Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
WARNING: For those not the least bit interested in my frequent pedantic examination of legal issues, you are advised to RUN (not walk) OUT OF THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY.
For anyone else remaining, this is a summation of and hopefully my final response regarding various misrepresentations of law as the basis of an unquestionably illegal proposal to deport immigrant and non-immigrant alien Muslims as a broad proactive security measure to prevent acts of terrorism. The vow of a "final response," of course, depends on my highly questionable willpower to resist the persistent trolling of certifiable mental defectives.
I would normally have posted it in the thread where this discussion originally took place, but I don’t even want to be there anymore. The neighborhood literally stinks.
Besides, for anyone not inclined to follow a six page political thread, but who might nonetheless benefit from an examination of how frustratingly futile it is to “debate” people who refuse to engage in factual research in support of their opinions, the following summary might prove instructional.
We’ll begin by reviewing the various erroneous assertions of law that have so far been made in “the other” thread entitled “It’s war stupid! Pt. 2”:
Ishmael: “How about starting by kicking every non-citizen Muslim out of the country? All perfectly legal.” (Post #6)
Ishmael: “Of course the president can issue such an order. 8 USC 1185 is but one basis for such an order. Jimmy Carter issued such an order regarding the Iranians, Iranians who held legally obtained visa's. Under the statute the president can expel anyone at anytime based on any metric, individuals or groups of individuals.” (Post #22)
Vatican Assassin: “Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens.” (Post #25)
Ishmael:“ 8 USC 1185 granted the president the power to exclude, and/or cancel the visa's of anyone determined to be detrimental to the nation or its citizens.” (Post #29) [The statement is essentially correct, but Section 1185 is NOT the statutory authority used to cancel visas.]
Vatican Assassin: “While I certainly do not agree we need to go so far as to deport current non-citizen Muslims in the USA, on legal Visa's....the point that it could be legally done is valid. No matter how bad you want to argue it with B.S. side bars.” (Post #33)
Vatican Assassin: “Demore v. Kim.” (Post #34) [In fallacious support of his contention that the Constitution affords no protection to non-citizens on American soil. Demore was nothing more than a Supreme Court decision on the extremely NARROW legal issue of temporary discretionary detention of criminal aliens without a bail or bond hearing while awaiting deportation proceedings and NOT a denial of Constitutional rights for non-citizen immigrants or temporary alien residents generally.]
Ishmael: "It's legal and it's been legal since 1952.” (Post #36) [In support of Vat’s error in Post #33]
Vatican Assassion: “And Congress has nearly full authority over immigration. The court has held this up again and again. The Reason? It is rather simple and two fold: Because it is administrative law and not criminal law, meaning the results are deportation and not jail and it falls under national security and foreign policy. Therefore constitutional protections do no [sic] apply.
Now, I neither believe we should take this step, nor do I believe we ever will take this step, but LEGALLY it could be done pure and simply. The courts have confirmed this time and time again.
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Post #37) [The contention that Constitutional protections are universally inapplicable based SOLELY on administrative/criminal law and/or national security/foreign policy distinctions is categorically absurd on its face. The Harisiades citation is in fallacious support of his error in Post #33 regarding wholesale deportation of non-citizen Muslims. The Harisiades precedent stands SPECIFICALLY for the inadmissibility and related deportability under 8 USC Chapter 12 of alien members of the Communist Party – NOT Muslims.
Colonel Hogan: “Far more importantly, the 1952 ruling in Harisiades was substantially impacted by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio which held that the government may not ‘‘proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.’’ (Post #47) [8 USC Chapter 12(a)(3)(D)(i) currently defines inadmissibility and deportability of aliens SOLELY on the basis of Communist Party membership and divorced from concerns over violent overthrow of the government contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, thus rendering the Brandenburg criminality standard moot.]
Ishmael: “The law is whatever the elected leadership wants it to be.” (Post #50)
Ishmael: “The pertinent law is "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952." That is the law that gives the president the authority to expel immigrants INCLUDING naturalized citizens,” (Post #68) [Expelling CITIZENS!?!?? “This is your brain on crystal meth.”]
