DACA at the Supreme Court

[Adam H. Kerman]

I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.

I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.

I'm just waiting to hear Olson condemned as a liberal.

In other reports today, I heard an interesting comment from a New York
Times reporter. Seems that Jeff Sessions, when he was attorney general,
tried to force Homeland Security to sign off on the memo he'd written to
end DACA. As you may recall, Trump took forever to appoint cabinet
secretaries; Homeland Security's acting secretary was a bureaucrat
sympathetic to DACA recipients. She refused to go along with Sessions'
vitriolic memo, which was full of bullshit about breaches of national
security and other nonsense.

The only thing she'd agree to sign was that DACA was unconstitutional.

Because of this, the Trump administration had a very limited record to
defend at trial court and at circuit court. It may be another instance
in which Roberts will get pissed off that the Supreme Court is being
used, like one of the redistricting cases, and vote against the
adminstration.

There's no way that Trump couldn't have reversed an Obama-era order to
Homeland Security. (I'm not actually sure it was done as an executive
order or something else.) But Trump fucked it up, it sounds like. Maybe
the Supreme Court will rule that the president has this power, but not
the way it was handled, and Trump will have to do it again and get it
right. That would be better than an all-expansive presidential power.

There seemed to be agreement among various commentators that Congress
feels that it's off the hook for this as long as it's at the Supreme
Court. The opinion probably won't be released till June. Congress loves
having excuses not to do anything useful.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
>case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
>available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.

No, that's wrong.

The consolidated cases the court heard Tuesday are Department of Homeland
Security v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. NAACP and
McAleenan v. Vidal.

[RichA]

Why do Democrats all think that people who have never achieved legal immigrant status have or should have ANY rights at all?

[Adam H. Kerman]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why do Democrats all think that people who have never achieved legal
>immigrant status have or should have ANY rights at all?

Again: Ted Olson is a conservative Republican. He's representing the
immigrant side on procedural grounds. Trump could have gotten what he
wanted in the first place if he'd followed the Administrative Procedures
Act, which is my guess as to how the Supreme Court will rule.

[BTR1701]

In article <qqg8ng$otc$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
> case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
> available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.
>
> I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
> the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
> administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
> mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.

I have no idea how rescinding DACA without following notice-and-comment
procedures can be an APA violation but creating DACA in the first place
via memo (not even an executive order) without following
notice-and-comment procedures is a-okay.

[trotsky]

Wow, that's strong sarcasm. How does it compare to extort illegal help
from a foreign govt. to benefit your political campaign? You're writing
this horseshit in a serious tone but since you are unable to put into
context of the illegal dealings of Trump and his cronies it can't be
taken seriously. Maybe your sock can do better.

[trotsky]

On 11/13/19 1:01 AM, RichA wrote:
> Why do Democrats all think that people who have never achieved legal immigrant status have or should have ANY rights at all?
>

Because they're not anonymous fucking shitheads like yourself. What's
your IQ, about 50?

[trotsky]

On 11/13/19 1:35 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

P.S. Who the fuck should have put a stop to it you moron?

[NoBody]

Because...well...Obama did it. If he did it, it is all great with
liberals.

[Bill Idgerant]

Here's a portion of David French's column on DACA:

Putting aside for a moment the merits of the DACA policy, the Obama
administration’s action suffered from a glaring flaw—it was a lawless
abuse of executive authority. Congress is the lawmaker, not the
president, and when Congress delegates rule-making to the executive
branch, the executive branch has to go through the specific process
outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires a public
notice and comment period for proposed rules and imposes limits on
rule-making authority. The Obama administration ignored that process. It
simply wrote a memo.

I watched reports on this issue on CNN and on Fox's Special Report, and
they mostly concentrated on the fallout for the 800,000 people in the
program and how horrible it was to kill it. I heard nothing of the
administrative overreach of the Obama White House and the Trump efforts
to rein it in. French says elsewhere in his piece. "DACA is good policy.
It also happens to be bad law."
--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Then a party with standing should have hired Ted Olson to make this
argument in appelate court when Obama did it. What Obama failed to do
isn't precedent for what Trump failed to do.

Again: I have never disagreed with you about expansion of the power of
the presidency.

[Adam H. Kerman]

And... there it is. I was waiting for someone to condemn Ted Olson as a
liberal.

[BTR1701]

I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on the political leanings of one
side's attorney. Lawyers like money more than anything else and they'll say
whatever the person who's paying the bills wants them to say.

[BTR1701]

Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
>>> case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
>>> available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.
>
>>> I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
>>> the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
>>> administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
>>> mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.
>
>> I have no idea how rescinding DACA without following notice-and-comment
>> procedures can be an APA violation but creating DACA in the first place
>> via memo (not even an executive order) without following
>> notice-and-comment procedures is a-okay.
>
> Then a party with standing should have hired Ted Olson to make this
> argument in appelate court when Obama did it. What Obama failed to do
> isn't precedent for what Trump failed to do.

