Marco Rubio supports Trump's plan to round up migrants and send them to detention camps

[squistion 1,955]

A plan he had opposed in 2016. MTP video clip at link. 

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1792198075546566703

"We're gonna have to do something dramatic" -- Marco Rubio on Meet the Press says he supports Trump's plan to round up migrants and send them to detention camps. Kristen Welker then plays tape of Rubio saying in 2016 that he doesn't support Trump's plan to round up migrants.

 

[edjr 6,578]

#metoo

[Fireballer 2,639]

Crazy that he’s changed his mind, because our migrant situation is exactly the same as it was then.  What a door mat.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,846]

This is great news!  I'm not seeing a problem.

We should actually deport them right away.  Why even put them in camps?

[squistion 1,955]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

This is great news!  I'm not seeing a problem.

We should actually deport them right away.  Why even put them in camps?

That pesky thing in the Constitution called Due Process that applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,846]

8 minutes ago, squistion said:

That pesky thing in the Constitution called Due Process that applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. 

Sorry, pal, that's not how it works for most of them.  You lose again with your very misinformed view of the constitution.  I suggest you start reading up on Constitutional Law instead of getting it at the Liberal Propaganda Glory Hole.

Right to due process

What the law says: The Fifth Amendment states that “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The issue of due process is at the heart of many immigration cases, including Reno v. Flores, the 1993 Supreme Court case that has returned to the spotlight with the surge in family separations. The case led to an agreement requiring the government to release children to their parents, a relative or a licensed program within 20 days.

In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

How it works in practice: Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.”

In some cases, immigrants are not granted a hearing at all. When asked about the president’s tweet, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to the process of “expedited removal,” which was created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“Just because you don’t see a judge doesn’t mean you aren’t receiving due process,” Sanders said.

Under the expedited removal process, immigrants who have been in the country illegally for less than two years and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border can be deported almost immediately without going through a court hearing.

The exception is asylum seekers, who must be granted a hearing.

Those who are not processed through expedited removal have the right to due process in an immigration court, where the main goal is to decide whether a person has a legal claim to remain in the U.S.

“In immigration court, you have very few rights,” said John Gihon, an immigration attorney who spent six years as a prosecutor for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement before moving into private practice.

Gihon says the bar for what constitutes evidence is lax in immigration court. Documents do not have to be authenticated, and hearsay, a statement made by someone outside of the court, as opposed to on the witness stand, counts as admissible evidence. Hearsay is not allowed in most U.S. courts.

“In the majority of cases, it’s a lock solid 100 percent guaranteed conviction because there is little defense, and most would confess they crossed the border illegally,” Gihon said.

[squistion 1,955]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Immigrants have the right to due process. But in reality, says, Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, “courts of law run the gamut.”

From your link, which confirms what I said.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,846]

13 minutes ago, squistion said:

From your link, which confirms what I said.

Cherry pick much?  

did you read what actually happens in practice, specifically with the expedited removal process?  Or do you just like your glory-hole slurp you get from your masters?

You lost, because in reality your "due process' doesn't work for a majority of them anyways. 

[easilyscan 863]

Politicians adjusting their stance on an issue depending on which way the wind is blowing. This is unprecedented

 

The late John McCain on ethanol: In 1999, he told an audience in Iowa, where corn-based ethanol is popular: "I'm here to tell you the things you don't want to hear as well as the things you want to hear. One of those things is ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumers. … Those ethanol subsidies should be phased out.

In 2007, he told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press": "It makes a lot of sense. We are dependent on foreign oil too much. 

 

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

What a great idea, but it doesn’t seem to go all the way in solving the problem. But I’m sure the righties will come up with a solution for that last step. A “final solution”, if you will…

[Cdub100 3,842]

I wish this was true.

Just more fear mongering from the left. KIDS IN CAGES!!!!

[squistion 1,955]

33 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Cherry pick much?  

did you read what actually happens in practice, specifically with the expedited removal process?  Or do you just like your glory-hole slurp you get from your masters?

You lost, because in reality your "due process' doesn't work for a majority of them anyways. 

You said:

Quote

We should actually deport them right away.  Why even put them in camps?

You can't just round up 11 million folks and deport them "right away" without some of adjudication process to determine if they are indeed here illegally. If not, then you would have thousands who would be wrongfully taken in the sweeps and deported who are actual citizens. That is why some sort of minimal Due Process would have to apply in what Trump is suggesting and Rubio supports. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,846]

17 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

What a great idea, but it doesn’t seem to go all the way in solving the problem. But I’m sure the righties will come up with a solution for that last step. A “final solution”, if you will…

Which, of course, is absurd considering your leftist ideology killed more than 100+ million people in the 20th century between Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro and a host of others so I wouldn't be bringing up talk about "Final Solutions" because it's not a winner for you.  If anyone has the market on "Final Solutions", its you lefties.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,846]

10 minutes ago, squistion said:

You said:

You can't just round up 11 million folks and deport them "right away" without some of adjudication process to determine if they are indeed here illegally. If not, then you would have thousands who would be wrongfully taken in the sweeps and deported who are actual citizens. That is why some sort of minimal Due Process would have to apply in what Trump is suggesting and Rubio supports. 

