• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

July

  »
S M T W T F S
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The News Room

GOP's Rand Paul Slams Donald Trump's Migrant Deportation Plan: 'Terrible Image'

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
#1
11-20-2024, 04:29 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Jul 2017
2,722 posts
Copper's Avatar
Copper
Copper
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Copper
Find all posts by Copper
0 AP
Quote:
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has said it would be a "terrible image" to use the United States Army to round up illegal immigrants as part of plans for mass deportations.

The nominated next Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee told Newsmax that he supported bringing back President-elect Donald Trump's Remain in Mexico policy but had reservations about other aspects of immigration plans.

Paul said that immigrants who had committed crime should be the first targets for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), claiming around 15,000 migrants in the U.S. had committed murder.

"I think if we start there, we will be fine," he said Tuesday. "I'm not in favor of sending the army in uniforms into our cities to collect people. I think it's a terrible image."


Paul said the military are not trained for such purposes and that it should be the job of law enforcement or domestic agencies to enforce immigration.

"While I am all for Remain in Mexico, I will not support an emergency to put the army into our cities. I think that is a huge mistake," he told the outlet.

Trump appeared to back declaring a national emergency in order to enable his mass deportations plan on Monday, with his spokesperson Karoline Leavitt telling Newsweek that the next administration would "marshal every federal and state power necessary" to implement the program.

Paul said he was not for declaring a national emergency, adding that such moves "smack of marshal rule. They smack of no Congressional approval".

During the first Trump presidency, when he tried to overturn DACA, Paul was one of 11 Republicans to vote against the plan, saying the move was illegal and needed Congressional approval.

The Senator said Tuesday that he was all for removing illegal immigrants, particularly those who had committed crimes, and for hardline policies such as Remain in Mexico, which would force arrivals to wait on the south side of the border while U.S. officials process their cases.

"There is to my mind some question of the people, the housekeeper who has been here thirty years, I don't see the military putting her in handcuffs and marching her down the street to an encampment," Paul said.

"I think that person, there might be an in-between solution where, if they are already working productively, we allow them to have a work permit. I would expand the idea of work permits but they don't get rewarded with voting."


Paul's comments appeared more moderate than others from the Trump campaign and those he has nominated to oversee immigration since his election win, including Steven Miller as Deputy Chief of Staff and Tom Homan as border czar.

Homan, former acting ICE chief, has warned all illegal immigrants that he is coming for them and to self-deport ahead of January, while Miller was one of the chief architects of the last Trump administration's border policies.

While Trump focused his campaign messaging on criminal illegal immigrants, the large numbers set to be targeted – upwards of 11 million – likely comprise the undocumented population in the U.S.

Migrant advocacy groups have raised concerns that those who entered the country illegally or overstayed visas decades ago and have families and jobs in the U.S. could be forcibly removed, despite not committing any other crimes.
https://www.newsweek.com/mass-deport...-trump-1989042
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#2
11-20-2024, 06:07 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Mar 2018
1,238 posts
hDreamer1988
hDreamer1988
View Public Profile
Send a private message to hDreamer1988
Find all posts by hDreamer1988
0 AP
he is not wrong. Such optics can turn the tide in the Dem's favor.. It might be enough to flip the House during the mid-terms
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#3
11-20-2024, 06:39 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2015
4,872 posts
Got_Daca's Avatar
Got_Daca
Got_Daca
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Got_Daca
Find all posts by Got_Daca
0 AP
So everyone agrees that criminal undocs gotta go

Homan agrees, Rand Paul agrees, basically everyone with brain agrees.
__________________
MAGA DACA ACA FAM
Approved: 11/27/2023
U-Visa eligible (not applied yet)
"Dreamers can't take the center stage"
- Democratic Leadership
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#4
11-20-2024, 06:52 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Mar 2006
3,102 posts
VJB2's Avatar
VJB2
VJB2
View Public Profile
Send a private message to VJB2
Find all posts by VJB2
0 AP
I also agree that all criminals should be deported. All murderers, rapists, etc., should be on the first busses and planes.

