Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Hawaii

[Punatang]

"Can you please, as a lawyer in multiple states, enumerate the exact process that is due to an individual who has entered or overstayed in Hawaii illegally?  I apologize again for my ignorance and I am grateful, in advance, for your good council."

I am more than happy to do so:

I'll start with this from Constitution Annotated as well as point out specifically a SCOTUS Ruling known as Mathews v. Eldridge which ruled that "Under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, aliens apprehended within the interior of the United States are generally subject to formal removal proceedings, and have a number of procedural protections in those proceedings, including the right to seek counsel at no expense to the government, the right to present evidence at a hearing, the ability to apply for any available relief from removal, the right to administratively appeal an adverse decision, and (to the extent permitted by statute) the right to petition for judicial review of a final order of removal."

I hope this clears up your seeming ignorance of the law as well as the rights illegal aliens have.

As lawyer, are you representing that being "generally subject to" is the same thing as having a "right"?  

Can you also please help me with  "(to the extent permitted by statute) "?  

What statute applies?

Were you on Punaweb in 2009?

BTW Happy Mothers Day Jules!!!

[MyManao]

Can you please enumerate or provide links to exactly what process is due to individuals who break the law and enter Hawaii illegally?

Gee, P'tang, have you forgotten how to use a search engine? Not that I care one way or another about what rights as much as I do the sudden rush to willy nilly make people criminals.

Don't you find the current wave of stealing people off the streets because of a need to villainize people of color sickening? I do. 

And here's an example..

What if I find it easy to blame, to be disgusted with, those that enabled this madness? Seriously, what if I say the people that voted for this shite should be held to account.. and, come on, forget about deporting.. just drowned their sorry asses?

Yes, I know, harsh, right? But brah, if someone is willing to get up in the morning and do that kine shite to other human beings why should I care about their rights? Why would we want them in our gene pool? Seriously round up their entire families.. just think.. go for their entire neighborhoods!

So what do you think if I say batshit crazy stuff like that? I am nuts, right? But, P'tang, that kine nonsense is history. Not make believe, not some b-rated sci-fi fantasy.. history. It ain't so farfetched as to be unimaginable.. and in fact, that's exactly what uncle is doing. Batshit crazy round them up and who gives a hoot about their rights nonsense.. and ya know, you, with your false equivalency, seem to be cheering it on. Am I wrong?

[HiloJulie]

"As lawyer, are you represented that being "generally subject to" is the same thing as having a "right"? "

In this context of the law, yes, it is a right.

"Can you also please help me with  "(to the extent permitted by statute) "? "

By the terms outlined in any statute as it applies to any subject matter.

"What statute applies?"

Its The Constitution of the United States. And various Acts, in this case, the Immigration and Nationality Act. And various SCOTUS rulings.

Were you on Punaweb in 2009?

No. Where you? But having said that, imagine where we would be if Hawaii's "Favorite Son" mulled the suspension of Habeas Corpus in 2009. Or claimed he did not know if he had to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Continue the gaslighting PTangy! You seemingly are quite full of it!

[Durian Fiend]

So you don't know what process is due?

Yeah, I do, and so should you.

[ironyak]

Durian Fiend - Isn't this what we call "what aboutism"?
Yeah, Tang loves to employ logical fallacies - black and white thinking, strawmanning, false equivalencies, etc. Now we're onto The Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy - you know what else I've never seen PrimalEdge, or anyone, discuss here on Punaweb, constitutional habeus rights. Makes them all a bunch of hypocritical bastards to try and bring it up now, for some reason, right?

There is a large backlog of deportation cases in Hawaii currently, according to this article.  https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/12/data-d...tury-high/
The chart in the article provides some numbers on yearly Deportation Cases in Hawaii resulting in Removal - ranges from under to 50 to around 450. While there has been some criticism from the ACLU about the process involved with deportation over the years, only recently have the fundamentals of constitutional due process HJ highlighted been completely ignored.

Do people have rights, even when they're not being recognized by the powers that be? Maybe that question was answered 250 years ago? Things could get wild when people start exercising their full complement of constitutional or natural rights - probably best for everyone to side with upholding requirements to follow the legal processes before the alternatives become required.

