchase guns.

    Eisenhower rudely deported over one million Mexicans in the 1950's. He didn't extend due process rights first because the common sense belief was that illegal aliens have absolutely no rights whatsoever and they don't.

    So as usual judge nappy is arguing that the Constitution is a suicide pact.

    I recall the late talk radio icon Bob Grant, during a conversation with Judge Napolitano, using those very words: “The constitution is not a suicide pact”. As I recall the interview, the topic was the Patriot Act or similar matters, framed as liberty vs. security.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    I'm not sure who coined the phrase "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" but whoever did deserves a medal. I've just seen it in articles over the years and use it myself when it's apropos like when judge nappy continually lectures us that yes, the Constitution protects illegal aliens and that no, there's little we can do about it other than watch and the federal government can even choose to lightly enforce immigration laws or ignore them altogether as he did a few times when Obama was president.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Dissident says:
    @Them Guys
    I agree. And perhaps what America now also needs is more...Antisemantics eh.hehehe.


    OyVey! Ve Iz being Swamped wit doz antisemantics! not Again! Vy oh Vy Us?

    Re: “anti-semantic“:

    Reminds me, many people became anti-Symantec after experience with Norton security software
    (At least as of some years ago; no idea what it’s like now.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. KenH says:
    @Dissident

    So as usual judge nappy is arguing that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
     
    I recall the late talk radio icon Bob Grant, during a conversation with Judge Napolitano, using those very words: "The constitution is not a suicide pact". As I recall the interview, the topic was the Patriot Act or similar matters, framed as liberty vs. security.

    I’m not sure who coined the phrase “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” but whoever did deserves a medal. I’ve just seen it in articles over the years and use it myself when it’s apropos like when judge nappy continually lectures us that yes, the Constitution protects illegal aliens and that no, there’s little we can do about it other than watch and the federal government can even choose to lightly enforce immigration laws or ignore them altogether as he did a few times when Obama was president.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. ‘Can Immigrants be Deported Without a Trial?’

    They can certainly be offered a choice between voluntarily leaving the US and accepting arrest and imprisonment pending trial for the criminal offense they just committed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored