What do you think of the Trump administration ignoring the Fifth Amendment when it comes to immigrants?
By @LordShadowfire
Robot
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
pdockal · 56-60, M
During his presidency, Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), a sweeping law that focused on increasing border enforcement and imposing harsher penalties for immigration violations. The act, which remains influential, made it easier to detain and deport immigrants, including legal residents, for a wide range of crimes
I do believe the current administration is following this act which prior administrating also followed
I do believe the current administration is following this act which prior administrating also followed
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@pdockal but that act did not eliminate the individuals' constitutional rights.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@pdockal you are obviously so smart, why don't you become a judge, or run for president. All you know how to do is attack others. he democrats have been trying to change the immigration laws. That almost happened last year with a bipartisan bill. Why did it fail after having huge bipartisan support?
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4458612-history-confirms-republicans-rejected-a-once-in-a-lifetime-immigration-opportunity/
as to controversy about the 1996 laws:
AI Overview
Yes, there was and continues to be significant controversy over the immigration laws signed by President Bill Clinton, particularly the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. Critics contend these laws were overly punitive and led to the expansion of mass detention and deportation, with devastating consequences for immigrant families and due process.
Key controversial provisions of the 1996 laws
Expansion of deportable offenses: The laws dramatically expanded the types of crimes that could lead to deportation, applying retroactively to permanent residents, including green-card holders. The definition of "aggravated felony" was broadened to include a wide range of low-level offenses, making immigrants with such convictions subject to mandatory deportation.
Mandatory detention: The acts established mandatory and prolonged detention for immigrants accused of certain crimes, removing discretion from immigration judges and officials. This led to an explosion in the number of people held in detention, often in privately run, for-profit facilities.
Limited due process: For many cases, the laws eliminated key defenses against deportation and created fast-track procedures that allowed the government to deport people without a hearing before an immigration judge. For example, undocumented immigrants apprehended within 100 miles of the border could be subject to expedited removal.
Bars to legal re-entry: IIRIRA created the "3- and 10-year bars" for those who had been unlawfully present in the U.S.. Immigrants who had lived in the country without authorization for more than 180 days were barred from returning for several years, a rule that often separated families. This made it far more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to gain legal status, even if they married a U.S. citizen.
Increased border militarization: The legislation, along with the 1994 Crime Bill, funded a massive expansion of immigration enforcement, including thousands of new Border Patrol agents, new barriers, and surveillance technology. Critics point out this militarized approach did not stop irregular migration but made border crossings more deadly and forced immigrants into more dangerous routes.
Driving forces and legacy
The 1996 laws were a product of the "tough on crime" and anti-immigrant sentiment that prevailed at the time.
Political motivation: With immigration becoming a hot-button issue in an election year, President Clinton signed the laws to project a "tough" stance on the issue.
Long-term impact: Today, immigration advocates and even some former officials who supported the bills have acknowledged the devastating consequences. Critics from organizations like the ACLU and the Immigrant Defense Project argue that the laws laid the foundation for the current harsh immigration enforcement system and have called for them to be repealed or reformed.
Sentimentcan change, that is why governments change rules, but after consideration of the effects.
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4458612-history-confirms-republicans-rejected-a-once-in-a-lifetime-immigration-opportunity/
as to controversy about the 1996 laws:
AI Overview
Yes, there was and continues to be significant controversy over the immigration laws signed by President Bill Clinton, particularly the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. Critics contend these laws were overly punitive and led to the expansion of mass detention and deportation, with devastating consequences for immigrant families and due process.
Key controversial provisions of the 1996 laws
Expansion of deportable offenses: The laws dramatically expanded the types of crimes that could lead to deportation, applying retroactively to permanent residents, including green-card holders. The definition of "aggravated felony" was broadened to include a wide range of low-level offenses, making immigrants with such convictions subject to mandatory deportation.
Mandatory detention: The acts established mandatory and prolonged detention for immigrants accused of certain crimes, removing discretion from immigration judges and officials. This led to an explosion in the number of people held in detention, often in privately run, for-profit facilities.
Limited due process: For many cases, the laws eliminated key defenses against deportation and created fast-track procedures that allowed the government to deport people without a hearing before an immigration judge. For example, undocumented immigrants apprehended within 100 miles of the border could be subject to expedited removal.
Bars to legal re-entry: IIRIRA created the "3- and 10-year bars" for those who had been unlawfully present in the U.S.. Immigrants who had lived in the country without authorization for more than 180 days were barred from returning for several years, a rule that often separated families. This made it far more difficult for unauthorized immigrants to gain legal status, even if they married a U.S. citizen.
Increased border militarization: The legislation, along with the 1994 Crime Bill, funded a massive expansion of immigration enforcement, including thousands of new Border Patrol agents, new barriers, and surveillance technology. Critics point out this militarized approach did not stop irregular migration but made border crossings more deadly and forced immigrants into more dangerous routes.
Driving forces and legacy
The 1996 laws were a product of the "tough on crime" and anti-immigrant sentiment that prevailed at the time.
Political motivation: With immigration becoming a hot-button issue in an election year, President Clinton signed the laws to project a "tough" stance on the issue.
Long-term impact: Today, immigration advocates and even some former officials who supported the bills have acknowledged the devastating consequences. Critics from organizations like the ACLU and the Immigrant Defense Project argue that the laws laid the foundation for the current harsh immigration enforcement system and have called for them to be repealed or reformed.
Sentimentcan change, that is why governments change rules, but after consideration of the effects.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@pdockal I am not clueless. You are stuck in blind loyalty. Trump could nuke Portland and you would be making excuses.
The administration is breaking the law including the constitution, violating court orders and the list goes on.
And quit trying to blame Democrats for Trump's fascism. He is objectively not following any laws.
Again, the previous administration was not a lawless fascist regime that violated all laws including the constitution and invading American cities.
I am tired of lying Trump cultists pretending that a fascist, lawless band of thugs are following the law and just doing what everyone else did.
What laws are they violating?
The constitution for starters.
Posse Comitatus second.
illegal detention and cross border transport. Which is kidnapping and human trafficking.
arresting people without warrants and in violation of court orders.
Arresting and deporting legal immigrants.
arresting and detaining legal citizens without warrants.
shooting citizens for no reason.
Illegally shipping people to foreign concentration camps.
Opening domestic concentration camps.
Deporting people to random countries, some of them active warzones.
Also immigration is a civil matter, not criminal. And the punishment has to match the crime.
By your logic any crime justifies any punishment. If any punishment can be decided on the spot for a civil case by that logic it is okay to lock you up in ADX Florence for 50 years for parking ticket.
The law is not my opinion. The law is not whatever your feelings are about Trump either.
And you insist on lying about Clinton. No laws are being followed.
The administration is breaking the law including the constitution, violating court orders and the list goes on.
And quit trying to blame Democrats for Trump's fascism. He is objectively not following any laws.
Again, the previous administration was not a lawless fascist regime that violated all laws including the constitution and invading American cities.
I am tired of lying Trump cultists pretending that a fascist, lawless band of thugs are following the law and just doing what everyone else did.
What laws are they violating?
The constitution for starters.
Posse Comitatus second.
illegal detention and cross border transport. Which is kidnapping and human trafficking.
arresting people without warrants and in violation of court orders.
Arresting and deporting legal immigrants.
arresting and detaining legal citizens without warrants.
shooting citizens for no reason.
Illegally shipping people to foreign concentration camps.
Opening domestic concentration camps.
Deporting people to random countries, some of them active warzones.
Also immigration is a civil matter, not criminal. And the punishment has to match the crime.
By your logic any crime justifies any punishment. If any punishment can be decided on the spot for a civil case by that logic it is okay to lock you up in ADX Florence for 50 years for parking ticket.
The law is not my opinion. The law is not whatever your feelings are about Trump either.
And you insist on lying about Clinton. No laws are being followed.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@samueltyler2 He will blindly follow anything MAGA does. If Trump nuked DC he would be making excuses justifying it and claiming it was a perfectly legal response to protest.