Deportation without chance to plead case in court

G

Guest

Guest
The Bush administration is horribly xenophobic:

First it says it has the right to demand foreign visitors here to put their fingerprints on file and be able to track where they are at all times.

Second, it says that the police can have the power to act as immigration agents whenever asked to do so, picking up "illegal" people.

Then it encourages police to pull over cars based on racial profiling.

The other day it was announced (notice use of passive voice--it's purposeful) that the government will give much needed money to hospitals, but only if those hosptials agree to question their emergency care patients about their legal status and show proof of their citizenship *cringe* While the article below attempts to make this look like a good decision (e.g. people will not have to wait over a year or more in jail [not "detention centers" as the article states] while their cases are pending) this is NOT the way to fix the problem.

Deporting people without allowing them to put their case before a judge is unjust. This new rule isn't going to be for the benefit of "illegal" . It's for the benefit of the government. It exerts power over the population in oppressive ways and instills fear. This is what we have under the bush administration so far: Hospitals are not safe (because you could be taken away and held in prison waiting for deportation), policemen are not safe (as they could have the authority to deport you--so if you're non-white you better not call them when you're in trouble unless you want to run the risk of deportation).

And now today is the latest: Border patrol agents (along both the Mexican and Canadian borders) are to have the power to deport "illegal aliens". But worse than that, they will have the power to do so WITHOUT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO TAKE THEIR CASE BEFORE A JUDGE! This means that not only will "illegal" people get picked up, but I'm sure legal residents, citizens, and others who are racially profiled will be at risk of being deported. And this is all "being done" (more passive voice) under the excuse of "protecting us" from terrorists :rolleyes: Nice, huh?

Another Nazi Germany on its way?

U.S. to Give Border Patrol Agents the Power to Deport Illegal Aliens
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

Published: August 11, 2004

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - Citing concerns about terrorists crossing the nation's borders, the Department of Homeland Security said on Tuesday that it planned to give border patrol agents sweeping new powers to deport illegal aliens from the frontiers with Mexico and Canada [i[without[/i]providing them the opportunity to make their case before an immigration judge.

The move, which will take effect this month, represents a broad expansion of the authority of the thousands of law enforcement agents who patrol the nation's borders. Until now, border patrol agents typically delivered undocumented immigrants to the custody of the immigration courts, where judges determined whether they should be deported or remain in the United States.

Domestic security officials described the deportation process in immigration courts - which hear asylum claims and other appeals to remain in the country - as sluggish and cumbersome, saying illegal immigrants often wait for more than a year before being deported while straining the capacity of detention centers and draining critical resources. Under the new system, immigrants will typically be deported within eight days of their apprehension, officials said.

The Illegal Immigration and Reform Responsibility Act of 1996 authorized the agency to deport certain groups of illegal immigrants without judicial oversight, but until now it had permitted only officials at airports and seaports to do so.

The new rule will apply to illegal immigrants caught within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders who have spent up to 14 days within the United States. Officials said the border agents would not focus on deporting Mexicans and Canadians, who will still, for the most part [WTF??!?], have their cases heard in immigration court. The agents will concentrate instead on immigrants from other countries. In fiscal year 2003, about 37,000 immigrants from countries other than Mexico and Canada - primarily from Central America - were arrested along the Southwest border.

Officials said that the new plan would help deter illegal immigration, speed deportations and address issues of border security.

"There is a concern that as we tighten the security of our ports of entry through our biometric checks that there will be more opportunity or more effort made by terrorists to enter our country through our vast land borders," Asa Hutchinson, the undersecretary for border security at the Department of Homeland Security, said at a news conference.

The decision was hailed by officials who have long complained that the nation's porous borders represent a serious threat to national security. But it prompted a flurry of criticism from advocates for immigrants who feared that the new system lacked adequate safeguards to ensure that people fleeing persecution, Americans lacking paperwork or other travelers with legitimate grounds to be in the United States would not be improperly deported.

Mr. Hutchinson said that border agents would be trained in asylum law and that immigrants who showed a credible fear of persecution would be provided hearings before immigration judges, not returned to hostile governments. "That right," he said of the right to apply for asylum, "is very important."

Homeland security officials said that the training would last for several days and that agents would begin their new duties in Tucson and Laredo, Tex.

Advocates for immigrants said they feared mistakes would be made when hastily trained border agents decide who should be deported and who should not. Complaints about improper deportations have already been reported at some airports and seaports.

"We're very concerned that we may see the mistaken deportations of refugees, citizens and other legitimate visitors,"
said Eleanor Acer, director of the asylum program of Human Rights First, an advocacy group. "For refugees, it could be a life or death sentence."

The officials also announced plans on Tuesday to allow the roughly seven million Mexicans who carry border crossing cards - which let them visit the United States for three consecutive days - to visit for up to 30 days at a time using the same card.

Mr. Hutchinson said the announcements were part of a two-pronged strategy. "We want to send a clear message that those individuals who follow legal immigration rules will benefit, while those who choose to break our nation's immigration laws will be promptly removed from the U.S.," he said.

Evelyn Nazro, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Security and Trade, a coalition that represents public officials and business leaders in Texas, described the shift as "a step in the right direction."

But Ms. Nazro said that many business executives and public officials would like Mexican visitors to be allowed to stay for six months, as Canadian visitors are. "It's long been a real issue that Mexicans had such limitations on their visas," she said.

Discussions about accelerating deportations along the nation's borders have been held for some time. Tuesday's announcement is the second time that the government has expanded the "expedited removal" process since the Sept. 11 attacks.

In November 2002, the government said it was extending the process of deportations without judicial review for undocumented immigrants at airports to those at seaports.

Officials said that Mexicans were not the focus of the new deportation efforts because most undocumented Mexicans choose to return after being caught. But Mr. Hutchinson said that Mexicans who smuggle immigrants and who repeatedly violate immigration laws would also be subject to the speedy deportations.

In fiscal year 2003, about 43,000 immigrants were swiftly deported without scrutiny from immigration judges. The new rules could nearly double that figure, homeland security statistics suggest.Officials said they would observe Tucson and Laredo, where roughly 3,050 agents will assume their new duties, before applying the process to other border regions. "After we get it going, we'll begin discussions about expanding it," a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said.
 
This doesn't outrage anyone?

Our country is turning into a police state. It is crucial that we make noise and resist such a transformation.
 
Re: This doesn't outrage anyone?

Owera said:
Our country is turning into a police state. It is crucial that we make noise and resist such a transformation.

Hell, its already a semi-dictatorship.
 
I don't think anyone in the Bush administration hates foreigners for just being foreigners.

I think the fears of terrorists are very real. It is sad that the administration believes they need to respond this way. I would like to see us be able to take in those that are in true need of asylum.

But, I don't think most are really in that desperate of a situation. It seems they mostly just dislike their lives in their homelands. They want to have the same oppurtunities that we have, who could blame them. It would be nice if they could be respectful and ask to come in. Just for the fact that I am more confident in those who use legal channels in their lives. I am not saying that b/c they break one law they are automatically criminals, I am saying I would have more confidence in them as citizens to be respectful of other citizens. This is a pretty big (important) law to me.

My family probably had to ask to come here. Why shouldn't they have to do the same?
 
Owera said:

In fiscal year 2003, about 43,000 immigrants were swiftly deported without scrutiny from immigration judges. The new rules could nearly double that figure, homeland security statistics suggest.

Doesn't seem to be new, just an expansion of what has already been the policy.
 
Re: Re: This doesn't outrage anyone?

bad_girl23 said:
Hell, its already a semi-dictatorship.

Yeah, but we don't want it to get any worse than it already is! Or at least I don't. I'm sure there are a few people who are absolutely thrilled at the current state of things, but I'd bet those people would be few and far between.
 
love2teaseu said:
I don't think anyone in the Bush administration hates foreigners for just being foreigners.

I think the fears of terrorists are very real. It is sad that the administration believes they need to respond this way. I would like to see us be able to take in those that are in true need of asylum.

But, I don't think most are really in that desperate of a situation. It seems they mostly just dislike their lives in their homelands. They want to have the same oppurtunities that we have, who could blame them. It would be nice if they could be respectful and ask to come in. Just for the fact that I am more confident in those who use legal channels in their lives. I am not saying that b/c they break one law they are automatically criminals, I am saying I would have more confidence in them as citizens to be respectful of other citizens. This is a pretty big (important) law to me.

My family probably had to ask to come here. Why shouldn't they have to do the same?

Your questions and thoughts on this are quite reasonable. Most people don't have a good idea of how people live before they come to this country, and how they live while in this country. I only know because I began researching this, working primarily with Mexican migrant populations. I also went to parts of Mexico to see the towns where many Mexican migrants come from. And man.... was life there ever interesting (and not it a good way). Anyway, to asnwer your questions, check this thread from about the 6th or 7th post on. Some of the posts will explain why it's so hard for many people to come here legally, why most people come here, what they encounter while here, etc.:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=268716&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You say you are a Socialist, and the term get's used rather liberally. What do you mean when you use it?

I thought it was a transition from capitalism to Communism....
 
Cheyenne said:
Owera- any chance you're here illegally? Just askin...

Um, no. I've been a U.S. citizen since birth. I'm as American as it gets: Iroquois Indian. So no, my interest in immigration policy doesn't stem from a self interest.
 
love2teaseu said:
You say you are a Socialist, and the term get's used rather liberally. What do you mean when you use it?

I thought it was a transition from capitalism to Communism....

Some people see socialism as a phase of transition from capitalism to communism. Others see it as an end point in itself. For me, I see the goal of socialism as social equality. This doesn't mean that I think everyone/thing should be the same. What it means is that I feel no one person is any more or less important than any other. Therefore, I believe all people should have equal access to health care, education, and employment. I am against exploitation and hierarchical inequality of any sort (as it usually leads to exploitation). And I view capitalism as a system that maintains and perpetuates inequality.

I'm trying to give you the briefest explanation here. If you have more questions I'll be happy to PM you :)
 
If you're illegal, you get deported.

What's so wrong about that, you're already breaking the law.
 
Owera said:
Your questions and thoughts on this are quite reasonable. Most people don't have a good idea of how people live before they come to this country, and how they live while in this country. I only know because I began researching this, working primarily with Mexican migrant populations. I also went to parts of Mexico to see the towns where many Mexican migrants come from. And man.... was life there ever interesting (and not it a good way). Anyway, to asnwer your questions, check this thread from about the 6th or 7th post on. Some of the posts will explain why it's so hard for many people to come here legally, why most people come here, what they encounter while here, etc.:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=268716&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

Here's another thread to check if you're interested in this topic:

farm workers' rights

I wish I could remember how to make llinks to individual posts. It would be easier than asking someone to wade through an entire thread.
 
LadyGuinivere said:
If you're illegal, you get deported.

What's so wrong about that, you're already breaking the law.

You don't think it's just a bit dangerous to pick up people and deport them without being able to bring their case before a judge? What if a person is a resident, a citizen, etc? What's to stop them from being deported anyway just on racial profiling? I see a large potential for racism and abuse here. Who ensures that the border patrol people don't just deport any one they feel like deporting, legal or not? at least having a case brought in front of a judge would provide some protection against abuse of authority. But now what kind of protection is there? I'm not sure there is any.
 
Owera said:
Not being sarcastic now, are you? :D

I am sarcastic quite a bit, but that was a serious statement.

Knowing that you consider yourself to be a socialist puts you in the same category as Redwave in my Lit directory.
 
Cheyenne said:
I am sarcastic quite a bit, but that was a serious statement.

Knowing that you consider yourself to be a socialist puts you in the same category as Redwave in my Lit directory.

It IS REDWAVE light Chey.

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
It IS REDWAVE light Chey.

Ishmael

Really? I've had redwave on ignore for so long now I don't even remember his rants.
 
Owera said:
You don't think it's just a bit dangerous to pick up people and deport them without being able to bring their case before a judge? What if a person is a resident, a citizen, etc? What's to stop them from being deported anyway just on racial profiling? I see a large potential for racism and abuse here. Who ensures that the border patrol people don't just deport any one they feel like deporting, legal or not? at least having a case brought in front of a judge would provide some protection against abuse of authority. But now what kind of protection is there? I'm not sure there is any.

If you're a citizen then you carry your ID, simple.
 
Owera said:
Some people see socialism as a phase of transition from capitalism to communism. Others see it as an end point in itself. For me, I see the goal of socialism as social equality. This doesn't mean that I think everyone/thing should be the same. What it means is that I feel no one person is any more or less important than any other. Therefore, I believe all people should have equal access to health care, education, and employment. I am against exploitation and hierarchical inequality of any sort (as it usually leads to exploitation). And I view capitalism as a system that maintains and perpetuates inequality.

I'm trying to give you the briefest explanation here. If you have more questions I'll be happy to PM you :)

Oh, I was just curious. I saw your little note about socialists doing it better and questioned my definition. So I looked it up and the definition was about it being a transition period.

As far as social equality goes, I think that is a matter of the heart. My heart tries to give people the intrinsic value I believe they deserve just for the sake of their being another human being. I find value in them for just that reason.

I really believe that we do have access to whatever we want already. My dad was raised a block or two away from the Cleveland Dump and used to play there! He was given an IQ test and was told he could never be anything more than a farmer. I'm not cracking on farmers, that is what was said. He took control of his education and made himself into a doctor.

I too have taken control of my education and demanded more from my teachers and when they could not give me anymore, I find ways to educate myself. My dad and I are both proud of our accomplishments, and we did them on our own.

Just b/c I am a doctors daughter doesn't mean I have a whole bunch of exceptional breaks. He didn't give me money for college, and I have had to find my own way.

It would be nice for everyone to have access to everything they need.

Sorry, that was a bit off the task at hand.
 
AStranger2004 said:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Wow. What amazing insight. My thoughts exactly.

Thanks. :)
 
LadyGuinivere said:
If you're a citizen then you carry your ID, simple.

Is it a requirement in all states of the US that you must carry ID? Citizens must prove to those who serve them that they are who they say they are??
 
Back
Top