61–70 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
I mean slavery was legal, Jim Crow was legal... A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's different because ICE is a paramilitary group operating illegally inside the US. They don't get warrants, engage in racial profiling, disappeared 2/3rds of the people sent to some of their facilities, arrest citizens, assault peaceful protesters, etc. They're doing this over the objection of state and local authorities, and despite the fact that their actions have been repeatedly ruled illegal by the courts.
It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might not like the tone, but I don't see what makes the words false. "Paramilitary" describes a non-military group behaving similarly to a military group, and we're talking about armed masked men sweeping homes, taking prisoners, and engaging in violent conflicts. "Operating illegally" means that federal, state, or local laws have been broken, and that seems to be the case, e.g. Gonzalez v. ICE.
Federal law supersedes state law. ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The SCOTUS abdicating their duty to the constitution does not make ICE's actions any less illegal, it just makes the Supreme Court as an institution illegitimate. It is unfortunate that things have devolved so far, but it is more important than ever that we state things clearly and succinctly in the face of those that have decided the constitution no longer matters.
You might believe SCOTUS has abdicated their duty, but that doesn’t make it illegal. The whole reason the Supreme Court exists is because there is no such thing as “clearly illegal” without some kind of adjudicating body that can decide if something breaks the law. Laws aren’t like math axioms; you can’t prove or disprove that a law has been broken with pure logic, you have to have humans interpret the words and appl…
The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution.
Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Federal law supersedes state law. ICE is simply enforcing federal immigration laws.
> Federal law supersedes state law It does. That doesn’t mean federal agents supersede state law. California restricted civil arrests at its courts [1]. The Congress can pass a law superseding this. What ICE can’t unilaterally do, legally, is ignore it. They have, the same as they’ve ignored federal court orders. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you agree enforcing immigration laws in this way is good and/or important? If so, can I ask why? What is our end goal?
> can I ask why? Simply put, Americans gave Republicans a popular mandate to reduce illegal immigration. Much of this was economic: illegal immigrants dilute the labour force. Some, particularly among Latin Americans, rose from perceived injustice: it’s frustrating to go through the American immigration process only to see someone who skipped it live a similar life. Some, e.g. those focused on crime, were just racist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So call what they're doing 'wrong' not 'illegal'. The remedies for those two things are very different.
Well also a lot of what they're doing to enforce laws without warrants, arresting citizens without cause, lack of due process, etc is illegal. But a lot of this won't change without "active, provocative, non-violent" resistance as Gandhi would say.
If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can I ask why? Simply put, Americans gave Republicans a popular mandate to reduce illegal immigration. Much of this was economic: illegal immigrants dilute the labour force. Some, particularly among Latin Americans, rose from perceived injustice: it’s frustrating to go through the American immigration process only to see someone who skipped it live a similar life. Some, e.g. those focused on crime, were just racist…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean slavery was legal, Jim Crow was legal... A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.
[flagged]
It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
People are reduced to the point of keeping airtags on them so loved ones and their lawyers can find them because the administration wants to hide them away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
> as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.