Actually, yes you can if you read what I posted. 

But you don't want to do that - you want to cherry pick and pretend in things that don't really happen are actually happening.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,241]

Better than hotels 

[squistion 1,955]

14 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Actually, yes you can if you read what I posted. 

But you don't want to do that - you want to cherry pick and pretend in things that don't really happen are actually happening.

No, you can't just grab 11 million folks and immediately ship them out without giving them sort of minimal Due Process

Even Trump isn't suggesting what you are suggesting being done.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,711]

If the Dividen Regime can fly them all over the country in the dead of the night, then Father Trump can surely load them in a C-5 and have them parachuted back into their country of origin.  

[jonnyutah 250]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

If the Dividen Regime can fly them all over the country in the dead of the night, then Father Trump can surely load them in a C-5 and have them parachuted back into their country of origin.  

Parachutes are expensive. 

[weepaws 3,157]

The view of a politician comes from the public votes.  But yet people keep voting for the same ones to be in office, and expect a different outcome, insanity anyone.   Amen. 

Thanks. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

5 hours ago, squistion said:

A plan he had opposed in 2016. MTP video clip at link. 

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1792198075546566703

"We're gonna have to do something dramatic" -- Marco Rubio on Meet the Press says he supports Trump's plan to round up migrants and send them to detention camps. Kristen Welker then plays tape of Rubio saying in 2016 that he doesn't support Trump's plan to round up migrants.

 

So now you're against Obama's cages?  Where were you from '08 to '16?  Oh, that's right, you supported them.  Why the 180?  Wait, let me guess, it's (D)ifferent, right?

[RLLD 4,143]

17 hours ago, squistion said:

That pesky thing in the Constitution called Due Process that applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. 

Wait, are you suggesting we enforce the laws after they violate our border to gain entry?   Well, at least you appear to have some understanding of the system.

I share your disdain for putting them in camps....send them back now, so we do not have to spend any extra on them.....

[squistion 1,955]

On 5/19/2024 at 11:01 AM, squistion said:

A plan he had opposed in 2016. MTP video clip at link. 

https://x.com/atrupar/status/1792198075546566703

"We're gonna have to do something dramatic" -- Marco Rubio on Meet the Press says he supports Trump's plan to round up migrants and send them to detention camps. Kristen Welker then plays tape of Rubio saying in 2016 that he doesn't support Trump's plan to round up migrants.

 

Poor Marco doesn't grasp that many people who are legal citizens but have his skin color and speak with a Spanish accent will be rounded up in the detention sweeps too if they are not carrying proof of citizenship with them. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

Looking forward to submitting my application to work in one. There should be one fairly close to home. 

[Fireballer 2,639]

10 hours ago, squistion said:

Poor Marco doesn't grasp that many people who are legal citizens but have his skin color and speak with a Spanish accent will be rounded up in the detention sweeps too if they are not carrying proof of citizenship with them. 

Thankfully all conditions are the same as 2016 so really no need to change his stance.  What.a dumass he is

[HellToupee 1,594]

I’m so excited to see them round up the bad hombres and kick their arses out of the country. Put them on a slow boat to China for all I care. Out

[RLLD 4,143]

I think we treat these people as we would any invading force.  JMHO

[HellToupee 1,594]

Totally ok with Jesse Kelly’s answer. Let’s get the show on the road!

 

[squistion 1,955]

27 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think we treat these people as we would any invading force.  JMHO

https://www.cato.org/commentary/illegal-immigration-isnt-invasion

Illegal Immigration Isn’t an “Invasion”

The Constitution requires the federal government to protect against an “invasion”—what every court that has reviewed the question has interpreted to mean an “armed hostility from another political entity.” James Madison labeled invasion a “foreign hostility” or attack by one state on another, and the Constitutional Convention debates connected the power to repel invasions with the power to raise armies. All the widely used English dictionaries from the Founding confirm this understanding, and of course, the other uses of invasion in the Constitution have the same meaning.

Using the word invasion as a substitute for illegal migration is both offensive to anyone who’s lived through a real one and insulting to the intelligence of everyone else. If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists, it’s time to crack open a history book, not opine on immigration policy. Perhaps because they know the comparison to an invasion is so weak, nativists like former President Donald Trump also promulgate the risible conspiracy theory that foreign governments are “sending” the immigrants here.

Migration across the border may involve violations of U.S. laws, but the comparison to an invasion ends there. Border crossers aren’t coming to overthrow the government or take over the Capitol (unlike a few nativists this year). Indeed, it’s the U.S. government that is attempting to assail the migrants, not the other way around. People crossing the border actively try to avoid conflict with U.S. authorities either by 1) evading detection and peacefully moving to their destinations, or 2) intentionally seeking out U.S. agents to submit to the government’s legal procedures. Reporting from the frontlines of this supposed conquest, The Wall Street Journal described how some invaders were inquiring for directions to the closest “immigration office.”

