You can find it here http://bfy.tw/A2Eo

You made the claim, the burden of proof lies on you to provide a supporting reference. I am not saying you are wrong, just that you are offering up something contradictory to what the law says and I wish to know the details.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Person as established in the 5th amendment means any legal resident of the united states. It also semi-applies over to illegal residents except by the very nature of them being in the country illegally means that they can be deported for that crime alone.

For a legal resident to be removed from the country they would have to follow the constitution and provide due process.

This is the reason i sued HPD back in 2015, Theywere treaing a legal resident diffrent to how they treat a citizen and the 14th amendment explicitly says you cant do that.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Person as established in the 5th amendment means any legal resident of the united states. It also semi-applies over to illegal residents except by the very nature of them being in the country illegally means that they can be deported for that crime alone.

For a legal resident to be removed from the country they would have to follow the constitution and provide due process.

This is the reason i sued HPD back in 2015, Theywere treaing a legal resident diffrent to how they treat a citizen and the 14th amendment explicitly says you cant do that.

Thanks 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

---

Person as established in the 5th amendment means any legal resident of the united states. It also semi-applies over to illegal residents except by the very nature of them being in the country illegally means that they can be deported for that crime alone.

For a legal resident to be removed from the country they would have to follow the constitution and provide due process.

This is the reason i sued HPD back in 2015, Theywere treaing a legal resident diffrent to how they treat a citizen and the 14th amendment explicitly says you cant do that.

I was giving this some more thought and even illegal aliens have some rights under the constitution by the very fact they are on US soil. The SCOTUS ruled that detainees in Guantanamo had the right to habeus corpus and one of the explanations was because they were on peaceful US soil.

So it could be a legal problem if people with non resident visas have visas revoked without good reason.

Either way, this whole issue definitely has the makings of a case to be discussed and taught about for many years to come.

I was giving this some more thought and even illegal aliens have some rights under the constitution by the very fact they are on US soil. The SCOTUS ruled that detainees in Guantanamo had the right to habeus corpus and one of the explanations was because they were on peaceful US soil.

So it could be a legal problem if people with non resident visas have visas revoked without good reason.

Either way, this whole issue definitely has the makings of a case to be discussed and taught about for many years to come.

No body is removing visas from people that are already here, they are removing (temporarily suspending them) them from people not in the US. The fact that a federal judge even heard it is bullshit. Its political judgement and that is all. Has no standing legally ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT HAS CONTROL OVER IMMIGRATION.

No body is removing visas from people that are already here, they are removing (temporarily suspending them) them from people not in the US. The fact that a federal judge even heard it is bullshit. Its political judgement and that is all. Has no standing legally ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT HAS CONTROL OVER IMMIGRATION.

There are actually two arguments, that I have heard made, as to how states we able to claim standing. That gets a little more complicated and is an interesting legal question in itself but is somewhat off topic so I will leave that for a separate legal discussion if you would like to have it.

I am not saying that Trump is removing people already here on visas, rather I am discussing the pros and cons of the president having so much power. On the one side it would seem like an important power to have while on the other it would seem like a dangerous power if abused.