Gig em G said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

KillerAg21 said:

---

You should absolutely care how it's done. One for being a human being with empathy and and hopefully some sense of compassion, and the other because the government has always misused this law in particular

---

I have no empathy for foreign invaders.

The government has been overreaching on every one of our rights for decades, but now that we are actually getting deportations you throw a hissy fit? I don't care. I want them gone.

---

This take, along with several other like it, have big "govern me harder, daddy" vibes to it.

This isn't difficult. If you want to remove an illegal alien from a residence, go get a warrant. The amount of so-called conservatives here that are willing to handwave away the parts of the constitution standing in their way is troubling.

---

It really is concerning. I don't understand how you can be a conservative in the true sense of the word and hand over more power to the government…that we will never get back.

---

They already have it. You can either use it to your own advantage while in power or be destroyed by those who will.

The only other option is 1776 and I don't see that happening.

I agree with the libs. I'd bring the gang members back and build them shipping container ghetto's in every zip code that went in favor of Kamala by more than 70%.

rgvag11 said:

---

Lawyers with the Trump administration have determined that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can enter homes without a warrant under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, according to reports. https://t.co/as5VmiDZ7k

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) March 21, 2025

senior Justice Department lawyers are interpreting the act as a free pass for immigration officials to enter homes without warrants in order to search for suspected "alien enemies."
https://people.com/trump-alien-enemies-act-ice-raids-without-warrant-11700762

I think if you care about freedom and the power that governments have to deprive people of their freedoms throughout history, then this should be a bridge too far. Judicial oversight is an important backstop.

---

Why don't you think about what you posted in the context of the 2nd Amendment, and get back to us?

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Lawyers with the Trump administration have determined that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can enter homes without a warrant under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, according to reports. https://t.co/as5VmiDZ7k

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) March 21, 2025

senior Justice Department lawyers are interpreting the act as a free pass for immigration officials to enter homes without warrants in order to search for suspected "alien enemies."
https://people.com/trump-alien-enemies-act-ice-raids-without-warrant-11700762

I think if you care about freedom and the power that governments have to deprive people of their freedoms throughout history, then this should be a bridge too far. Judicial oversight is an important backstop.

---

Why don't you think about what you posted in the context of the 2nd Amendment, and get back to us?

---

Already was -- judicial oversight is an important backstop for that right too.

Why do you want to take it away?

cevans_40 said:

---

Imagine getting this worked up over our government sending illegals back to where they belong.

---

Imagine supporting the 4th Amendment, and believing government employees should be subject to judicial oversight... before they can just walk around my private property as they please?

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

gbaby23 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

It actually says "the People" and not just people, referring to "We the People of the United States" of which is an explicit declaration that these rights and declarations are for a specific people described. Unless you are naturalized via Article 1, you are not included in "the People" or their "Posterity"

You should "waste" more your time upping your reading comprehension skills. I said the rights of citizens under the Constitution are being defiled, so why should we protect the rights of foreigners when the citizenry is not even being protected? Our rights are trampled on to bring them into this country, I do not care if the rights they perceive to have are rejected to remove them.

---

Your logic falls apart once you realize that the word "citizen" is mentioned 10 times in the Articles in the Constitution, and 12 times in the Bill of Rights, for a total of 22 times. If the framers had wanted certain rights held only by citizens in the Bill of Rights, they would have done so, and actually did on several occasions.

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Shouldn't the onus be on you to tell us why we should have less freedom by adding this GIANT exception that the government could drive a Mack truck through?

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Because when you're inside your house, you're not in plain view.

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

The criteria for entering a domain is lower for a suspected illegal vs a suspected murderer? Last I checked you have to have a warrant to enter a suspected murder's home. You may suspect a person is an illegal but should they not be subjected to the 4th amendment as if they are legal in country… due process. Just as a suspected murderer is subject to due process.