An “invasion” isn’t just an overstatement. It’s a completely unserious attempt to demand extraordinary, military-style measures to stop completely mundane actions like walking around a closed port of entry to file asylum paperwork or violating international labor market regulations in order to fill one of the 10 million job openings in this country. 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, squistion said:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/illegal-immigration-isnt-invasion

Illegal Immigration Isn’t an “Invasion”

The Constitution requires the federal government to protect against an “invasion”—what every court that has reviewed the question has interpreted to mean an “armed hostility from another political entity.” James Madison labeled invasion a “foreign hostility” or attack by one state on another, and the Constitutional Convention debates connected the power to repel invasions with the power to raise armies. All the widely used English dictionaries from the Founding confirm this understanding, and of course, the other uses of invasion in the Constitution have the same meaning.

Using the word invasion as a substitute for illegal migration is both offensive to anyone who’s lived through a real one and insulting to the intelligence of everyone else. If you can’t tell the difference between 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris at the head of an army in 1940, and 100,000 Germans arriving in Paris today as tourists, it’s time to crack open a history book, not opine on immigration policy. Perhaps because they know the comparison to an invasion is so weak, nativists like former President Donald Trump also promulgate the risible conspiracy theory that foreign governments are “sending” the immigrants here.

Migration across the border may involve violations of U.S. laws, but the comparison to an invasion ends there. Border crossers aren’t coming to overthrow the government or take over the Capitol (unlike a few nativists this year). Indeed, it’s the U.S. government that is attempting to assail the migrants, not the other way around. People crossing the border actively try to avoid conflict with U.S. authorities either by 1) evading detection and peacefully moving to their destinations, or 2) intentionally seeking out U.S. agents to submit to the government’s legal procedures. Reporting from the frontlines of this supposed conquest, The Wall Street Journal described how some invaders were inquiring for directions to the closest “immigration office.”

An “invasion” isn’t just an overstatement. It’s a completely unserious attempt to demand extraordinary, military-style measures to stop completely mundane actions like walking around a closed port of entry to file asylum paperwork or violating international labor market regulations in order to fill one of the 10 million job openings in this country. 

It is an invasion and I think we treat it as such.  JMHO

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

11 hours ago, squistion said:

Poor Marco doesn't grasp that many people who are legal citizens but have his skin color and speak with a Spanish accent will be rounded up in the detention sweeps too if they are not carrying proof of citizenship with them. 

You're not very smart, are you?

[HellToupee 1,594]

No surprise that the Cato institute supports the globalist agenda

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

28 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Totally ok with Jesse Kelly’s answer. Let’s get the show on the road!

 

For the people who have been here that long and no record, fine... those aren't the people I have a problem with.  Anyone here the last 2 to 5 years, they go.  Gone.  Anyone, regardless of time, who has a criminal record has to go.  Anyone 5 years and under, who've had kids here... they AND their kids go.

[squistion 1,955]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

You're not very smart, are you?

Smart enough to know that is what will happen if Trump has US troops and The National Guard rounding up millions of people to put in detention camps and deported. A lot of innocent people who are here legally will get caught up in the sweep. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

Smart enough to know that is what will happen if Trump has US troops and The National Guard rounding up millions of people to put in detention camps and deported. A lot of innocent people who are here legally will get caught up in the sweep. 

Everything you said after "Smart enough to know", proves you're not smart at all.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

11 hours ago, squistion said:

Poor Marco doesn't grasp that many people who are legal citizens but have his skin color and speak with a Spanish accent will be rounded up in the detention sweeps too if they are not carrying proof of citizenship with them. 

Well, just like there will be some additional crime victims due to mass and illegal immigration, statically speaking it will be very few. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

Smart enough to know that is what will happen if Trump has US troops and The National Guard rounding up millions of people to put in detention camps and deported. A lot of innocent people who are here legally will get caught up in the sweep. 

Will they be raped and murdered? Those outcomes seem to be ok with you concerning illegals. 

[purdygood 334]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Will they be raped and murdered? Those outcomes seem to be ok with you concerning illegals. 

I live in a border state, why haven't I (or anyone I know) been raped or murdered yet? I demand to be raped and murdered! I hear about it on TV from Trump all the time!

[squistion 1,955]

15 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Everything you said after "Smart enough to know", proves you're not smart at all.

You keep insulting my intelligence and it is getting rather tiresome. If you can't be more respectful I will put you on ignore.

[RLLD 4,143]

17 minutes ago, purdygood said:

I live in a border state, why haven't I (or anyone I know) been raped or murdered yet? I demand to be raped and murdered! I hear about it on TV from Trump all the time!

So, since it hasn't happened to you, it isn't happening?

[purdygood 334]

Just now, RLLD said:

So, since it hasn't happened to you, it isn't happening?

I think it "may" be happening very rarely.  Like a LOT of things may be happening very rarely.   Turning a few incidents into a talking point is just BS Politics, but I get it.  Trump "may" have raped a bunch of underage girls hanging out with Epstein, but only he knows if it happened or not. I know for a fact I (or anyone I know) have not been raped or murdered or hurt by a immigrant yet.  But (knocks on wood) maybe that will change someday?  Who knows?