Dispelling a Myth Regarding Immigration

Really? My claim was that illegal children are being deported, my link states exactly that illegal children are being deported. You claimed they couldn't be deported and that they needed to have an adult with them to be deported and that the 1998 law made that mandatory. You have yet to provide a 1998 law, and you have been shown that children are being deported without an adult present. Your constant BS stinks and shows your ignorance.

It is not the foundation of law, the statement says it is he foundation of the administration of our criminal law. Do you really not understand that very basic English sentence?

You need to accept the simple fact that you are wrong, and that you really don't know what you are talking about. The very least you could do is provide a link to a legal scholar that decries the same stupidity as you do.

 

Then you did not understand what I wrote and interpreted my post as meaning no deportations. What I stated was that a child cannot be deported unless there is an adult to the country of its home country. That law has been in place since 1998. That does not mean that deportations do not occur, but that there is an added level to determine if the deportation occurs. You do realize that any child under the age 18 is not sent to a ICE detention center but to HHS. Right? That would mean that deportation is not a forethought on immigration, but your original post was misleading that it was.

You are playing semantics here while still not understanding the context of the ruling in and of itself.

As for who is being right, 990 immigration lawyers/judges would be on my side and you may get 10, if that many. Those 990 can't all be wrong in the real world of law, but somehow they are in your fantasy world.

 

For the sins of the father. They lived here IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, essentially in the commission of a crime. The parents should have thought of that before screwing in the USA.

 

Boy, you have excuses for everything, don't you. Please cite this 1998 law you keep mumbling about, since there is no such need for there to be an adult to receive them in their country of origin, they are sent back to their govt. There is no added level to determine if the deportation occurs or not. HHS has no bearing on whether the child is deported or not, besides its actually ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) where the majority are released to family or friends while they wait for their hearing, to which 90% fail to show up for. The rest is of your diatribe is

I'm playing semantics? You've been caught trying to bull(*)(*)(*)(*) your way thorugh this conversation. The context of the ruling? Presumption of innocence doesn't even kick in until one is in trial, it has nothing at all to do with the Due Process Clauses of the USC. If your claim is indeed correct you should have no problem providing cites to legal scholars that back up your stupidity. You have yet to provide anything other than your inept claims.

Then you shouldn't have any problem providing cites to legal authorities and scholars to back up your ridiculous assertions.

 

Everyone here illegally should be sent back to where they came. Dems want the votes and repubs want the cheap labor for their wealthy donors. We have immigration laws for a reason and the anchor baby situation should be considered fraud. Because it is.

 

Donalds wall would include a door for the LEGAL immigrants.