When reading a post with a keyboard, you can type the keys , and . to move backwards and forward between posts! You can also press 'return' to read through posts one at a time. There's freedom in Shrewd'm!
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 14
Huh. I'm going to say this is troubling.
In the first week of March, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it arrested four dozen New Mexico residents as part of immigration raids in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Roswell.
Now those people are unaccounted for, according to an American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico civil rights complaint filed Sunday, which alleges all 48 “have been forcibly disappeared.”And no, these were not rapists, murderers, gangbangers, or individuals with 34 felony convictions. According to ICE’s own announcement, it arrested most of those people not for criminal convictions, but for violations of civil immigration law.
Maybe they're still here in the U.S. somewhere, maybe not... but in less than two months we've officially reached the snatch people up, put 'em on planes, and deport 'em to a country run by an authoritarian, who we're paying in cash, where those people will be forced to work slave labor at what is essentially a gulag.
Without due process.
In defiance of federal courts.
For those waiting for your "is it a constitutional crisis yet?" moment, check your rearview mirrors.
https://sourcenm.com/2025/03/17/ice-has-disappeare...
No. of Recommendations: 2
but for violations of civil immigration law. - CO
------------------
Still a crime.
No. of Recommendations: 13
but for violations of civil immigration law. - CO
------------------
Still a crime.
Violations of civil immigration law are not crimes. We have both civil and criminal immigration laws, and violating the former is not a criminal act, and not all people who are here unlawfully have committed crimes.
No. of Recommendations: 6
bighairymike: Still a crime.
albaby1 already covered this upthread: ...person still has a right to request judicial review of his potential deportation. The government could be making a mistake: they might have the wrong person, and the individual isn't subject to a removal order. The removal order might have been revoked or suspended, and there's a mistake in believing it's still in effect. The removal order might have been superseded by another action - there's a lot of DACA recipients who were subject to removal orders as an entire family when they came over as children, but those orders are suspended by DACA.
Thank God this administration has never gotten anything wrong. <sarcasm>
No. of Recommendations: 3
Violations of civil immigration law are not crimes. We have both civil and criminal immigration laws, and violating the former is not a criminal act, and not all people who are here unlawfully have committed crimes.
Unlawful entry is a crime punishable by incarceration. Unlawful presence is not.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Unlawful entry is a crime punishable by incarceration. Unlawful presence is not.
Not all people who are unlawfully present committed unlawful entry.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Not all people who are unlawfully present committed unlawful entry.
Okay. How many TdA members are here on overstayed student visas?
No. of Recommendations: 12
Okay. How many TdA members are here on overstayed student visas?
Oh, probably almost no actual members of TdA.
But people who are accused of being in TdA but who aren't actually in it? Certainly some. Government rarely bats a thousand in the best of circumstances, and this Administration is being very aggressive in who they claim has linked arms with horrible groups.
If you don't give people due process, you're almost certainly going to end up wrongfully deporting someone who wasn't a TdA member - whether by mistaken identity, mistake of fact, or just the Administration wanting to claim that even the most tangential acquaintance should be treated as being a "member."
Due process isn't there to protect criminals. It's there to protect the people who the government thinks are criminals, but aren't.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But people who are accused of being in TdA but who aren't actually in it? Certainly some. Government rarely bats a thousand in the best of circumstances, and this Administration is being very aggressive in who they claim has linked arms with horrible groups.
So then the crux of the objection was summed up by Ed Henry in the White House Press Corps this morning, when he asked *how* the administration knew who was who.
No. of Recommendations: 12
So then the crux of the objection was summed up by Ed Henry in the White House Press Corps this morning, when he asked *how* the administration knew who was who.
No, that's not the crux of the objection.
No one expects the Administration - or any law enforcement agency - to be perfect. To whatever degree you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, you can assume that they've got good information and are doing their best to correctly identify bad people so they can protect the country.....and that there needs to be process for those who claim that a mistake has been made to do that.
The problem isn't that they might be wrong in knowing who was who - it's that they're claiming no one can check them. That no one can can provide relief if - when - they make a mistake. That there is no legitimate inquiry into what they're doing by the courts - that their choices are beyond review.