But the very worst misstatement of law was my own which was as follows:
Colonel Hogan: Given the discretionary authority codified under the USC, one might wonder why the United States goes to the trouble of holding deportation hearings at all. Other than wishing to appear to adhere to an exercise of legal rights which it elsewhere expressly denies, I cannot answer that question. (Post #135)
Well, I can now.
Given the complexity of immigration law specifically and the distracting and head-spinning nature of arguing legal details with total idiots who know precious little about the law generally, it is little wonder that I have found this particular area of legal research to be one of the most – if not the most – vexing legal issues I’ve ever attempted to unravel.
The difficulty in the exercise lies with the incontrovertible FACT that jurisdiction over the admission, regulation and potential removal of immigrant and non-immigrant LEGAL aliens is shared with all three branches of the federal government – legislative, executive and judicial.
The following list of documented facts should serve to FINALLY clarify the issue.
1. Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution “shall have to power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
2. Under that legislative authority exemplified by enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and numerous other acts and subsequent amendments, Congress has delegated substantial discretionary authority to the Executive branch to RESTRICT ENTRY of any and all immigrant and non-immigrant aliens into the United States. That authority is specifically delegated to the President under 8 USC 1182(f) and to consular officials, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security under 8 USC 1182(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)(m)
(o)(p)(q)(r)(s) and (t). Section 1182 also stipulates consultation under its various subsections with other appropriate cabinet Secretaries and Executive branch personnel.
3. Congress has further delegated specific DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO REVOKE immigrant petitions (“Green Card” status) to the Secretary of Homeland Security under 8 USC 1155 and non-immigrant visas to consular officials and the Secretary of State under 8 USC 1201(i). Section 1201(i) further prohibits “judicial review …or any other habeas corpus provision… of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.” (Title 8).
4. Several people in this forum have confused this “discretionary authority to revoke” legal immigrant status and non-immigrant visas with a non-existent, wholly specious and imaginary “authority to deport without an administrative hearing or other legal due process.” I have allowed their confusion and perplexing citations of federal law and legislative acts to, in turn, confuse me. No more.
The ONLY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY for Expedited Removal without a due process hearing under federal law is codified under 8 USC 1225 and involves the removal of certain aliens by the Department of Homeland Security who are:
• inadmissible because they did not possess valid entry documents; or are
• inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation of material fact;
• inadmissible based on “reasonable ground to believe,” the alien seeks to enter the United States to commit espionage, sabotage or terrorism.
Aliens placed in expedited removal proceedings are treated as “arriving aliens” whether or not they have been in country under a legally issued visa. EXPEDITED REMOVAL DOES NOT STAND FOR A BLANKET, SWEEPING DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY to deport an entire class of aliens legally residing in the United States. Period.
5. The remaining plethora of immigrant and non-immigrant deportations NOT involving a due process hearing (often numbered in the hundreds of thousands every year) are those where the RIGHT to such due process has been voluntarily waived. The vast majority of LEGAL immigrants and holders of non-immigrant visas whose Green Card status or visas have been revoked ARE ENTITLED TO A DUE PROCESS HEARING BY LAW and will undoubtedly receive it if they so choose.
I CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, AND I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL BEING DEPORTED SOLELY UPON THE DISCRETION OF ANY MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITHOUT A DUE PROCESS HEARING AND ABSENT ANY OTHER LEGAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL such as stipulated in the expedited removal process referenced above.
6. Ten separate sections of Chapter 5 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 specify the LEGAL GROUNDS and PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS resulting in deportation which have subsequently been codified under eight separate sections of 8 USC Chapter 12.
There is simply no rational, sane explanation for why these detailed legal grounds or the procedural due process for substantiating them exist AND are routinely and meticulously followed in the face of “alleged” authority negating them or why that alleged negating authority has NO EVIDENCE of having EVER been utilized in 63 fucking years.
And with THAT I am done arguing the DUMBEST ASS interpretation of federal law I have ever had the misfortune to hear from people who should never have been granted a fishing license much less permission to operate a motor vehicle to transport their bait and tackle to a lake or river of sufficient depth that might (please, dear God) result in their inadvertent (or otherwise) death by drowning.