Just leave us hardworking people alone! I just want to contribute to the only home I have known without being grouped or sat next to someone who shot or decapitated someone to death.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#5
11-20-2024, 08:03 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Nov 2012
15,081 posts
Pianoswithoutfaith's Avatar
Pianoswithoutfaith
Pianoswithoutfaith
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Pianoswithoutfaith
Find all posts by Pianoswithoutfaith
30 AP
lol you people realize magas and trump see us as criminals right?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Face View Post
I personally knew that if he wins he's not going to be touching DACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Face View Post
I hope Trump wins second term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestBefore1984 View Post
Tranny is not derogatory term dummy
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#6
11-20-2024, 10:28 PM
Senior Member
Joined in May 2016
4,637 posts
DogJuiceMan's Avatar
DogJuiceMan
DogJuiceMan
View Public Profile
Send a private message to DogJuiceMan
Find all posts by DogJuiceMan
0 AP
The system

This is what happens when you have an out of control immigration system that punishes people who want to live here, play by the rules and earn their ticket. Is it too much to ask to let people who have lived here for decades, 20-30 in some cases, to earn their ticket? You end up with violent criminals like those tren de aragua venezuelan gangsters because there is no real "system."

You get people like the abuelitas, DACAs, and legitimate asylum seekers alongside hardened gangsters, veterans of the guerrilla wars, cartel members, mafiosos, and your average street trash. Its absolutely not a working system. They all want to focus on strict adherence to the law, but they themselves probably break at least 5 laws on a daily basis.

Wait 20+ years for your turn. They all love to talk about how they had a family member who waited 15, 18, 20 years for this and that. Its not a point of pride you know! Having to run through an awful system designed to waste your time is not something you should be proud of.

All systems should have a process where if you fall out of the happy path, you should have some means to recover state and return to the happy path.

I don't know what that system should look like.
__________________
Concept of 彁
Slump of slumps. Clusterfuck of clusterfucks.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#7
11-21-2024, 03:16 AM
Senior Member
From Midwest
Joined in Aug 2008
678 posts
2dreamORnot2dream's Avatar
2dreamORnot2dream
2dreamORnot2dream
View Public Profile
Send a private message to 2dreamORnot2dream
Find all posts by 2dreamORnot2dream
0 AP
I never understood why there was no option for dreamers to simply remove the 10yr ban and leave. Some of us have spent most of our lives here. We may want/need to visit once in the while. People die, get married, ect… Hack, they could have implemented a system where people that want to visit after self deporting put money into escrow while they are in the states. If they don’t leave on time give the money to “dog the bounty hunter” for finding and ejecting the “overstayer”. Make people wear an ankle bracelet while they are visiting the states. There is no common sense in the system.
__________________
“…If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich blame yo’ self…” - Herman Cain
Last edited by 2dreamORnot2dream; 11-21-2024 at 03:20 AM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#8
11-21-2024, 06:39 AM
Senior Member
From Dallas, TX
Joined in Oct 2010
1,152 posts
cooltalker's Avatar
cooltalker
cooltalker
View Public Profile
Send a private message to cooltalker
Find all posts by cooltalker
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dreamORnot2dream View Post
I never understood why there was no option for dreamers to simply remove the 10yr ban and leave.
Exactly, I feel that the 10 year ban should be forgiven for dreamers so they might adjust via other existing means. This felt like common sense. I wonder if that's something that could have been done via executive action but who knows.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#9
11-21-2024, 09:47 AM
Senior Member
From Minnesota
Joined in Nov 2009
5,989 posts
Demise's Avatar
Demise
Demise
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Demise
Find all posts by Demise
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooltalker View Post
Exactly, I feel that the 10 year ban should be forgiven for dreamers so they might adjust via other existing means. This felt like common sense. I wonder if that's something that could have been done via executive action but who knows.
It's a good question if you can.

The constitution says "The President [...] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.".

It merely states "offenses" not crimes or anything else, so it should apply to civil violations against the US. I know that it does apply to contempt of court which is a weird thing from the perspective of law when you consider that a judge can just fine you or toss you into a cell for mouthing off with no due process.

That being said, the only large pardons of inadmissibilities was when President Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers (and likely to lesser extend Biden's weed pardon). Since fleeing the country to avoid a draft will in fact make you inadmissible, though since draft dodging is also a crime, so that was more a side effect than the intent. Similar happens on smaller scales with individual pardons at both state and federal levels where a pardon can remove criminal-related inadmissibilities as the whole underlying crime causing said inadmissibility just goes poof.