But the APA requires notice-and-comment to repeal validly passed
regulations. The APA says nothing about merely rescinding a memo to
Homeland Security.

[Ubiquitous]

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

[moviePig]

On 11/13/2019 3:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:35:26 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
>>>>> case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
>>>>> available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.
>>
>>>>> I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
>>>>> the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
>>>>> administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
>>>>> mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.
>>
>>>> I have no idea how rescinding DACA without following notice-and-comment
>>>> procedures can be an APA violation but creating DACA in the first place
>>>> via memo (not even an executive order) without following
>>>> notice-and-comment procedures is a-okay.
>>
>>> Because...well...Obama did it. If he did it, it is all great with
>>> liberals.
>>
>> And... there it is. I was waiting for someone to condemn Ted Olson as a
>> liberal.
>
> I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on the political leanings of one
> side's attorney. Lawyers like money more than anything else and they'll say
> whatever the person who's paying the bills wants them to say.

Same reason The Whistleblower gets that focus: stripe trumps substance.

[Ubiquitous]

Wasn't DACA sppsd to be a temporary solution in the first place?

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[David Johnston]

On 2019-11-13 12:01 a.m., RichA wrote:
> Why do Democrats all think that people who have never achieved legal immigrant status have or should have ANY rights at all?
>

The United States Constitution and various treaties that the United
States have ratified offer two classes of recognized rights. The ones
that apply to American citizens and the ones that apply to every human
being regardless of their citizenship.

[FPP]

All of a sudden Thanny's concerned with government abuse? When a Dem is
in power.
Who knew?

--
And now, another in a series of Mental Health Bulletins:
"... If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom,
consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the
Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)." -Donald J. Trump 10-7-19

Next up: "Kneel before ZOD!"

[Adam H. Kerman]

I have no idea what rights you believe an American citizen has in
international law that he lacks under the United States Constitution.
International human rights are for citizens of countries that lack
anything close to our Constitution.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:35:26 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>>I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
>>>>>case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
>>>>>available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.

>>>>>I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
>>>>>the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
>>>>>administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
>>>>>mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.

>>>>I have no idea how rescinding DACA without following notice-and-comment
>>>>procedures can be an APA violation but creating DACA in the first place
>>>>via memo (not even an executive order) without following
>>>>notice-and-comment procedures is a-okay.

>>>Because...well...Obama did it. If he did it, it is all great with
>>>liberals.

>>And... there it is. I was waiting for someone to condemn Ted Olson as a
>>liberal.

>I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on the political leanings of one
>side's attorney. Lawyers like money more than anything else and they'll say
>whatever the person who's paying the bills wants them to say.

Because there's a huge idiocy in this nation criticizing people for
their perceived liberalism or perceived conservatism in lieu of
legitimate discussion of facts.

Also, as you say, it amuses me to point out to people who Olson is.

I am aware of most of your political views, yet I agree with you on the
issue of expanded power of the presidency, the issue that should have
been argued here.

But it's just anything anyone is interested in.

[Adam H. Kerman]

If you're correct, then Olson will lose making that argument.

I kind of figured he'd make a perfectly valid argument, not just the
argument his clients wanted made that didn't stand a chance. He doesn't
lose at the Supreme Court like ever.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Or for citizens of other countries while they are in the US, since you
are limiting Constitutional rights to US citizens.

--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"

[Adam H. Kerman]

No, just was addressing Johnston, who said "American citizens".

A traveler while in the United States has rights under the United States
constitution and under law.

[David Johnston]

Or foreigners. For example foreign combatants have no right not to be
tortured under the United States Constitution.

[David Johnston]

But not the same rights as an American citizen.

[Adam H. Kerman]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2019-11-13 8:48 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2019 3:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2019-11-13 12:01 a.m., RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why do Democrats all think that people who have never achieved
>>> legal immigrant status have or should have ANY rights at all?
>>>>
>>>>> The United States Constitution and various treaties that the United
>>>>> States have ratified offer two classes of recognized rights. The ones
>>>>> that apply to American citizens and the ones that apply to every human
>>>>> being regardless of their citizenship.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what rights you believe an American citizen has in
>>>> international law that he lacks under the United States Constitution.
>>>> International human rights are for citizens of countries that lack
>>>> anything close to our Constitution.
>>>>
>>> Or for citizens of other countries while they are in the US, since you
>>> are limiting Constitutional rights to US citizens.
>>
>> No, just was addressing Johnston, who said "American citizens".
>>
>> A traveler while in the United States has rights under the United States
>> constitution and under law.
>>
>
>But not the same rights as an American citizen.

Wrong again. For instance, a traveler has the same right to freedom of
the press as an American does while in the United States. Rights at
arrest and trial are identical.

Now that I think about it, the only right applicable to a foreign
national from international law is, if taken into custody, the
consulate is informed.

[Adam H. Kerman]

And there's the cheap shot and change of subject because Johnston's
being obnoxious.

So, now, the United States has been invaded in your hypothetical? They
got shot by the Army, or if captured, treated like prisoners of war.
They are interrogated under the Army Field Manual rules.

Any chance you could ease off the idiocy and address the point Rich
raised, that illegal aliens have no rights at all? Rich was wrong. They
have rights under law same as anyone else while on US soil.

It's an actual fact, Johnston. Stop being your usual obnoxious self and
acknowledge it.

[David Johnston]

But not the right to vote. Courts differ on the issue of whether the
2nd and 9th amendments apply to noncitizens but some courts have ruled
that they do not. And of course all noncitizens are subject to the
plenary power over immigration that allows them to be deported or held
in detention camps as the President sees fit.

[David Johnston]

On 2019-11-13 11:29 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-11-13 4:53 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2019-11-13 12:01 a.m., RichA wrote:
>
>>>>> Why do Democrats all think that people who have never achieved legal immigrant status have or should have ANY rights at all?
>
>>>> The United States Constitution and various treaties that the United
>>>> States have ratified offer two classes of recognized rights. The ones
>>>> that apply to American citizens and the ones that apply to every human
>>>> being regardless of their citizenship.
>
>>> I have no idea what rights you believe an American citizen has in
>>> international law that he lacks under the United States Constitution.
>>> International human rights are for citizens of countries that lack
>>> anything close to our Constitution.
>
>> Or foreigners. For example foreign combatants have no right not to be
>> tortured under the United States Constitution.
>
> And there's the cheap shot and change of subject because Johnston's
> being obnoxious.
>
> So, now, the United States has been invaded in your hypothetical?

Nope. It's just a fact. The United States Constitution doesn't protect
captured enemies from being tortured.

[BTR1701]

In article <qqisod$1lj1$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Why in the actual fuck would foreign nationals have the right to vote in
our elections?

> Courts differ on the issue of whether the
> 2nd and 9th amendments apply to noncitizens but some courts have ruled
> that they do not. And of course all noncitizens are subject to the
> plenary power over immigration that allows them to be deported or held
> in detention camps as the President sees fit.

Not as the president sees fit. As is allowed under law. Which means as
Congress sees fit.

[trotsky]

When you establish residency in a state you can get a Driver's License
in that state. I wouldn't be surprised if there comes a point when all
the assholes in the GOP are dead and buried that the same could be said
for voting. I would think if a person has been in the country for five
or ten years they should have the right to vote because they have a
vested interest in it. Granted, no one expects you to be capable of
putting that much thought into it.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:22:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Actually I did no such thing. Please try again.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:17:49 -0600, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>

wrote:

>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:35:26 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
>>>>> case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
>>>>> available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.
>>
>>>>> I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
>>>>> the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
>>>>> administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
>>>>> mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.
>>
>>>> I have no idea how rescinding DACA without following notice-and-comment
>>>> procedures can be an APA violation but creating DACA in the first place
>>>> via memo (not even an executive order) without following
>>>> notice-and-comment procedures is a-okay.
>>
>>> Because...well...Obama did it. If he did it, it is all great with
>>> liberals.
>>
>> And... there it is. I was waiting for someone to condemn Ted Olson as a
>> liberal.
>
>I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on the political leanings of one
>side's attorney. Lawyers like money more than anything else and they'll say
>whatever the person who's paying the bills wants them to say.

Lawyers have no political allegiances when it comes to money.

[NoBody]

Don't think that the Dems aren't heading that way.

>
>> Courts differ on the issue of whether the
>> 2nd and 9th amendments apply to noncitizens but some courts have ruled
>> that they do not. And of course all noncitizens are subject to the
>> plenary power over immigration that allows them to be deported or held
>> in detention camps as the President sees fit.
>
>Not as the president sees fit. As is allowed under law. Which means as
>Congress sees fit.

Unless it's Obama signing an order in which case that's ok with libs.

[Adam H. Kerman's Mom]

NoB...@nowhere.com wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:35:26 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>>I've looked at several news reports, none of the ones I've read name the
>>>>>case. It's Hernandez v. Mesa. C-SPAN will make the audio transcript
>>>>>available Friday when it's uploaded by the court.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
>>>>>the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
>>>>>administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
>>>>>mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.
>>>>
>>>>I have no idea how rescinding DACA without following notice-and-comment
>>>>procedures can be an APA violation but creating DACA in the first place
>>>>via memo (not even an executive order) without following
>>>>notice-and-comment procedures is a-okay.
>>>
>>>Because...well...Obama did it. If he did it, it is all great with
>>>liberals.
>>
>>And... there it is. I was waiting for someone to condemn Ted Olson as a
>>liberal.
>
>Actually I did no such thing. Please try again.

please excuse adam
he's having his period and is a heavy-bleeder

sincerely,
adam h. kerman's mom

[Adam H. Kerman]

You don't have a legitimate argument to make, so you throw up a
distraction. Yes, Johnston, there are very specific rights in law that
come with certain prerequisites: Citizenship and residency. Per a 50
year old Supreme Court decision, the residency requirement cannot exceed
30 days.