For anyone else remaining, this is a summation of and hopefully my final response regarding various misrepresentations of law as the basis of an unquestionably illegal proposal to deport immigrant and non-immigrant alien Muslims as a broad proactive security measure to prevent acts of terrorism. The vow of a "final response," of course, depends on my highly questionable willpower to resist the persistent trolling of certifiable mental defectives.
I would normally have posted it in the thread where this discussion originally took place, but I don’t even want to be there anymore. The neighborhood literally stinks.
Besides, for anyone not inclined to follow a six page political thread, but who might nonetheless benefit from an examination of how frustratingly futile it is to “debate” people who refuse to engage in factual research in support of their opinions, the following summary might prove instructional.
We’ll begin by reviewing the various erroneous assertions of law that have so far been made in “the other” thread entitled “It’s war stupid! Pt. 2”:
Ishmael: “How about starting by kicking every non-citizen Muslim out of the country? All perfectly legal.” (Post #6)
Ishmael: “Of course the president can issue such an order. 8 USC 1185 is but one basis for such an order. Jimmy Carter issued such an order regarding the Iranians, Iranians who held legally obtained visa's. Under the statute the president can expel anyone at anytime based on any metric, individuals or groups of individuals.” (Post #22)
Vatican Assassin: “Funny that people are actually stupid enough to think that the constitution protects non citizens.” (Post #25)
Ishmael:“ 8 USC 1185 granted the president the power to exclude, and/or cancel the visa's of anyone determined to be detrimental to the nation or its citizens.” (Post #29) [The statement is essentially correct, but Section 1185 is NOT the statutory authority used to cancel visas.]
Vatican Assassin: “While I certainly do not agree we need to go so far as to deport current non-citizen Muslims in the USA, on legal Visa's....the point that it could be legally done is valid. No matter how bad you want to argue it with B.S. side bars.” (Post #33)
Vatican Assassin: “Demore v. Kim.” (Post #34) [In fallacious support of his contention that the Constitution affords no protection to non-citizens on American soil. Demore was nothing more than a Supreme Court decision on the extremely NARROW legal issue of temporary discretionary detention of criminal aliens without a bail or bond hearing while awaiting deportation proceedings and NOT a denial of Constitutional rights for non-citizen immigrants or temporary alien residents generally.]
Ishmael: "It's legal and it's been legal since 1952.” (Post #36) [In support of Vat’s error in Post #33]
Vatican Assassion: “And Congress has nearly full authority over immigration. The court has held this up again and again. The Reason? It is rather simple and two fold: Because it is administrative law and not criminal law, meaning the results are deportation and not jail and it falls under national security and foreign policy. Therefore constitutional protections do no [sic] apply.
Now, I neither believe we should take this step, nor do I believe we ever will take this step, but LEGALLY it could be done pure and simply. The courts have confirmed this time and time again.
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (Post #37) [The contention that Constitutional protections are universally inapplicable based SOLELY on administrative/criminal law and/or national security/foreign policy distinctions is categorically absurd on its face. The Harisiades citation is in fallacious support of his error in Post #33 regarding wholesale deportation of non-citizen Muslims. The Harisiades precedent stands SPECIFICALLY for the inadmissibility and related deportability under 8 USC Chapter 12 of alien members of the Communist Party – NOT Muslims.
Colonel Hogan: “Far more importantly, the 1952 ruling in Harisiades was substantially impacted by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio which held that the government may not ‘‘proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.’’ (Post #47) [8 USC Chapter 12(a)(3)(D)(i) currently defines inadmissibility and deportability of aliens SOLELY on the basis of Communist Party membership and divorced from concerns over violent overthrow of the government contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, thus rendering the Brandenburg criminality standard moot.]
Ishmael: “The law is whatever the elected leadership wants it to be.” (Post #50)
Ishmael: “The pertinent law is "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952." That is the law that gives the president the authority to expel immigrants INCLUDING naturalized citizens,” (Post #68) [Expelling CITIZENS!?!?? “This is your brain on crystal meth.”]