This however brings us to a huge problem with the whole construction of unlawful presence, basically it is something that just gets applied automatically and technically it doesn't make you deportable from US and it definitely doesn't make you a criminal. Nobody gets deported or jailed for it either. You get deported for lack of status and unlawful presence is a side effect of lack of status.
There's also a similar problem with EWIs since even if entering illegally is technically a misdemeanor that can be pardoned, AOS requires you to have been "inspected and admitted or paroled" rather than something like "had not entered without inspection", so it still wouldn't let you AOS.

So all in all, the only way about it would be for a president to issue such a pardon and test it in courts, which causes a few other problems:
While I do believe that unlawful presence could be pardoned, I don't believe that the pardon could be applied to future periods of unlawful presence. So best it does is zero out the counter. Tomorrow it'd start ticking again. Now you've got 180 days to get out of the country, however there's no way you'd see any court rulings on the matter before the time is up, so by making use of it by leaving you are essentially taking a leap of faith.
Now, it'd help those who left and have a 10 year or lifetime ban or DACAers or TPS holders who had such a period of unlawful presence before getting DACA/TPS who want to do consular processing though it'd probably make more sense to see how the courts would rule first before jumping in head first.

Of course this is highly hypothetical since that'd require Biden to issue one like that on the way out.
__________________
LPR these days
Last edited by Demise; 06-24-2025 at 07:53 AM..
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
#10
11-21-2024, 12:11 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Dec 2017
317 posts
Imthexman's Avatar
Imthexman
Imthexman
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Imthexman
Find all posts by Imthexman
0 AP
This is exactly what I have been thinking for the last 2 weeks. In fact, the letter signed by about 100 pro-immigration groups last summer to Biden (see links below) was asking for PARDONS, but ultimately Biden offered his PIP plan which was turned down almost overnight.

Now, if he were to issue pardons instead, the courts would not even have standing to bring them up in court, the president has the ability to issue pardons to whomever tf he wants PERIOD.
Wouldn’t it be nice if for example he issues pardons to people who have an order of deportation, EWOI etc. but who are not criminals and have been here for a long time?
I think he might do something before he leaves, specially because his PIP plan got shut down, he has not appeal it in court obviously because the next guys will shut it down, the smartest thing would be to issue pardons, those are permanent and hard if not impossible to challenge them in court imo.



https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/02/...pardon-process


Quote:
Originally Posted by Demise View Post
It's a good question if you can.

The constitution says "The President [...] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.".

It merely states "offenses" not crimes or anything else, so it should apply to civil violations against the US. I know that it does apply to contempt of court which is a weird thing from the perspective of law when you consider that a judge can just fine you or toss you into a cell for mouthing off with no due process.

That being said, the only large pardons of inadmissibilities was when President Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers (and likely to lesser extend Biden's weed pardon). Since fleeing the country to avoid a draft will in fact make you inadmissible, though since draft dodging is also a crime, so that was more a side effect than the intent. Similar happens on smaller scales with individual pardons at both state and federal levels where a pardon can remove criminal-related inadmissibilities as the whole underlying crime causing said inadmissibility just goes poof.

This however brings us to a huge problem with the whole construction of unlawful presence, basically it is something that just gets applied automatically and technically it doesn't make you deportable from US and it definitely doesn't make you a criminal. Nobody gets deported or jailed for it either. You get deported for lack of status and lawful presence is a side effect of lack of status.
There's also a similar problem with EWIs since even if entering illegally is technically a misdemeanor that can be pardoned, AOS requires you to have been "inspected and admitted or paroled" rather than something like "had not entered without inspection", so it still wouldn't let you AOS.

So all in all, the only way about it would be for a president to issue such a pardon and test it in courts, which causes a few other problems:
While I do believe that unlawful presence could be pardoned, I don't believe that the pardon could be applied to future periods of unlawful presence. So best it does is zero out the counter. Tomorrow it'd start ticking again. Now you've got 180 days to get out of the country, however there's no way you'd see any court rulings on the matter before the time is up, so by making use of it by leaving you are essentially taking a leap of faith.
Now, it'd help those who left and have a 10 year or lifetime ban or DACAers or TPS holders who had such a period of unlawful presence before getting DACA/TPS who want to do consular processing though it'd probably make more sense to see how the courts would rule first before jumping in head first.

Of course this is highly hypothetical since that'd require Biden to issue one like that on the way out.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.