Get a warrant from an immigration judge. Then you can enter the domain where the suspect is located.

gbaby23 said:

---

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

---

That's a very novel reading of the constitution. It's a shame no court has read it that way.

gbaby23 said:

---

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

---

So to your way of thinking, an illegal alien arrested for something is not entitled to being mirandized, due process, legal representation and because they have zero rights can be beaten or even killed by law enforcement?

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

---

That's a very novel reading of the constitution. It's a shame no court has read it that way.

---

Novel to those unaware of John Jay, Roger Taney, John Adams, Millard Fillmore, etc.

It is a shame that the courts have ruled against the Constitutional throughout our history, which is why we are in this situation.

pagerman @ work said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

---

So to your way of thinking, an illegal alien arrested for something is not entitled to being mirandized, due process, legal representation and because they have zero rights can be beaten or even killed by law enforcement?

---

Yes, if an illegal alien is found in any instance they should be immediately removed without the need of being mirandized, given due process, or given legal representation.

If they resist, they are to be treated as a foreign combatant. Whatever that may entail. Anyone assisting this aliens should be seen as treasonous.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Picard said:

---

Illegals don't have any rights

---

Do people really believe this?

---

It's looking like that comment is about to break 200 stars.

ETA: Gives some insight as to why people think it's okay to target judges. https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3534720/replies/69904070

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Shouldn't the onus be on you to tell us why we should have less freedom by adding this GIANT exception that the government could drive a Mack truck through?

---

No, you're the one claiming it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. The very fact that there are exceptions that have been outlined by the Supreme Court makes it obvious to those of us in the legal profession that this position might have support.

Let me know when you change your leftist position on the 2nd Amendment, and start arguing for its literal interpretation, which provides for ZERO exceptions.

Background: 18 years licensed, board certified and own a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for me.

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Shouldn't the onus be on you to tell us why we should have less freedom by adding this GIANT exception that the government could drive a Mack truck through?

---

No, you're the one claiming it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. The very fact that there are exceptions that have been outlined by the Supreme Court makes it obvious to those of us in the legal profession that this position might have support.

Let me know when you change your leftist position on the 2nd Amendment, and start arguing for its literal interpretation, which provides for ZERO exceptions.

Background: 18 years licensed, board certified and own a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for me.

---

LOL. You're the one that wants to limit people's rights. The onus is on you.

" ZERO exceptions" to the 2nd amd. LOL. Why can't some citizens with felonies own guns then?

If that is really your background, then I'll pray for your poor clients.

rgvag11 said:

---

Lawyers with the Trump administration have determined that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can enter homes without a warrant under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, according to reports. https://t.co/as5VmiDZ7k

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) March 21, 2025

senior Justice Department lawyers are interpreting the act as a free pass for immigration officials to enter homes without warrants in order to search for suspected "alien enemies."
https://people.com/trump-alien-enemies-act-ice-raids-without-warrant-11700762

I think if you care about freedom and the power that governments have to deprive people of their freedoms throughout history, then this should be a bridge too far. Judicial oversight is an important backstop.

---

At least they are not there because you used the wrong pronouns. That can get you two years in Britain.

txyaloo said:

---

You comparing to doctors and medical malpractice is off base. Doctors aren't carrying firearms while being put in stressful situations where they may choose to use deadly force. Doctors have significantly more training than LE. Doctors don't have the ability to deprive you of your freedom if they don't like your "attitude". Doctors also don't have qualified immunity. If they screw up and kill someone, they can be sued with a much higher chance of success.

I understand you're law enforcement. I'm not anti-law enforcement. LE serves a very valuable role in society and is needed. It can be a tough job with having to make split second decisions. That doesn't mean I have to agree with the way many departments are administered, the way LE is trained, or the way some LE are overly aggressive in their approach to dealing with the community.

Remove qualified immunity and I may be behind you more, but until then, LE has practically zero consequences for their actions. You're right, I did contradict myself. I admit there may be some exigencies where LE needs to enter. Let me rephrase, in general, most exigencies allowing LE to enter your home without a warrant should be made illegal.