That's where the objection moves beyond asking whether they're doing a good job with their initial accusations, and into whether they're declaring themselves outside of any due process at all.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Dope1: So then the crux of the objection was summed up by Ed Henry in the White House Press Corps this morning, when he asked *how* the administration knew who was who.
Umm, no.
The government is arguing today that the President has broad Article II powers that would permit him to deport people with no judicial review. Think about that for a moment and maybe the lightbulb will turn on.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The problem isn't that they might be wrong in knowing who was who - it's that they're claiming no one can check them. That no one can can provide relief if - when - they make a mistake. That there is no legitimate inquiry into what they're doing by the courts - that their choices are beyond review.
Then this hinges on the designation of TdA as a terrorist org. The government has had a lot of leeway to handle terrorists for some 20 years now.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Then this hinges on the designation of TdA as a terrorist org. The government has had a lot of leeway to handle terrorists for some 20 years now.
No, it doesn't. Terrorism is a crime, and people that commit terrorism are criminals - and people who are accused of being terrorists or being part of a terrorist organization are still entitled to due process to dispute those accusations. Declaring an organization to be a terrorist org doesn't excuse or immunize the government from providing due process, or having the specific accusations they level at individuals subject to judicial review. The designation of the organization as a terrorist group doesn't suddenly remove everything the Administration does thereafter from legitimate review.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Terrorism is a crime, and people that commit terrorism are criminals - and people who are accused of being terrorists or being part of a terrorist organization are still entitled to due process to dispute those accusations.
That's not how it's worked the last 20 years. The government has had *wide* latitude...but to your point, even Richard Reid the shoe bomber got a federal trial. But he wasn't an illegal alien...
No. of Recommendations: 8
That's not how it's worked the last 20 years. The government has had *wide* latitude...but to your point, even Richard Reid the shoe bomber got a federal trial. But he wasn't an illegal alien...Even the enemy combatants at Guantanamo - foreigners who never set foot in the U.S. - were found to be entitled to a
modicum of judicial review. To have a judge look over their case and at least give basic
habeas corpus review of the government's claims. Even without having entered the U.S., the mere fact of their detention under government controlled territory in Gitmo was enough to bring them within the outermost reaches of the Constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_petiti...The problem isn't whether the Administration is wrong about TdA or whether these are terrible people who ought to be deported under the INA. It's the claim that none of these people have any access to the courts at all.
Someone always has to double-check the state when they're locking people up, so that when the government makes a mistake (and they always will make at least one mistake, nobody's perfect) there's a legal pathway to make that claim to a judge.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The problem isn't whether the Administration is wrong about TdA or whether these are terrible people who ought to be deported under the INA. It's the claim that none of these people have any access to the courts at all. Someone always has to double-check the state when they're locking people up, so that when the government makes a mistake (and they always will make at least one mistake, nobody's perfect) there's a legal pathway to make that claim to a judge.
Bear in mind that many of these guys are *already* under deportation orders for various reasons:
-Outstanding warrants
-They were caught and let go by some jurisdiction
I'm purposefully trying to stay away from the "it's okay because the feds said so" line of defense because I don't trust that the next democrat administration that comes in won't start declaring Americans it doesn't like terrorists and ship them to wherever, Bill of Rights be damned.
So I actually agree with you that "because they said so" doesn't fly.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Replying to bighairymike
but for violations of civil immigration law. - CO
------------------
Still a crime. No. The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that may be related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence alone is not a violation of federal criminal law.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_doc...
No. of Recommendations: 3
Unlawful entry is a crime punishable by incarceration. Unlawful presence is not. - Dope
------------------------
And lying to Border Patrol at time of entry about the reason you want to come in is also a crime.
So is sneaking in, aka the gottaways.
Most people do not want criminal aliens in our country and are grateful that we finally have an Administration that understands and supports this objective.
That Trump supports deportation is reason enough for progressives to prevent deportation by any means necessary.
No. of Recommendations: 12
That Trump supports deportation is reason enough for progressives to prevent deportation by any means necessary.
That, of course BHM, is an outright lie.
We just prefer to do it, well, legally.
Silly libs.
No. of Recommendations: 2
>>That Trump supports deportation is reason enough for progressives to prevent deportation by any means necessary.<<
That, of course BHM, is an outright lie.
