The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

She did exist...

Oh, I see...yes, you wrote: "His live-in girlfiend is a "dreamer"; her parents immigrated illegally when she was one year old."

That makes her not culpable. A one-year-old cannot be charged, and can't legally be responsible for a decision made by the adults. But her parents broke federal law, and theoretically, they could be indicted.

It seems unlikely, anyway. They aren't part of the recent migration wave, and I doubt their case will come up.

She can't be "charged". But she's in danger of being deported, despite the fact that her two young children are U.S. citizens.

She definitely cannot be charged. And I don't suspect she's in danger of any such thing. Even her parents are probably only theoretically culpable now. But even you would have to admit that her parents did break federal law, though it may be a long-forgotten matter.

It seems that the present admin is focusing on the wave of migrants over the last four years, and tightly focuses on the criminal element. And rightly so, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

Just confess you erred.

Print it bigger, it's not turning informative.

Exactly which "process." Spell it out.

[Immanuel Can]

But capitalist economy should be ameliorated by social welfare.

Why? Why isn't community charitability better?

[FlashDangerpants]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

No it doesn't. Not in the USA, not in Canada and not here either.

Here's the relevant text:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's the relevant text:

...due process of law...

Which "process" is "due" in this case? Specify it.

If you don't understand it, don't bother to quote it. It doesn't mean anything to you, then.

I'll make this easy for you, though I already know you'll pretend not to recognize it. And I know what your endgame is: not the achievement of justice, but rather the clogging of the extradition system with needless procedures, so as to prevent it from happening, long enough to get a Dem admin back in place so they can declare a universal amnesty for the drug lords, rapists and child molestors that Biden let in.

Nothing...nothing at all...will ever get you to admit what's obvious. It won't serve your Dem agenda, so you'll never accept it. You'll go to the death protesting nonsense and defending criminals. It's just how you'll roll, and I know it.

However, let's play anyway.

Let's suppose I come to your country. There, I murder somebody, and also steal a car.

I'm tried for the murder, and I'm found guilty. Extradition is part of the sentencing, along with a long prison term in my home country, perhaps.

Here's the only question that matters: do I have to be charged with the theft and convicted of it before I can be extradited, or can I be extradited for the murder?

Which way is it?

[Walker]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

No it doesn't. Not in the USA, not in Canada and not here either.

Here's the relevant text:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Such a flashy font.

*

Rely on the meaning, not the words.

- Citizen due process applies to citizens.
- Deportation is not a due process for citizens.
- Illegal border jumper due process applies to illegal border jumpers.
- Deportation and its determinations is a due process for illegals.

Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
For example, Garcia was here illegally and under the jurisdiction of El Salvador.
Jurisdiction is not geography dependent.

Jurisdiction is why the United States cannot remove Garcia from El Salvador without the consent of that government. However, should that government say take our citizen, the USA will facilitate his removal, and then return him, at tax payer expense. Quite generous, but worth it to preserve the rule of law and respect The Supremes, which is a separate but equal branch of government without any guns.

[Belinda]

But capitalist economy should be ameliorated by social welfare.

Why? Why isn't community charitability better?

Community charitability has been insufficient since Moses codified law. Ever since Moses (and his like) the church, the synagogue, the mosque, the Gurdwara.
et al have actively ,and with variable degrees of competence, managed communities' charitable giving.

In more recent times , as religious affiliation declines, the state and local authorities have managed charitable giving.

There is ample opportunity for volitional charitable giving . Private gifts however are unlikely to be enough to meet needs.

[Immanuel Can]

But capitalist economy should be ameliorated by social welfare.

Why? Why isn't community charitability better?

Community charitability has been insufficient since Moses codified law.

Apparently not. America started not with government management and programs, but with volunteer communities who helped one another -- if you read Alexis deTocqueville, you'll find that out. America used to depend very heavily on the generosity and cooperation of each other. And even today, most charitable funds run by private and corporate donation, not by governmental administration.

But I agree that at least one more thing is essential: the sort of community-spiritedness produced by Judeo-Christian ethics at the public level. Only a society committed to the dignity of all persons, to community fellowship, mutual helping and to caring for one another can achieve this by what Tocqueville called "voluntary associations" of various kinds. And there is no longer that in the US today.

But government is no alternative. As DOGE has exposed, what was happening instead was bloated bureaucracy, graft, robbing the poor through taxation, corruption of offices, and ridiculous waste. The ordinary, hard-working taxpayer has been losing, and losing badly; and the whole economy was being tanked by governmental corruption and wretched fiscal abuses, like paying "social benefits" to people alleged to have been both 150 years old today, and not even born yet, or like sending free condoms to Gazans and trans-surgeries to Guatemalans, or paying salaries to people who never came to work at all, and who became terrified at the mere prospect of having to simply list five things they did in the last week.

[Alexis Jacobi]

— Citizen due process applies to citizens.
— Deportation is not a due process for citizens.
— Illegal border jumper due process applies to illegal border jumpers.
— Deportation and its determinations is a due process for illegals.

Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

For example, Garcia was here illegally and under the jurisdiction of El Salvador.
Jurisdiction is not geography dependent.

Jurisdiction is why the United States cannot remove Garcia from El Salvador without the consent of that government. However, should that government say take our citizen, the USA will facilitate his removal, and then return him, at tax payer expense. Quite generous, but worth it to preserve the rule of law and respect The Supremes, which is a separate but equal branch of government without any guns.

Unfortunately you are wrong on every count.

Any person, legally or illegally in the country, has protection under the law. This is an incontestable fact.

What right does an illegal immigrant have? Simple: the right to present a case as to why he should not be deported. That’s it. Nothing more but also nothing less.

Due process applies to anyone who for any reason finds himself in the US: be it visiting on a visa or illegal entry.

This is so utterly simple. Once you-plural grasp this, the entire issue is resolved.

If they seek to deport illegal immigrants, or illegal immigrant criminals, the basic Constitutional rules must be followed.

If that is not done, then each one deported badly instantaneously has a case: to be returned to the US so that that specific procedure is followed.

Now, the issue is being blown up by the opposition. It is being used against the present administration. And justifiably so (though obviously politically).

Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Indeed they are. They can be charged for a crime for example. That implies being “under the jurisdiction”.

They are also subjects (citizens) of another country and can be extradited at the request of that foreign country if the extradition order meets specific legal (Constitutional) requirements.)

[Walker]

Oh, so sorry. Your premise is incorrect.

Listen to the machine. Obey the machine.

I just posed this question to The Google:

A judge from the government of jurisdiction need not be physically present within the country of the judged.

AI Answer:

AI Overview

Yes, it is not necessary for a judge to be physically present within the country of the individual being judged for that judge to exercise legal jurisdiction. This concept is supported by legal principles regarding personal jurisdiction, which allow courts to hear cases involving individuals even if they are not physically present in the jurisdiction.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Personal Jurisdiction:
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's authority over a person, which is distinct from its authority over property or matters within its territory.

Minimum Contacts:
For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over someone, there must be sufficient "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the forum state. This means the defendant must have engaged in certain activities within the state that create a connection between them and the court.

International Law:
In international cases, the concept of jurisdiction is even more complex, as it involves the jurisdiction of a state or international organization over individuals and organizations within its borders or those engaging in activities with a connection to that state or organization.

Virtual Presence:
The advent of technology has further blurred the lines of territorial jurisdiction, allowing individuals and companies to conduct business and engage in activities virtually across borders. This has led to more complex questions about how to determine jurisdiction in the digital age.

For example, a judge in the United States could legally issue a judgment against a person who lives and works in another country, provided there are sufficient "minimum contacts" between the defendant and the United States to establish personal jurisdiction.

The judge is in El Salvador.
The judged was in the United States.
The judge said, go to jail, in El Salvador.

Jurisdiction was thus exercised, and the execution was facilitated by the United States.

[FlashDangerpants]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

That statement is factually incorrect. You are aware of this already.

Here's a wiki page for you if you need to learn more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

[Alexis Jacobi]

Carry on, Walker.

I support mass deportation. And I definitely want to criminal gangs to be broken up and deported.

Because this is so, I want to see it done according to the law.

Not in a way that inhibits the objective.

Unnecessary mistakes were made. It would have been so very simple to avoid them.

Now everything will be convoluted and more difficult.

Not an intelligent way to go about things.

[Walker]

Due process and the law are being followed, as has been explained.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Carry on, Walker …

[Immanuel Can]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

That statement is factually incorrect.

It entirely depends on which "process" is "due". The term "due process" itself does not specify. So prove what's "due" in this case.

But you won't. You're ideologically possessed, it seems.

So answer my question: can I be extradited for murder, without the carjacking being charged?