---

The comparison was just to point out the numbers are misleading. Doctors have way more issues but people can't go to youtube to watch them. LE videos are upsetting because it's actually a rarity that they make egregious mistakes, and the good contacts don't get posted. Watch a couple of these videos and the algorithm sends all of them to you, feeding the confirmation bias.

I cringe every time I see LE messing up. There have been times I wanted to call up a department and rail on them for their lack of training. But I haven't seen these things in person and would not tolerate them. I have also known officers who didn't violate rights, but also didn't know how to talk to people. You avoid them

I have seen lots of people on youtube (and real life) declaring they "know their rights" when they actually don't. The same thing frequently happens on this board. The 4th Amendment doesn't protect everyone against all searches. It was specifically written to allow reasonable searches to be conducted. The courts have ruled pretty well on what this means and they will not allow this to devolve into random searches of peoples homes, looking for illegals.

QI doesn't protect against criminal acts (I have to state that because so many think it does). It is needed, but the courts have messed it up and it needs some reform to protect the public. But that's is another discussion, not applicable on this thread.

This law is specifically for rounding up a specific group of people who have illegally entered this country as an foreign invasive organization. It does not apply to anyone else, nor does it give a right to violate 4th Amendment rights.

No one has posted here any reliable source that has said ICE is gonna start randomly searching houses for these invaders. 99% of the posts on this thread are straight up conjecture.

gbaby23 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

---

So to your way of thinking, an illegal alien arrested for something is not entitled to being mirandized, due process, legal representation and because they have zero rights can be beaten or even killed by law enforcement?

---

Yes, if an illegal alien is found in any instance they should be immediately removed without the need of being mirandized, given due process, or given legal representation.

If they resist, they are to be treated as a foreign combatant. Whatever that may entail. Anyone assisting this aliens should be seen as treasonous.

---

First of all, illegal aliens aren't entitled to a Miranda warning, nor are the courts required to give them an attorney, as removal proceedings are civil, not criminal. If they want to have an attorney, they can.

The due process the government has to clear to deport someone is relatively minor. They have to prove who they picked up is who they say it is (kind of a big deal), and that the person is here illegally (we'll leave asylum claims and other stuff out for the moment). To not allow an illegal alien the opportunity to have an attorney argue on their behalf, make the government prove its case, and to view that as treasonous, is...something.

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Shouldn't the onus be on you to tell us why we should have less freedom by adding this GIANT exception that the government could drive a Mack truck through?

---

No, you're the one claiming it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. The very fact that there are exceptions that have been outlined by the Supreme Court makes it obvious to those of us in the legal profession that this position might have support.

Let me know when you change your leftist position on the 2nd Amendment, and start arguing for its literal interpretation, which provides for ZERO exceptions.

Background: 18 years licensed, board certified and own a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for me.

---

LOL. You're the one that wants to limit people's rights. The onus is on you.

" ZERO exceptions" to the 2nd amd. LOL. Why can't some citizens with felonies own guns then?

If that is really your background, then I'll pray for your poor clients.

---

Read what I wrote. I'm clearly mocking what is undeniably your contradictory positions on these issues.

You feel sorry for the clients of someone who's at the top of his profession while you're attempting to make legal arguments and making it obvious you have no idea what you're talking about? Ok, champ.

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Shouldn't the onus be on you to tell us why we should have less freedom by adding this GIANT exception that the government could drive a Mack truck through?

---

No, you're the one claiming it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. The very fact that there are exceptions that have been outlined by the Supreme Court makes it obvious to those of us in the legal profession that this position might have support.

Let me know when you change your leftist position on the 2nd Amendment, and start arguing for its literal interpretation, which provides for ZERO exceptions.

Background: 18 years licensed, board certified and own a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for me.

---

LOL. You're the one that wants to limit people's rights. The onus is on you.

" ZERO exceptions" to the 2nd amd. LOL. Why can't some citizens with felonies own guns then?

