Should the President suspend habeas corpus and arrest those invading our borders?


#1

Under our Constitution [Article 1, Section 9] we find “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

We have seen how local public servants and judicial activists on our courts have ignored the very intentions of our Constitution, turned the Constitution into a suicide pack, and are now allowing our country to be overrun with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries. The social and economic consequences of allowing this invasion to take place have been devastating to American citizens and their communities, and yet, our courts and local public servants continue to ignore the general welfare of the United States and her citizens by blocking every reasonable means to end this invasion in its tracks.

And so, the question ought to be discussed if it is reasonable for the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, as applied to the current invasion of our borders, which in turn would stop, among other impediments, judicial meddling when our president executes a fundamental duty written into our Constitution which is to repel invasions.

In exercising this power, not only can this swarm of invaders be detained indefinitely with minimal necessities for life, but those who actively ignore federal statutory law, such as 8 U.S. Code § 1324, [harboring] can likewise be arrested and immediately prosecuted for their criminal conduct.

Keep in mind extra ordinary circumstances sometime demand extraordinary actions. And under our present circumstances, where the flood of invaders has overwhelmed ordinary protective measures and policies designed to protect our borders and the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, and to such a degree that thousands upon thousands of foreigners are now being introduced into our population without knowing who they are or what their real motive are, it seems to be only a matter of self-preservation that our President suspend habeas corpus, with regard to immigration, and assume his responsibility to repel this ongoing invasion.

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.


#2

To be honest, I’m not even sure what a habeas corpus is.


#3

See Another, bigger migrant caravan is set to leave from Honduras next month

Dec 27, 2018

SAN DIEGO — Another migrant caravan — this one estimated at 15,000 people — is preparing to leave Honduras on Jan. 15, according to migrant rights advocates and Spanish-language media.
“They say they are even bigger and stronger than the last caravan,” said Irma Garrido, a member of the migrant advocacy group Reactiva Tijuana Foundation.

Apparently they are encourage by the smell of free government cheese, and judicial activists on our courts who work to release them into America’s towns and cities, regardless of the devastating consequences inflicted upon American citizens.

And HERE is the latest example of the consequences when our public servants place the interests of illegal entrants, over the interest of American citizens and their law enforcement officers.

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance the economic needs of millions of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled aliens who have invaded America’s borders.


#4

If I recall, when searching for a way to counter him, the judge that stopped President Trump’s temporary ban on travel from seven problematic nations saw fit to consider what was said on the campaign trail. Though the constitution gives the president the unqualified power to make such a restriction. Corrupt judges don’t feel they need to be limited by the constitution, so they might ignore this too.

But there’s a good reason not too take drastic action. Whatever power President Trump uses for good, the next Democrat president will use for evil when an opportunity presents itself.


#5

Habeas Corpus simply means that the courts can order those holding someone prisoner to produce them (the prisoner) before the court and “justify” to the court why the prisoner should be held. Suspending Habeas Corpus means that the courts cannot so compel the production of someone in custody.


#6

Suspending habeas corpus with regard to immigration, would not affect American citizens, but it would gum up the works for judicial activists on our courts by making them rule on each illegal entrant who may apply for habeas corpus. And in the interim they remain in custody … no freaken catch and release.

JWK


#7

I don’t consider this a strong argument. The Ds won’t wait out of some mythical sense of sportsmanship for the Rs to do it first if they think there’s any benefit in it for them.


#8

I didn’t mean to imply the Democrats have a sense of decency. But they know that every few years they’ll be out of power and their policy preferences will be somewhat at the mercy of the Republicans. Consider the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster thing. Both sides know that the majority party can rescind it, but usually neither party does.


#9

Usually to date, but I don’t expect that to hold. Given their tactics in the last decade or so, I expect them to rescind it the next time they get the Senate, and promptly and hypocritically scream bloody murder when the Rs do it back.


#10

Frankly, what SHOULD happen is for the GOP to do away with that 60-vote nonsense, pass what they want to pass, and, if they lose the next election, reinstitute the 60-vote rule prior to the transition, because we KNOW that the Dim-wit Democrats will rescind the rule when THEY take control of the Senate again.


#11

What gets me is why we can’t kick these people out of the country as soon as they cross the border illegally. It seems like once they step foot here, it is catch and release, and you are in. For those who obey the law it’s spend many thousands of dollars and maybe you will get in. That’s just not right.

We need to build the wall, enforce the law and make the entry process for those who follow the law easier. We need the immigrants, but we need to vet the process. Terrorists, drug dealers and criminals with mile long rap sheets should not be eligible under any circumstances. That also for people here illegally who have committed crimes. No more of the sanctuary city and state crap.


#12

Amen.


#13

Absolutely correct!


#14

Bingo.

We have that “crap”" because law enforcement saw it as dangerous to not have a relationship with communities of migrant people.

You need the community as your eyes and ears; if you antagonize them by just going after anyone, that relationship breaks down.

And then people literally get away with murder.

On average, cities without sanctuary policies are more dangerous than those that have them. El Paso is one of the bigger standouts.


#15

BS. No place is more “dangerous” than Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco or LA and ALL are so-called “sanctuary cities.” It wasn’t “law enforcement” who demanded this nonsense. It was the (mostly) Democrat politicians who want to ingratiate themselves to the illegal immigrants in hopes of gaining their political support. Illegals have no right to BE here…period. The LAST thing we need to be concerned with is their willingness to report crimes against themselves, or lack of it. The problem can be solved by their going HOME where they came from and requesting PERMISSION to return LEGALLY. They can do this voluntarily or we can remove them involuntarily, but it MUST happen. Simply writing a “get out of jail free” card won’t solve the problem. All that will do is encourage even MORE to sneak into the country without permission.


#16

Compared to what?

You need a valid comparison; can you make one?

Or are you just listing off the most dangerous cities America; which were so before the illegals ever got there?


#17

Whatever argument that the liberals come up with for illegal immigration, you can bet that Alaskaslim will parrot it. So far as the immigration issue goes, he is the most radical left person on these boards. Sanctuary cities and states are just plain wrong, dangerous and lawless. When you give “get out of jail free” cards to group of people, they are going to use them until law and order is restored.

The Democrats are only interested in the votes they will get from the immigrants, both legally and illegally cast. They don’t care about public safety so long as the situation does not affect them personally or politically.

The Democrats only want money and power. Since their socialist agenda has not sold well with many U.S. citizens, they want the illegals to come here to give them the votes they need. If they were serious about immigrants, they would cut a deal with Trump for “the dreamers,” but they really don’t care about them.

One commentator put it best. If the Nancy Pelosi perceived that the illegals who are coming here were going to vote Republican, she would volunteer to help mix the cement for the wall.


#18

Magna-HaHa Magna-Yeah-That Magna-Yeah-That Magna-Yeah-That


#19

And yet Barry Goldwater had the same position I do.

You keep slinging this, and it keeps falling apart under scrutiny.

If it was left, right wing people would have never embraced this position.


#20

So why does the FBI’s crime statistics show they have less violence?

Why is El Paso, a sanctuary city on the border opposite Juárez, one of the safest cities in America?

I don’t care – voting is a red herring.

The vast majority of voter fraud is committed by natives, not immigrants. And neither I nor Barry Goldwater were looking to make people voters in the first place – guest workers don’t get to do that.

Democrats get milage out of posturing like they care about people; when it comes to actual voters, immigrants are a poor source, because they don’t show up.

The Democrats know this; that’s why they want mandatory voting.