I've personally argued that voting eligibility should be on residency,
only, but absolutely no one agrees with me. In any event, I've not
argued that it's discriminatory against foreign nationals.

>Courts differ on the issue of whether the 2nd and 9th amendments apply
>to noncitizens but some courts have ruled that they do not.

Since Heller, what court has argued that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply
to foreigners? You're playing constitutional lawyer here: Name the
decision.

The Fifth Amendment includes a number of clauses with criminal rights
at trial plus the unrelated Takings clause, every one of which applies
to noncitizens. Given that you're talking shit here, you should be
permanently disbarred from playing lawyer on Usenet.

>And of course all noncitizens are subject to the plenary power over
>immigration that allows them to be deported or held in detention camps
>as the President sees fit.

That's a lie. Legal immigrants are absolutely not subject to deportation
nor detention. Illegal immigrants are subject to deportation because
there isn't a right anywhere ever for people and goods to cross an
international border without going through customs and immigration at an
established port of entry, unless there are specific treaties in effect
on the movement of peoples and goods. There is no such right under
international law where such treaties don't exist.

For an assylum claim, you have to meet criteria unchanged since WWII to
immigrate. Those with refugee status haven't immigrated permanently, and
they're supposed to return home once the crisis passed.

International boundaries are not "within" countries where rights apply,
but you knew that, Johnston.

You failed to make your case about the United States not granting full
rights of free people to noncitizens, but allowing noncitizens to claim
such rights under international law.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Johnston, I will pay the shilling to turn the gas back on so your brain
resumes functioning again.

You had no argument to make, so you moved the goalposts.

If you are not offering a hypothetical in which the United States has
been invaded, then the theater of war is in another country. US laws do
not apply to foreigners, enemy combatants or not, in other countries. The
Army Field Manual, however, has the force of law applicable to Americans
in the military or civilian government staffers of other federal agencies
in foreign countries with respect to detention and interrogation, and
given how hard genuine Army JAGs have worked to make sure that there's
no repeat of the G.W. Bush administration's overreaction and lies with
respect to 9/11, comparable torture won't happen in future under color
of law as everybody must follow the Army Field Manual.

You're wrong again, Johnston.

[Adam H. Kerman]

NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Wed, 13 Nov 2019 17:22:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>:

Actually, that's exactly what you did. As BTR1701 correctly pointed out,
the argument made before the Supreme Court was whether Trump followed the
Administrative Procedures Act, entirely ignoring Obama's extra-statutory
creation of DACA to begin with. Obama got away with it as he wasn't
taken to court for exceeding the constitutional power of the presidency.

You want to try again? How could a conservative and a Republican possibly
argue that Trump violated the law but Obama didn't? In your bizarre view
of the world, conservative means supporting Trump and liberal means
opposing Trump.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:48:38 -0700, David Johnston
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I have no idea what rights you believe an American citizen has in
>> international law that he lacks under the United States Constitution.
>> International human rights are for citizens of countries that lack
>> anything close to our Constitution.
>>
>
>Or foreigners. For example foreign combatants have no right not to be
>tortured under the United States Constitution.

But that is only if the capturing power recognizes them as legitimate
combatants and has agreed to the dozen or so treaties that make up the
"Geneva Convention" (Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia didn't at least
before 1945)

And of course we don't have to discuss Guantanamo though I do disagree
with the Canadian courts that Canadian citizens who leave the country
to engage in foreign wars have the right to repatriation if captured
by a power allied to Canada. (Yes I'm thinking of the Khadr case)

On the other hand, my high school math teacher was a
Mackenzie-Papineau International Brigader in the Spanish Civil War who
theoretically could have been imprisoned on his return to Canada. He
was discharged from the International Brigades in the closing days of
that war in a location near the Spanish-French border and was playing
tourist in France and Britain for the 9 months before WW2 began at
which point he got himself to the Canadian embassy in London,
volunteered for service and based on his Spanish experience spent most
of the war until D-Day as a rifle drill and tactical instructor.

(Unlike most of the instructors he had actually been under fire and
had a scar on his eyebrow to show it - this is how us kids decades
later learned about it since everybody assumed he had gotten it "in
the war" until he said 'no actually in Spain' which none of us knew
about but several of us read up on it in the library)

By the end of the war he was a deorated infantryman (and one of the
ffirst demobilized as he had been in service since the first week of
the war) and nobody cared about 1936-39 and he got his teachers'
training on the Canadian version of the GI bill. By the time I met him
in the early 70s he was still strongly socialistic but as a
pre-calculus instructor I'd rank him extremely highly.

I don't know of any other cases involving Canadians serving abroad in
'peacetime' though numerous Canucks have served in the UK forces often
in combat. Those were A-OK by Ottawa but the jihadis were not.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 22:49:31 -0700, David Johnston
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A traveler while in the United States has rights under the United States
>> constitution and under law.
>>
>
>But not the same rights as an American citizen.

I dunno - when I got that speeding ticket in Blaine, WA I feel I was
treated just like an American would at every step of the process
including paying the ticket.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:40:19 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>> > Wrong again. For instance, a traveler has the same right to freedom of
>> > the press as an American does while in the United States. Rights at
>> > arrest and trial are identical.
>>
>> But not the right to vote.
>
>Why in the actual fuck would foreign nationals have the right to vote in
>our elections?

Congress has the right to determine who can vote just like every other
country's government. Most countries restrict the franchise to their
own citizens. Britain is a major outlier in that Canadians, Aussies,
Kiwis and even Americans who are permanently resident in the UK can
vote.

My daughter has been living there since Oct 2014 and has voted in 2
general elections, a local byelection to fill Mr Khan's seat in
parliament after he resigned to run for Mayor of London - she lives in
his former district - and the Brexit referendum.

(As well as all Canadian and British Columbia general elections either
via the mail ballot or in person at the embassy - which is in
Trafalgar square so pretty central in London which is where she lives)

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:44:03 AM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
> the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
> administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
> mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.

In my humble opinion, this is more of an ethnical issue rather
than a legal one. Undoubtedly lawyers for both sides will come
up with plausible arguments.

To me, the basic ethical issue is that the government made a
promise to a group of people. A critical promise impacting
their lives. The government ought to honor that promise.
(Whether that is binding based on the Constitution's credit
clause I can't say.)

Anyway, the simplest thing would've been was to have honored
the promise to those it was made, but not admit any new
people to the program.

A secondary ethical issue was why it was done. As best as
anyone can see, it was done merely for spite, to screw
immigrants and appease Trump's rabid base. There were no
security issues involved, despite the screaming of Fox News.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 08:56:56 -0500, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:


>>
>>I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on the political leanings of one
>>side's attorney. Lawyers like money more than anything else and they'll say
>>whatever the person who's paying the bills wants them to say.
>
>Lawyers have no political allegiances when it comes to money.

I heard that expressed in terms that lawyers were prejudiced towards
the color green. (Am pretty sure the poster wasn't talking about
broccoli!)

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:19:50 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>That's a lie. Legal immigrants are absolutely not subject to deportation
>nor detention. Illegal immigrants are subject to deportation because
>there isn't a right anywhere ever for people and goods to cross an
>international border without going through customs and immigration at an
>established port of entry, unless there are specific treaties in effect
>on the movement of peoples and goods. There is no such right under
>international law where such treaties don't exist.

You presumably mean 'detention for immigration reasons'.

An immigrant who commits a crime depending on the severity of the
offence may be deported on completion of sentence.

(This is the situation in Canada with the Humboldt, SK truck driver
who clobbered a team bus and killed or injured an entire hockey team
last year - he'll be on the slow boat to India when he completes his
sentence - if unfamiliar with the case Google is your friend - it was
a prominent crash)

[David Johnston]

I didn't say they should. I just said they don't have the same rights
under the law as an American citizen.

>
>> Courts differ on the issue of whether the
>> 2nd and 9th amendments apply to noncitizens but some courts have ruled
>> that they do not. And of course all noncitizens are subject to the
>> plenary power over immigration that allows them to be deported or held
>> in detention camps as the President sees fit.
>
> Not as the president sees fit. As is allowed under law. Which means as
> Congress sees fit.

And Congress has seen fit to delegate that power to the President.

>

[David Johnston]

On 2019-11-14 11:19 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>> And of course all noncitizens are subject to the plenary power over
>> immigration that allows them to be deported or held in detention camps
>> as the President sees fit.
>
> That's a lie. Legal immigrants are absolutely not subject to deportation
> nor detention.

What's the Constitutional provision that prevents it?

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:44:03 AM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
>>the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
>>administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
>>mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.

>In my humble opinion, this is more of an ethnical issue rather
>than a legal one. Undoubtedly lawyers for both sides will come
>up with plausible arguments.

If you're a lawyer, ethics are imposed upon you exactly like laws. Try
again, hancock. Ethics imposed upon lawyers require them to represent
their clients' interests, not act on their own in conflict with their
clients.

>To me, the basic ethical issue is that the government made a

>promise to a group of people. . . .

Yeah, well, once it's in court, that doesn't fly.

>A critical promise impacting their lives.

Government fucks up people's lives regularly. You're raising an
irrelevancy here.

>The government ought to honor that promise.

You're talking about government here. What the hell do ethics have to do
with government?

>(Whether that is binding based on the Constitution's credit
>clause I can't say.)

That has to do with states respecting federal law and laws in other
states, nothing to do with your argument.

>Anyway, the simplest thing would've been was to have honored
>the promise to those it was made, but not admit any new
>people to the program.

There's nothing simple about it, given that there was no statutory
basis, and therefore, it could be repealed by a subsequent
administration.

>A secondary ethical issue was why it was done.

It was a power grab by the president of the United States, who intended
to get away with it till the administration changed or was thwarted by a
federal judge.

>As best as anyone can see, it was done merely for spite, to screw
>immigrants and appease Trump's rabid base. There were no
>security issues involved, despite the screaming of Fox News.

Yes, we all know that, hancock, but if Jeff Sessions hadn't been such a
terrible lawyer, he could have written the legal language in such a way
that included no judgment based on prejudice and there would have been
nothing to challenge in federal court.

What if he'd written something for Trump to sign that said nothing more
than Obama's memo to the Secretary of Homeland Security ordering him to
enforce the law in a specific way is rescinded? Then Homeland Security
could have promulgated rules for enforcing various laws in accordance
with statutory language.

That might have prevented judiciary review.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That voting eligibility is limited to citizens is not xenophobia as you
are lying about here, Johnston. You don't have a legitimate argument, so
you moved the goalposts.

Voting is a right of an American citizen. It's a right of eligible
American citizens. To be eligible, rules of residency apply, rules of
age apply, and one has to be not under judicial sentence for a crime.

None of this has to do with anything RichA said, so it's the usual
Johnston cheap shot.

>>> Courts differ on the issue of whether the
>>> 2nd and 9th amendments apply to noncitizens but some courts have ruled
>>> that they do not. And of course all noncitizens are subject to the
>>> plenary power over immigration that allows them to be deported or held
>>> in detention camps as the President sees fit.
>>
>> Not as the president sees fit. As is allowed under law. Which means as
>> Congress sees fit.
>
>And Congress has seen fit to delegate that power to the President.

That would be enforcement power, not make the law up out of whole cloth
power.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Habeus corpus, you idiot, a right the Founding Fathers assumed would be
continued; and the rights of criminal procedure generally in the Fifth
Amendment

[BTR1701]

The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:40:19 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Wrong again. For instance, a traveler has the same right to freedom of
>>>> the press as an American does while in the United States. Rights at
>>>> arrest and trial are identical.
>>>
>>> But not the right to vote.
>>
>> Why in the actual fuck would foreign nationals have the right to vote in
>> our elections?
>
> Congress has the right to determine who can vote just like every other
> country's government.

Actually, it doesn't. The Constitution requires citizenship to vote.
Congress can't change that except by amending the Constitution and if the
states don't like it, they can overrule Congress.

[Adam H. Kerman]

The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 00:40:19 -0800, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>Wrong again. For instance, a traveler has the same right to freedom of
>>>>the press as an American does while in the United States. Rights at
>>>>arrest and trial are identical.

>>>But not the right to vote.

>>Why in the actual fuck would foreign nationals have the right to vote in
>>our elections?

>Congress has the right to determine who can vote just like every other

>country's government. . . .

No, that's not how federalism works. States determine eligibility.
Congress's role is limited but the 15th Amendment applies to states.

If a state eliminated citizenship as an eligibility criterion, I don't
see how a federal court could second guess that.

[shawn]

Okay, I can see a state might be able to eliminate citizenship as an
eligibility criterion for state elections but what federal elections.
Can a state allow any resident to vote in the federal elections?

[Adam H. Kerman]

shawn <nanof...@notforgmail.com> wrote:
>Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:03:56 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 will correct me, but if a state expanded eligibility beyond what
was required in the 15th Amendment and the 26th Amendment (which I
forgot about earlier), and it applied to voting for federal office, it
couldn't be reviewed in federal court.

15th Amendment was the civil right to vote without regard to race or
having been a slave. 26th Amendment was the civil right of 18 year olds
to vote.

[David Johnston]

Deportation and internment are not criminal penalties.

[The Horny Goat]

Seems reasonable though some on the left have said that it is immoral
to split up families. The problem with that approach is that ANY
policy that isn't totally open borders WILL split families.

Just because my father was an American doesn't give me the right to
move Stateside 7 years after his passing. Nor does the fact that 9
months before my birth my parents lived in San Francisco give me any
extra rights - it;s based on where you were actually born.

Bottom line is I and my children could certainly meet the criteria of
the Daughters of the American Revolution - the first ancestors of mine
that we have documentation for is in Rensellaer Co, NY - NOT Canada.
To this day I have far more American than Canadian relatives. At least
4 ancestors fought in the war of 1812 - all on the American side.

And all of that plus fifty cents will buy me a cup of coffee.

Is it immoral I do not have the RIGHT to relocate to the United States
and eventually receive citizenship? I would argue I have more right
than most would be migrants - but that is in fact no right at all.

Yes you have the right to apply but you do not have the right to the
answer you want.

[The Horny Goat]

I think Adam's point is that your status has to be cancelled before
you can be deported and that can happen only by due process of law. I
gave a Canadian example of one such case where the convict will be
deported at end of sentence.

(I'm pretty sure would also be the case in the US though the details
would be slightly different - in Canada you can have your immigration
status cancelled if you are convicted of a crime which has a maximum
sentence of 7+ years - not sentenced to 7+ years but convicted as a
crime with that range of sentences. In Canada one could theoretically
be deported tomorrow if the judge suspended your sentence but in
serious crimes - what you folks would call felonies - that neve
happens in practice. The only time CITIZENSHIP can be cancelled is if
you are found in court to have perjured yourself on your
naturalizaiton application and I know of only one such case in recent
history - Google Ernst Zundel if you care)

[Adam H. Kerman]

You lied that a president can just order legal immigrants deported and
interned. No, they cannot. In fact, Korumatsu has been repealed. How can
a guy who pretends to be the world's top authority on constitutional law
in some foreign country be unaware of that?

[Adam H. Kerman]

The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:

>Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:27:26 -0700, David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com>:

>>On 2019-11-14 11:19 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>And of course all noncitizens are subject to the plenary power over
>>>>immigration that allows them to be deported or held in detention camps
>>>>as the President sees fit.

>>>That's a lie. Legal immigrants are absolutely not subject to deportation
>>>nor detention.

>>What's the Constitutional provision that prevents it?

>I think Adam's point is that your status has to be cancelled before
>you can be deported and that can happen only by due process of law.

I wasn't addressing that at all. Those are exceptional cases. In a
handful of instances, specific immigrants were shown to have falsified
their immigration applications or left out pertinent details, like
prison guard in a German extermination camp during WWII. Johnston has
claimed the president can simply order lawful immigrants, or even lawful
travelers from other countries, deported or detained. That's a lie.

>I gave a Canadian example of one such case where the convict will be

>deported at end of sentence. . . .

There may be a case like that in the United States, but I'm not familiar
with it.

No, Johnston is just making shit up here.

[David Johnston]

On 2019-11-14 5:29 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-11-14 1:53 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2019-11-14 11:19 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>> And of course all noncitizens are subject to the plenary power over
>>>>>> immigration that allows them to be deported or held in detention camps
>>>>>> as the President sees fit.
>
>>>>> That's a lie. Legal immigrants are absolutely not subject to deportation
>>>>> nor detention.
>
>>>> What's the Constitutional provision that prevents it?
>
>>> Habeus corpus, you idiot, a right the Founding Fathers assumed would be
>>> continued; and the rights of criminal procedure generally in the Fifth
>>> Amendment
>
>> Deportation and internment are not criminal penalties.
>
> You lied that a president can just order legal immigrants deported and
> interned. No, they cannot. In fact, Korumatsu has been repealed.

Korematsu was about American citizens.

[Adam H. Kerman]

In fact, Mr. Korematsu was a native American, but he challenged the
constitutionality of the interment order which expelled all of those of
Japanese ancestry from their homes in parts of the United States in which
there was concern about espionage and sabotage. I'm not spotting a test
case in which anyone of Japanese descent who wasn't a native American
challenged the executive order, but there probably was one that can be
found more more than a brief googing.

In any event, even if Korumatsu would have set precedent for similar
executive internment orders in the event of a subsequent attack by Japan
upon the United States, it's been repealed so there is absolutely no
constitutional basis for it.

Is that clear to you, Johnston, or do you require 12 more rounds? It was
overruled in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 11/14/2019 3:58 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
> And all of that plus fifty cents will buy me a cup of coffee.
>

I didn't know coffee was so cheap in there in Canuckistan. :)


--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"

[BTR1701]

The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:20:29 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:44:03 AM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to hear the conservative screaming about this one. Ted Olson,
>>> the brilliant former solicitor general from the George W. Bush
>>> administration has take the side of the DACA recipients and made a
>>> mostly pure Administrative Procedures Act violation argument.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, this is more of an ethnical issue rather
>> than a legal one. Undoubtedly lawyers for both sides will come
>> up with plausible arguments.
>>
>> To me, the basic ethical issue is that the government made a
>> promise to a group of people. A critical promise impacting
>> their lives. The government ought to honor that promise.
>> (Whether that is binding based on the Constitution's credit
>> clause I can't say.)
>>
>> Anyway, the simplest thing would've been was to have honored
>> the promise to those it was made, but not admit any new
>> people to the program.
>>
>> A secondary ethical issue was why it was done. As best as
>> anyone can see, it was done merely for spite, to screw
>> immigrants and appease Trump's rabid base. There were no
>> security issues involved, despite the screaming of Fox News.
>
> Seems reasonable though some on the left have said that it is immoral
> to split up families.

Except it's not the government that's splitting up families merely by
enforcing the law. The person responsible for splitting up an illegal's
family is the illegal for violating the law and putting his/her family in
that position in the first place.

If a guy robs a bank and gets caught and sentenced to prison, we don't say
"the government is splitting up his family by sending him to prison". No,
he split up his own family by committing a crime for which he could be sent
to prison if caught.

Likewise, an illegal who goes into another country without authorization
knows he/she can be deported if caught and if they choose to put themselves
in that position, then it's *their* fault if their family is split up.

[FPP]

On 11/14/19 10:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The Horny Goat<lcr...@home.ca> wrote:

The fuck it isn't.