If that is really your background, then I'll pray for your poor clients.

---

lol, you just made the argument against yourself.

rgvag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Don't be an illegal and you won't have much to worry about.

---

Unless LEO thinks you are harboring one.

---

Now you give a **** about the danger of red flag laws?

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

---

So to your way of thinking, an illegal alien arrested for something is not entitled to being mirandized, due process, legal representation and because they have zero rights can be beaten or even killed by law enforcement?

---

Yes, if an illegal alien is found in any instance they should be immediately removed without the need of being mirandized, given due process, or given legal representation.

If they resist, they are to be treated as a foreign combatant. Whatever that may entail. Anyone assisting this aliens should be seen as treasonous.

---

First of all, illegal aliens aren't entitled to a Miranda warning, nor are the courts required to give them an attorney, as removal proceedings are civil, not criminal. If they want to have an attorney, they can.

The due process the government has to clear to deport someone is relatively minor. They have to prove who they picked up is who they say it is (kind of a big deal), and that the person is here illegally (we'll leave asylum claims and other stuff out for the moment). To not allow an illegal alien the opportunity to have an attorney argue on their behalf, make the government prove its case, and to view that as treasonous, is...something.

---

It is protecting American sovereignty over the supposed rights of illegal aliens and their domestic enablers who are in fact committing treason against the USA because they are importing a foreign element with the hope of ascertaining political power via their presence.

The executive branch has full authority to faithfully execute the laws which is what is currently happening with these deportations of illegal aliens and other residents who agitate against the United States of America. We are not going to waste our time having a warrant and trial for every illegal alien invader who wishes to loophole their way into permanent residence in a place they have no right to be.

Like I said, if you want to do your "relatively minor" due process of warrants, trials, and extended process the tens of millions of illegal aliens will never be deported.

InfantryAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Shouldn't the onus be on you to tell us why we should have less freedom by adding this GIANT exception that the government could drive a Mack truck through?

---

No, you're the one claiming it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. The very fact that there are exceptions that have been outlined by the Supreme Court makes it obvious to those of us in the legal profession that this position might have support.

Let me know when you change your leftist position on the 2nd Amendment, and start arguing for its literal interpretation, which provides for ZERO exceptions.

Background: 18 years licensed, board certified and own a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for me.

---

LOL. You're the one that wants to limit people's rights. The onus is on you.

" ZERO exceptions" to the 2nd amd. LOL. Why can't some citizens with felonies own guns then?

If that is really your background, then I'll pray for your poor clients.

---

lol, you just made the argument against yourself.

---

LOL Only for people dumb enough to think that if some exceptions apply to our rights, then all exceptions have legal merit.

rgvag11 said:

---

" ZERO exceptions" to the 2nd amd. LOL. Why can't some citizens with felonies own guns then?

---

Is it possible that after being convicted of a felony by a jury of their peers, they may lose some of the rights they previously had?

gbaby23 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Citizens of the newly created United States of America, which "the People" created for themselves and their "Posterity" reserving the right to naturalize those they see fit as citizens in a manner in which they see fit.

The "Citizen" usage in the Constitution is specifically for those who are naturalized AFTER the creation of the United States of America via the ratification of the Constitution.

The rights are specifically held by those who created the nation and those they deem fit to naturalize as full citizens, not legal or illegal residents

---

So to your way of thinking, an illegal alien arrested for something is not entitled to being mirandized, due process, legal representation and because they have zero rights can be beaten or even killed by law enforcement?

---

Yes, if an illegal alien is found in any instance they should be immediately removed without the need of being mirandized, given due process, or given legal representation.

If they resist, they are to be treated as a foreign combatant. Whatever that may entail. Anyone assisting this aliens should be seen as treasonous.

---

First of all, illegal aliens aren't entitled to a Miranda warning, nor are the courts required to give them an attorney, as removal proceedings are civil, not criminal. If they want to have an attorney, they can.