We just prefer to do it, well, legally. - AW
=================
How about using some of that virtuous compassion to get the democrats to fund more dollars for detention facilities and immigration judges, so that hearings can be processed in greater volumes.
Progressives will say NO, we can't do that because it would then appear we are supporting Trump. Better to just parole them into normie neighborhoods where they can continue preying on citizens while they wait for a hearing.
BTW, don't bring up the vacuous border bill offered in the twilight of Biden's Open Border administration. Illegal border crossings have been brought to near zero by Tom Homan. The issue that remains is what to do with the 100,000 criminal aliens already here. Trump would be glad to lock them up while wait if he had the funding.
No. of Recommendations: 2
BTW, don't bring up the vacuous border bill offered in the twilight of Biden's Open Border administration. Illegal border crossings have been brought to near zero by Tom Homan. The issue that remains is what to do with the 100,000 criminal aliens already here. Trump would be glad to lock them up while wait if he had the funding.
Funny how...the fact that we were Galactically Correct and they were 100% wrong...doesn't get discussed much.
That "border bill" was a play to codify Biden's open border policy and we're better off now that it's failed.
No. of Recommendations: 12
How about using some of that virtuous compassion to get the democrats to fund more dollars for detention facilities and immigration judges, so that hearings can be processed in greater volumes.
The security bill that was supported by Democrats at during the Biden Administration contained exactly that.
BTW, don't bring up the vacuous border bill offered in the twilight of Biden's Open Border administration.
Oops.
Trump would be glad to lock them up while wait if he had the funding.
But he doesn't. U.S. detention facilities only have a capacity of about 43K-45K, and that's almost entirely full already. And the Administration has been frustrated at their inability to arrest more people faster - they just don't have the manpower to do it, now that they burned through all the cases where the work had mostly been done. There was a modest bump in funding for both those things in the CR, but not enough to materially affect the process - especially since there wasn't any real increase in the funding for immigration courts. Since the throughput at the end of the arrest-detention-court-deportation process is still being bottlenecked by the courts, it's not going to go any faster.
That's probably one reason why the Administration is willing to "disappear" people through extra-judicial means. Giving people due process and a chance to contest the allegations in front of a neutral party takes time and resources, and they are unwilling to devote either.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Most people do not want criminal aliens in our country...
Pretty much nobody does. Though you first have to go through the formalities of, ya know, verifying that they are criminals. As albaby has said, that requires a judicial review.
That Trump supports deportation is reason enough for progressives to prevent deportation by any means necessary.
Mostly not. Again, non-Trumpies just want the rule of law followed.
Have you ever really thought about it? A cop (or ICE) could pull me over, arrest me, and I couldn't prove I was a native-born American on the spot. I have a copy of my birth certificate, but I don't carry it on me. Could you prove you were a citizen at any given moment? Probably not. That's why we have courts to review the evidence, and they give you the chance to provide your evidence (e.g. I would have time to get the certificate from the safe).
And if you are anything but lily-white (like 1poorlady), you're more likely to be looked upon with suspicion, even though she has a naturalization certificate, and probably knows more about government than most native-borns (because there was a test she had to pass to get her naturalization). Again, she doesn't carry it on her person at all times...it's in the safe, too.
No. of Recommendations: 5
And if you are anything but lily-white (like 1poorlady), you're more likely to be looked upon with suspicion, even though she has a naturalization certificate, and probably knows more about government than most native-borns (because there was a test she had to pass to get her naturalization). Again, she doesn't carry it on her person at all times...it's in the safe, too.
There’s a young lady in Texas who my ex and I raised. She was born in Louisiana and speaks both English and Vietnamese. Her natural parents were Vietnamese immigrants. We made sure she had a birth certificate that we had to send for, and since then she obtained a US passport. Both are locked in a safe. Her husband is a retired navy veteran. They have two kids; one is in college, the other a junior in high school.
Two days ago, I suggested she might want to keep copies of both her birth certificate and passport on her person or in her purse. She agreed.
What in the hell have we come to as a country?
No. of Recommendations: 7
"That Trump supports deportation is reason enough for progressives to prevent deportation by any means necessary."
A person has to be a true idiot if they cannot accurately describe their opponents views.
Congrats idiot.