It isn't against the law to seek asylum.
How many fucking times do you have to be told this before it sinks in?

--
And now, another in a series of Mental Health Bulletins:
"... If Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom,
consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the
Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)." -Donald J. Trump 10-7-19

Next up: "Kneel before ZOD!"

[BTR1701]

I said 'illegal', not 'asylum-seeker', lackbrain.

[FPP]

Yes, fuckface... but THAT'S exactly who your buddy, President Bumblefuck
is separating now, isn't it? He isn't just separating "illegals", he's
separating LEGAL asylum seekers.
And you say nothing about that. Why?

It would seem that you, as a great legal scholar, would be outraged at
the lawlessness of President Bumblefuck.

Any "lawyer" would be.

--
"You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all
so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe
you." - Donald J. Trump
(To Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes in response to the question of why he
attacks the press so often.)

[trotsky]

It sounds like Thanny should be seeking the right asylum to be put into
about now.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 16:43:58 -0700, David Johnston
<davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> What's the Constitutional provision that prevents it?
>>
>> Habeus corpus, you idiot, a right the Founding Fathers assumed would be
>> continued; and the rights of criminal procedure generally in the Fifth
>> Amendment
>>
>
>Deportation and internment are not criminal penalties.

OK but again deportation is commonly applied to non-citizens convicted
of criminal offences upon completion of their criminal sentence.

I think you're splitting hairs.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:51:09 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>I wasn't addressing that at all. Those are exceptional cases. In a
>handful of instances, specific immigrants were shown to have falsified
>their immigration applications or left out pertinent details, like
>prison guard in a German extermination camp during WWII. Johnston has
>claimed the president can simply order lawful immigrants, or even lawful
>travelers from other countries, deported or detained. That's a lie.

Heck in the case of Ernst Zundel (admittedly a Canadian case) he was
not only deported but stripped of his Canadian citizenship (obviously
not in that order!) do to having lied on his immigration application
form when he said he had never been a member of a proscribed
organization (when he had in fact been a member of the SS) He had to
sign the same declaration on his citizenship application and thus
perjured himself a second time.

Nevertheless he was still entitled to due process of law and a hearing
before his citizenship was stripped.

Nevertheless after his citizenship was stripped he still had to go
through a hearing before the judge signed the deportation order.

While IANAL ("I am not a lawyer") I believe US law would provide the
same process of justice and there is no way in hell the President or
any Congresscritter could order him deported without due process.

Much as in the case of Ernst Zundel who so richly deserved what he
got. (Ironically appearing at Zundel's trial was one of the critical
pieces of evidence in the David Irving - Deborah Lippstadt libel trial
that destroyed Irving's reputation) Even so "due process of law" is a
key underlying core value of your country and mine.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:39:59 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 11/14/2019 3:58 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>
>> And all of that plus fifty cents will buy me a cup of coffee.
>>
>I didn't know coffee was so cheap in there in Canuckistan. :)

Well if it's one of those Macdonald's itty bitty promotional cups. (At
the moment McD's is offering your choice of sizes for $1.00 up to and
including the supersized cup)

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:55:52 -0600, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Except it's not the government that's splitting up families merely by
>enforcing the law. The person responsible for splitting up an illegal's
>family is the illegal for violating the law and putting his/her family in
>that position in the first place.
>
>If a guy robs a bank and gets caught and sentenced to prison, we don't say
>"the government is splitting up his family by sending him to prison". No,
>he split up his own family by committing a crime for which he could be sent
>to prison if caught.
>
>Likewise, an illegal who goes into another country without authorization
>knows he/she can be deported if caught and if they choose to put themselves
>in that position, then it's *their* fault if their family is split up.

I have gained admittance to the United States without my passport
(which has been a requirement for Canadians since 9/11 but not before)
but admittedly it was due to the discretion of a US immigration
officer who had seen me cross legally into the US numerous times at
that crossing previously. (I was having a "Homer Simpson day" and he
could have turned me back and I would have had no recourse - naturally
I was extra attentive to speed limit signs that day!)

[Dimensional Traveler]

They do that here too but that still isn't fifty cents.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>. . .

>If a guy robs a bank and gets caught and sentenced to prison, we don't say
>"the government is splitting up his family by sending him to prison". No,
>he split up his own family by committing a crime for which he could be sent

>to prison if caught. . . .

You didn't see the 11/8 episode of Blue Bloods. The convict was blaming
Erin for not being able to raise his little girl for the last five years
while he was in prison. As I pointed out in my comments, sure, he may not
have committed the murder, but he sure as hell was drug trafficking. Erin
prosecuted him on the wrong charge.

[NoBody]

Looks like FPP is losing his marbles now.

>
>It would seem that you, as a great legal scholar, would be outraged at
>the lawlessness of President Bumblefuck.

There is no credible, direct evidence that suggests any lawlessness.

>
>Any "lawyer" would be.

And you clearly aren't one.