The due process the government has to clear to deport someone is relatively minor. They have to prove who they picked up is who they say it is (kind of a big deal), and that the person is here illegally (we'll leave asylum claims and other stuff out for the moment). To not allow an illegal alien the opportunity to have an attorney argue on their behalf, make the government prove its case, and to view that as treasonous, is...something.

---

It is protecting American sovereignty over the supposed rights of illegal aliens and their domestic enablers who are in fact committing treason against the USA because they are importing a foreign element with the hope of ascertaining political power via their presence.

The executive branch has full authority to faithfully execute the laws which is what is currently happening with these deportations of illegal aliens and other residents who agitate against the United States of America. We are not going to waste our time having a warrant and trial for every illegal alien invader who wishes to loophole their way into permanent residence in a place they have no right to be.

Like I said, if you want to do your "relatively minor" due process of warrants, trials, and extended process the tens of millions of illegal aliens will never be deported.

---

Trump has the power to appoint more immigration judges if he wants to. If this is such a big deal, which it is, he should get on that.

I now see why you're not a conservative. There's another term for it, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

DP.

rgvag11 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

Yes, I have.

Article IV, Section 4 - Protection Against Invasion

A majority of the Bill of Rights has been defiled for citizens, but we should give foreign invaders every Constitutional protection supposedly reserved for citizens based on a loose interpretation of 14A used by progressive activists?

Deport them all as quickly as possible by any means necessary.

---

As I've stated many times, the Constitution says "people," not "citizens" in the Bill of Rights. If you can show the group how illegal aliens have more rights than US citizens, I'm open to that (hint: you won't be able to, but I'm willing allow you to waste your time trying).

---

Warrants aren't required for every search under the Fourth Amendment. There are multiple exceptions. Considering theses people by their very presence are violating the law, the Plain View exception is one that is very analogous in its reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell us why counsel's position is incorrect here?

---

Shouldn't the onus be on you to tell us why we should have less freedom by adding this GIANT exception that the government could drive a Mack truck through?

---

No, you're the one claiming it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. The very fact that there are exceptions that have been outlined by the Supreme Court makes it obvious to those of us in the legal profession that this position might have support.

Let me know when you change your leftist position on the 2nd Amendment, and start arguing for its literal interpretation, which provides for ZERO exceptions.

Background: 18 years licensed, board certified and own a law firm with multiple lawyers and staff working for me.

---

LOL. You're the one that wants to limit people's rights. The onus is on you.

" ZERO exceptions" to the 2nd amd. LOL. Why can't some citizens with felonies own guns then?

If that is really your background, then I'll pray for your poor clients.

---

lol, you just made the argument against yourself.

---

LOL Only for people dumb enough to think that if some exceptions apply to our rights, then all exceptions have legal merit.

---

The same "dumb people" that pointed out the blatant contradiction in your "legal knowledge." It's very obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, and even more obvious you have zero ability to follow the conversation.

As I said above, let me know when you actually understand what's being discussed when it comes to the exceptions to the Bill of Rights laid out by our Supreme Court over the last 236 years. I'll ABSOLUTELY trade you this one for all the others.

LOL. The fact that you can not expound on the supposed contradiction and on the legal merits for allowing this exception that would dramatically limit people's rights exposes a puerile understanding of "legal knowledge". And I'm not a lawyer.

rgvag11 said:

---

LOL. The fact that you can not expound on the supposed contradiction and on the legal merits for allowing this exception that would dramatically limit people's rights exposes a puerile understanding of "legal knowledge". And I'm not a lawyer.

---

Sure, you're not a lawyer.

You also lack reading comprehension.

You also lack (as is common) an understanding of the 4th Amendment. Where does it say all searches and seizures need a warrant?

Who's arguing that all searches and seizures need a warrant?

Epic Battle of the Strawmen going on here!

Sure, he can do that while also deporting these foreign invaders under the Alien Enemies Act which is his legal right and duty to protect this nation.

I am not a conservative because it is a failed ideology. I am an American nationalist.