[Punatang]

In this context of the law, yes, it is a right.

Who's gaslighting?

Being "generally subject to" something does not imply that there is a "right" to that thing. 

Being "generally subject to" means that one is exposed or liable to a certain rule, condition, or authority often with exceptions or qualifications.

Having a "right" means possessing a legally enforceable entitlement.

Gaslighting indeed.

---

Durian Fiend - Isn't this what we call "what aboutism"?
Yeah, Tang loves to employ logical fallacies - black and white thinking, strawmanning, false equivalencies, etc. Now we're onto The Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy - you know what else I've never seen PrimalEdge, or anyone, discuss here on Punaweb, constitutional habeus rights. Makes them all a bunch of hypocritical bastards to try and bring it up now, for some reason, right?

There is a large backlog of deportation cases in Hawaii currently, according to this article.  https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/12/data-d...tury-high/
The chart in the article provides some numbers on yearly Deportation Cases in Hawaii resulting in Removal - ranges from under to 50 to around 450. While there has been some criticism from the ACLU about the process involved with deportation over the years, only recently has the fundamentals of constitutional due process HJ highlighted been completely ignored.

Do people have rights, even when they're not being recognized by the powers that be? Maybe that question was answered 250 years ago? Things could get wild when people start exercising their full complement of constitutional or natural rights - probably best for everyone to side with upholding requirements to follow the legal processes before the alternatives become required.

I just realized that you were here in 2009.  SMH

[HiloJulie]

"Who's gaslighting?"

YOU. As by your entire response as quoted below. 

Being "generally subject to" something does not imply that there is a "right" to that thing.

Being "generally subject to" means that one is exposed or liable to a certain rule, condition, or authority often with exceptions or qualifications.

Having a "right" means possessing a legally enforceable entitlement.

Gaslighting indeed.

Yes, you are very well versed in gaslighting. I've presented the rule of law as outlined in the US Constitution, The Immigration and Naturalization Act and several SCOTUS rulings. Yet, you continue to "gaslight" the entire matter as no matter what FACT, RULE or LAW is put in front of you, you just gaslight your responses around it to fit your preconceived ideas.

And what's with the obsession with 2009?

[ironyak]

Punatang - Having a "right" means possessing a legally enforceable entitlement.
Wow, your conception of rights is as shallow as your reading comprehension. Did you really skip all Civics lessons?
(Don't forget to get a screenshot along with the quote too - probably helps to have all your gathered kompromat in order when licking boots).

Punatang - I just realized that you were here in 2009. SMH
Yep, along with Obie, Tom, Kirt, MM's doppleganger, several others that are still active, and Rob himself. Guess we all don't live up to your ad-hoc, post-facto high standards - Punaweb is clearly beneath you, best you only converse with the Almighty in order to find your moral equal.

[Moderator 2]

While the recent ICE arrests took place in Hawaii, the laws around those actions are not state or county. 
Watch the not-so-fine line.
 
Asking questions, leading questions, that draws people over the line makes you an accomplice.  

[TomK]

"Can you please, as a lawyer in multiple states, enumerate the exact process that is due to an individual who has entered or overstayed in Hawaii illegally?  I apologize again for my ignorance and I am grateful, in advance, for your good council."

I am more than happy to do so:

I'll start with this from Constitution Annotated as well as point out specifically a SCOTUS Ruling known as Mathews v. Eldridge along with The United States v. Mendoza-Lopez which ruled that "Under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, aliens apprehended within the interior of the United States are generally subject to formal removal proceedings, and have a number of procedural protections in those proceedings, including the right to seek counsel at no expense to the government, the right to present evidence at a hearing, the ability to apply for any available relief from removal, the right to administratively appeal an adverse decision, and (to the extent permitted by statute) the right to petition for judicial review of a final order of removal."

I hope this clears up your seeming ignorance of the law as well as the rights illegal aliens have.

I think the question asked a "lawyer" to explain the process someone would go through if they were accused of being an illegal alien in Hawaii. Your response doesn't seem to answer the question.