But the very worst misstatement of law was my own which was as follows:
Colonel Hogan: Given the discretionary authority codified under the USC, one might wonder why the United States goes to the trouble of holding deportation hearings at all. Other than wishing to appear to adhere to an exercise of legal rights which it elsewhere expressly denies, I cannot answer that question. (Post #135)
Well, I can now.
Given the complexity of immigration law specifically and the distracting and head-spinning nature of arguing legal details with total idiots who know precious little about the law generally, it is little wonder that I have found this particular area of legal research to be one of the most – if not the most – vexing legal issues I’ve ever attempted to unravel.
The difficulty in the exercise lies with the incontrovertible FACT that jurisdiction over the admission, regulation and potential removal of immigrant and non-immigrant LEGAL aliens is shared with all three branches of the federal government – legislative, executive and judicial.
The following list of documented facts should serve to FINALLY clarify the issue.
1. Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution “shall have to power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
2. Under that legislative authority exemplified by enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and numerous other acts and subsequent amendments, Congress has delegated substantial discretionary authority to the Executive branch to RESTRICT ENTRY of any and all immigrant and non-immigrant aliens into the United States. That authority is specifically delegated to the President under 8 USC 1182(f) and to consular officials, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security under 8 USC 1182(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)(m)
(o)(p)(q)(r)(s) and (t). Section 1182 also stipulates consultation under its various subsections with other appropriate cabinet Secretaries and Executive branch personnel.3. Congress has further delegated specific DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO REVOKE immigrant petitions (“Green Card” status) to the Secretary of Homeland Security under 8 USC 1155 and non-immigrant visas to consular officials and the Secretary of State under 8 USC 1201(i). Section 1201(i) further prohibits “judicial review …or any other habeas corpus provision… of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.” (Title 8).
4. Several people in this forum have confused this “discretionary authority to revoke” legal immigrant status and non-immigrant visas with a non-existent, wholly specious and imaginary “authority to deport without an administrative hearing or other legal due process.” I have allowed their confusion and perplexing citations of federal law and legislative acts to, in turn, confuse me. No more.
The ONLY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY for Expedited Removal without a due process hearing under federal law is codified under 8 USC 1225 and involves the removal of certain aliens by the Department of Homeland Security who are:
• inadmissible because they did not possess valid entry documents; or are
• inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation of material fact;
• inadmissible based on “reasonable ground to believe,” the alien seeks to enter the United States to commit espionage, sabotage or terrorism.
Aliens placed in expedited removal proceedings are treated as “arriving aliens” whether or not they have been in country under a legally issued visa. EXPEDITED REMOVAL DOES NOT STAND FOR A BLANKET, SWEEPING DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY to deport an entire class of aliens legally residing in the United States. Period.
5. The remaining plethora of immigrant and non-immigrant deportations NOT involving a due process hearing (often numbered in the hundreds of thousands every year) are those where the RIGHT to such due process has been voluntarily waived. The vast majority of LEGAL immigrants and holders of non-immigrant visas whose Green Card status or visas have been revoked ARE ENTITLED TO A DUE PROCESS HEARING BY LAW and will undoubtedly receive it if they so choose.
I CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, AND I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL BEING DEPORTED SOLELY UPON THE DISCRETION OF ANY MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITHOUT A DUE PROCESS HEARING AND ABSENT ANY OTHER LEGAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL such as stipulated in the expedited removal process referenced above.
6. Ten separate sections of Chapter 5 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 specify the LEGAL GROUNDS and PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS resulting in deportation which have subsequently been codified under eight separate sections of 8 USC Chapter 12.
There is simply no rational, sane explanation for why these detailed legal grounds or the procedural due process for substantiating them exist AND are routinely and meticulously followed in the face of “alleged” authority negating them or why that alleged negating authority has NO EVIDENCE of having EVER been utilized in 63 fucking years.
And with THAT I am done arguing the DUMBEST ASS interpretation of federal law I have ever had the misfortune to hear from people who should never have been granted a fishing license much less permission to operate a motor vehicle to transport their bait and tackle to a lake or river of sufficient depth that might (please, dear God) result in their inadvertent (or otherwise) death by drowning.
Last edited:
