Supreme Court rules immigrants can be detained indefinitely

a reply to: CriticalStinker

GO cry me a river.

Just keep bending over until you feel it hitting your tonsils.

Honestly, it's folks like you that will irrevocably destroy *any* society.......

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Nice attempt.


What I said was, this should not be the rule to follow for legal immigrants.

In other words, legal? You're treated differently than someone here ILLEGALLY...

ie, THEY BROKE OUR DAMNED LAWS... LAWS YOU AND I HAVE TO ABIDE BY EVERY SINGLE DAMNED DAY.

a reply to: FHomerK

Felons also broke our laws. Should this ruling also apply to them?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: watchitburn

I won't argue with that. Laws are laws, but allowing for indefinite imprisonment without a hearing is not American. I don't want us to be know for that ever, whether you're a citizen or not.

Actually no it is american. In the old days we would kick you out without a trial and it was perfectly legal under the tresspass laws or in extreme cases Spying laws.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: FHomerK

Felons also broke our laws. Should this ruling also apply to them?

Following that idea, here's a thought....


Let's just decriminalize EVERYTHING... laws and rules just suck and they're mean, too!!!!

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: FHomerK

Felons also broke our laws. Should this ruling also apply to them?

If they are Illegal aliens yes it should. Because it is a federal crime to be here illegally.

a reply to: FHomerK

How does being opposed to indefinite detention of anyone mean I support a lawless society?

a reply to: yuppa

And detaining them indefinitely solves what? If anything it exacerbates the problem. Because they're still on US soil but now it's the US taxpayers that are footing the bill.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

Immigrants can be held by U.S. immigration officials indefinitely without receiving bond hearings, even if they have permanent legal status or are seeking asylum, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 5-3 ruling Tuesday, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing, the court ruled that immigrants do not have the right to periodic bond hearings.

The ruling is a defeat for immigration advocates, who argued that immigrants should not be held for more than six months at a time without such a hearing.

Source

So with this move it means that even people who are legally in this country can be held indefinitely. I don't know how anyone can justify this decision. Just because someone is from a different country they are no longer afforded basic human rights.

What's to stop this ruling being used to justify internment camps? Hell, what's to stop this ruling from being used as precedent for a similar case against US citizens? This just seems like the start of a slippery slope.

Well hell, it's about time!

I garurntee it won't be abused!

Trust me.

Seriously, if you have nothing to hide.....

Reminds me of comprehensive immigration and gun reforms, doesn't it?

No problem, there won't be any govt abuses or over reaches.

Scary innit? When it's your side getting leveled.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: watchitburn

I won't argue with that. Laws are laws, but allowing for indefinite imprisonment without a hearing is not American. I don't want us to be know for that ever, whether you're a citizen or not.

Actually no it is american. In the old days we would kick you out without a trial and it was perfectly legal under the tresspass laws or in extreme cases Spying laws.

Cool, then kick them out instead of imprisoning them indefinitely.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: CriticalStinker

GO cry me a river.

Just keep bending over until you feel it hitting your tonsils.

Honestly, it's folks like you that will irrevocably destroy *any* society.......

Oh please. I just don't want to spend money to indefinitely imprison vast amounts of people.

Honestly it's folks like you that will irrevocably destroy *any* economy.

Side note, it's also inhumane.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: watchitburn

I won't argue with that. Laws are laws, but allowing for indefinite imprisonment without a hearing is not American. I don't want us to be know for that ever, whether you're a citizen or not.

Actually no it is american. In the old days we would kick you out without a trial and it was perfectly legal under the tresspass laws or in extreme cases Spying laws.

Cool, then kick them out instead of imprisoning them indefinitely.

Don't know about you but I'd take getting kicked out over indefinite interment any day.

At least I can come back rather than never leave.

It just might make me think twice.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Nyiah

You start with the legal immigrants, and it's only a damned matter of time before they concoct some excuse to do the same bull to the born citizens. Mark my words.

Exactly. We already deny felons certain rights. So what's to stop the courts from now saying that they're allowed to be detained indefinitely without a trial? And from there it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to being able to apply it to all citizens.

It's already happening, they pass laws detaining domestic terrorists indefinitely, all they need to do is apply a label.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: yuppa

And detaining them indefinitely solves what? If anything it exacerbates the problem. Because they're still on US soil but now it's the US taxpayers that are footing the bill.

It allows them to stay in custody until they can be picked up by ICE, be transferred to an ICE detention facility and appear before an immigration judge.

Not a hard concept to understand. Coming to this country illegally is not and in itself a crime against a person. It is a crime against the United States Government.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Nyiah

You start with the legal immigrants, and it's only a damned matter of time before they concoct some excuse to do the same bull to the born citizens. Mark my words.

Exactly. We already deny felons certain rights. So what's to stop the courts from now saying that they're allowed to be detained indefinitely without a trial? And from there it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to being able to apply it to all citizens.

It's already happening, they pass laws detaining domestic terrorists indefinitely, all they need to do is apply a label.

No they dont. As has been stated the federal judge that issued the injunction then removed her ruling did so because no one had standing to challenge the law. The moment a US citizen is charged in that manner her original ruling will be reviewed and will stand - US citizens cannot be indefinitely detained without charge nor can they be subject to the military justice system.

There is a legal term called "standing" that plays a large part in our laws and how those laws can be challenged.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

A republican SCOTUS, a dangerous state of affairs

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Xcalibur254

A republican SCOTUS, a dangerous state of affairs

Upholding the Constitution is not dangerous.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Xcalibur254

A republican SCOTUS, a dangerous state of affairs

Yeah right!

"While the court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns,the justices have repeatedly refused to go further by blocking strict gun regulations, including state bans on the sale of semi-automatic weapons or limits on who can carry a weapon in public," the Los Angeles Times reported.

A leftist Scotus is a dangerous state of affairs.

Dam my whole family are imigrents; does this rulling apply to them even though they are full citizens of the United States... Or is the word "imigrent" not being used properly in the OP linked artical?

Dam my whole family are imigrents; does this rulling apply to them even though they are full citizens of the United States... Or is the word "imigrent" not being used properly in the OP linked artical?