Illegals in caravan SUE US government??!

Hold the flip on.. As per last night's news, some of the illegal aliens in the caravan STILL IN MEXICO, are suing, saying that their "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" are being violated.




WHAT FUCKING RIGHTS? They are not US Citizens, NOR are they in this country?!?
SO How on gods green earth, do they have a leg to stand on to sue?!


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mig...utional-rights

yeah, I saw that.



a bizzare thing really to do that and they're not even in the country yet.

Bizarro World.

Hold the flip on.. As per last night's news, some of the illegal aliens in the caravan STILL IN MEXICO, are suing, saying that their "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" are being violated.




WHAT FUCKING RIGHTS? They are not US Citizens, NOR are they in this country?!?
SO How on gods green earth, do they have a leg to stand on to sue?!


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mig...utional-rights Originally Posted by garhkal

Read the story, garhkal.

Plus, as you so hysterically point out, these people are not in the country. Thus they are neither alien nor illegal.

You seem frightened of a threat that isn’t threatening you.

Read the story, garhkal.

Plus, as you so hysterically point out, these people are not in the country. Thus they are neither alien nor illegal.

You seem frightened of a threat that isn’t threatening you. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So you like assholes coming to the US to illegally enter the country and sue us?

Well yssup. IF they are not even hear, HOW THEN DO THEY have any sort of right to sue us, especially for "violating their constitutional rights"> THEY DON'T have any!

https://www.scribd.com/document/3922...oc-1-COMPLAINT

Read it, if you really want to know the basis. Otherwise don't.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3922...oc-1-COMPLAINT

Read it, if you really want to know the basis. Otherwise don't. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Mr. LL Sir: If they are attempting to legally seek asylum, aren't they required to attempt it in the country next to them, not cross over a country to "forum shop" so to speak?

Required by whom, Fred? Which government places such a requirement on asylum seekers? Not ours.

Again, the paranoia spread by this obviously holy (as in full of holes) story is without merit or basis.

All I can say is they’d better hurry! Election Day is day after tomorrow, and the defense forces need to vote!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSH!!!

Mr. LL Sir: If they are attempting to legally seek asylum, aren't they required to attempt it in the country next to them, not cross over a country to "forum shop" so to speak? Originally Posted by friendly fred

There are many SCOTUS opinions on the issues surrounding the "standing" of foreign nationals to bring claims based upon rights and/or privileges of the U.S. Constitution and the Amendments thereto. It is my general understanding without additional research that a foreign national who is not on U.S. soil (and never has been) lacks "standing" to bring an action in U.S. Federal courts against the government in which violations of the U.S. Constitution and/or the Amendments thereto are asserted as a basis of the claim or claims so long as those alleged violations occurred on U.S. soil (including territories and/or consulate/embassies property).

Your theory has a "catch 22" ... IF the immigration laws/regs require the foreign national to seek asylum outside of the U.S. territory FIRST via a legitimate State Department facility then they have not been deprived of "due process" unless by U.S. action they were prevented from accessing such facility and/or denied an opportunity to access such facility to make the claim.

If the U.S. sets up tents on U.S. soil to "house" the illegal invaders and dependents then they are on U.S. soil, in U.S. custody/detention, and they are in the jurisdiction of the U.S. (and the local school district btw) and therefore they have rights within the U.S. Constitution and the Amendments thereto. cf "POW" litigation out of GTMO and the Japanese internment camps.

I'm not saying the following cite is dispositive, but there is some guidance on some of the principles involved .... since it is executive action, Trump EO's, foreigners not on this soil, and "rights" to come into this country, asylum/persecution, and other similar fact questions ... although not directly addressed as to the law ... it should give one some hint at the direction the Court will take when it gets there ....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-965_h315.pdf

.... then dealing with immigration and the integrity of this country's security system then the POTUS sort of "trumps" others! (no pun intended!).

Knowing this is politically incorrect (I am politically incorrect), there's nothing going on that one Apache helicopter couldn't end or a bunch of trained dogs on OUR side of the border couldn't shut down. As well, an "adult conversation" with the outlaw country's "leadership" might be in order. And we send these mother fuckers foreign aid?? These thugs are being paid by the deep state to invade our country and for it to even become a political issue is absurd. An invasion is an invasion and it needs to be repelled......if it happens as someone else pointed out.

Pragmatically, the US cannot save the world from itself. Our ancestors EARNED our freedom by being hard-assed fighters as well as some of us that have fought to perpetuate it. When you've killed people trying to take something away from you and your country, it's much easier understand. IT IS an unfair mean world. Over and out. Obviously, I need a good woman to calm me down...LOL!!

This is hardly a legal debate at all.

Not US citizens. Not in the US.

The story as well as the debate is hypothetical.

This is hardly a legal debate at all.

Not US citizens. Not in the US.

The story as well as the debate is hypothetical. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The Germans weren't U.S. citizens and were not in the U.S.

It's always a legal debate and NOT HYPOTHETICAL when a people (like on 911) and/or another country threatens the integrity our borders. We have a right to pre-emptive strike. We do not have to wait until another country or people actually strike the U.S.

If the U.S. sets up tents on U.S. soil to "house" the illegal invaders Originally Posted by LexusLover

Illegal invaders?

What US law have they broken?

Is it 'illegal' to seek political asylum?

Why would you call them illegal invaders?

The Germans weren't U.S. citizens and were not in the U.S.

It's always a legal debate and NOT HYPOTHETICAL when a people (like on 911) and/or another country threatens the integrity our borders. We have a right to pre-emptive strike. We do not have to wait until another country or people actually strike the U.S. Originally Posted by LexusLover

This is utterly and unabashed hate speech, right out of the Richard Spencer / Alex Jones / Steve Bannon / Donald Trump school.

You are hysterically advocating a pre-emptive military strike on political refugees on foot nearly a thousand miles from our border.

Your poisonous rhetoric reminds us what we see on the internet before someone goes bonkers and starts shooting up churches, nightclubs and synagogues. Or, the kind of language that he FBI discovers on the internet after the fact.

Likening this to 9/11 is Trumpian hyperbole and more dog whistles before Election Day. (I don’t think there are any undecid3d voters here, so what’s your point?)

Please stop it. Your hate language could be putting our community at risk.