651–660 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s more weird that the person being a “sitting judge” is any party of the equation. At the end of the day judges are just people. I would be more worried about a system that proceeded differently because they were a judge.
A judge who's literally in the middle of an official hearing is absolutely a special case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would have been the right move for Dugan here, according to ICE? Can a judge legally detain a defendant after a pre-trial hearing on the basis of "there are some agents asking about you for unrelated reasons?"
The right move would have been simply to not help Flores-Ruiz evade ICE.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is immensely frustrating as someone who also genuinely cares about justice being done and the rule of law being followed. I want arrests to be made when there's reasonable information that this judge lied to federal agents, but frankly I can't see the federal government taking appropriate care to ensure they aren't arresting arbitrarily and then dodging accountability for trying to make right their wrongs. The f…
The government probably has evidence, maybe or maybe not persuasive enough for a conviction. That evidence will be presented in due course, not all up front to the media.
I would not assume they have evidence, I would rather assume they do not. And, if they do, I would rather assume it is made up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens, or the stronger form, that they are invaders and thus enemy combatants. The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existence of constitutional rights for people living here unlawfully. And then the populace is going to have to make sure that the president doesn't conclude that he can ignore that ruling if…
Is that a serious thesis anyone serious is entertaining ? Would that mean that you can defraud or kill a tourist with no consequences?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes you are right for monkey patch, I don't why it means something else where I am from. On the topic, sure. But maybe next time you go to another country, try to think how you would stay and break the law. Later, you will need a car, a bank account (by stealing a social security number or other solutions). Like how you are getting yourself ready to live a life of breaking the law just to go by in life. That's a s…
You're saying sanctuary cities lead to more people buying cars and opening bank accounts... that's the bad thing?
Are you saying that criminals are a good thing if they help the overall economy? If not what was the point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
People in this country have rights, regardless of how they entered. You either believe in the constitution and it's application to all citizens and non-citizens or you're a fascist. I'm not going to quibble on any other bits of misdirection or failure to read other people's posts. Pick your side.
I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it extremely doubtful that she told the agents he'd be leaving through a particular door or that she had any legal obligation to make sure the man exited in a particular way.
United States Code, Title 8, § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (2023) > (1)(A) Any person who […] > (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; […] > sha…
ICE has absolutely no business in state courthouses. The federal interest in enforcing immigration law should not be placed above the state's interest in enforcing equal protection under the law. Consider the case of a undocumented rape victim. Do they not deserve justice? Are we better off letting a rapist go free when their victim cannot testify against them because they were deported? I think not and I do not want…
This will be interesting for the 5th amendment. They cannot arrest you for putting "drug dealer" on your tax forms as your job since you are compelled to answer that question honestly. The defendant was compelled to appear in court which means he couldn't protect his own privacy by being elsewhere - are these the same thing? I don't know how courts will see it, but it is an interesting legal question that I hope some…
The thesis is that immigrants have no constitutional rights because they aren't citizens, or the stronger form, that they are invaders and thus enemy combatants. The Supreme Court is going to have to clarify the existence or non-existence of constitutional rights for people living here unlawfully. And then the populace is going to have to make sure that the president doesn't conclude that he can ignore that ruling if…
I'm not a lawyer, but... they already have for decades or centuries, and not in the direction that MAGA wants.
> “Yes, without question,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School. “Most of the provisions of the Constitution apply on the basis of personhood and jurisdiction in the United States.”
> Many parts of the Constitution use the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen.” Rodriguez said those laws apply to everyone physically on U.S. soil, whether or not they are a citizen.
[...]
> In the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
Granted, only that last one is actually the Supreme Court. Perhaps there are hundreds of Supreme Court cases testing individual pieces of the constitution, but as the professor said, for the most part they give all the same rights. MAGA has managed to make everyone doubt and argue over it. The party of "Constitution-lovers" flagrantly violating both the plain wording and decades of legal rulings on the Constitution.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-ri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Where do you draw the line? If the police don't care about someone's immigration status, why should they care about who broke into your car?
This over-simplifies our federal system to the point of uselessness. The Federal Government is responsible for immigration. It's their job to set policies and adjudicate immigration issues. Local and State Law Enforcement are not responsible for -- and indeed it is outside of their powers to enforce immigration laws. Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (se…