71–80 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to be a red line for maga. In fact, for them, the cruelty is the whole point. They want the fear and simply don't care about laws.
> don't care about laws Look at the legal analysis, not the sensationalist story: this is IIRC preexisting legal machinery, now being used for a different purpose. You dislike how it is used; I dislike that it exists. We are not the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done. But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Sa…
Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin). What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the…
Even the current Trump-enabling Supreme Court just affirmed that they get due process. They restricted the judicial vehicle for that to habeas corpus, which sucks because the person being grabbed has to actively request it... but they were clear that there had to be actual, meaningful access to habeas.
At an absolute minimum, the claim that somebody's a non-citizen to begin with is something that has to be proven at a habeas hearing.
... and permanent residents, at least, are statutorily entitled to have the government show cause before removing them. It can be pretty shitty half-assed cause. And it can be shown in a shitty half-assed administrative immigration "court". But it has to be shown. And if it's not shown properly, that can be appealed to a real court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done. But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Sa…
Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin). What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the…
You seem to be radically misreading a condition on conditions at birth that applies to birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment as a modifier on conditions at the time of government action against them that applies to the due process clause of the same amendment, but also, the 14th Amendment has no bearing on whether people have due process rights against the federal government, in the first place, as the due process clause of the 14th applies to the states.
Due process against the federal government is provided by the 5th Amendment, so even if the misreading of the 14th was right and applicable to due process rights, it would limit only the due process applicable to certain people for actions by state governments.
> Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists".
Well, yeah, but most of that legal precedent was negative for unchecked executive power (and even restrictive of legislative abuses), see Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsefeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, most notably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sort of. There's way too much discretion to toss people out for any random trumped-up reason, and way too much discretion about how it's done. But there are requirements for at least some attempt at individualized due process, and those are being ignored, which is mostly new. And there are certain reasons they don't get to use, and that's also being ignored. And probably shipping people to abusive facilities in El Sa…
Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin). What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the…
I missed that bit about the 14th amendment.
This has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment argument is about who gets ius soli citizenship (what they call "birthright citizenship"), not about the treatment of anybody who's agreed not to be a citizen. The administration has made claims about jurisdiction limiting what they have to do for non-citizens, but not on that basis.
So far I don't think they've actually tried to deport anybody born on US soil. If they do, then the 14th Amendment comes into play.
The existing cases are about the 5th amendment, Article 1 habeas corpus, common law, immigration statutes, etc, not the 14th.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe me, I'm not a fan of dystopian prison islands. However, my consistent position has been the risks of the legal machinery itself and its potential for abuse. Now I'm being vindicated and it sucks, and everyone still seems to be upset that the expansive laws they like are now being used in ways they don't like and didn't expect (cue world's tiniest violin). What's interesting is how much of a grey area that the…
> Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process, and to whatever degree they might, they only merit it while "within" the "jurisdiction" of the US. And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read, I missed that bit about the 14th amendment. This has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment argument is about who gets ius soli citizenship (what they call "b…
My wife is a naturalized citizen (and a brown one with a muslim name, at that)), and to be perfectly honest I'm no longer confident this admin won't start looking into denaturalizating people like her, for no reason except their ethnicity. It's clear they're taking a 'the Court has written their law. Now let them enforce it.' approach, and it's not clear anybody is going to stop them.
why is ICE wasting millions of dollars arresting the wrong people but DOGE is cutting cancer research? Its time to abolish ICE.
I really think ICE has quotas to hit. It would explain a lot of their behavior, and it’s clear the king really cares about the weekly numbers.
Is the US legit fascist now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump has announced the possibility of a third term.
Donald Trump is 78 years old and seriously unhealthy He's going to be lucky to make it through this term, forget running for president again at 82
On a more serious note, suppose the next president is JD Vance instead; do you think things would be any better? I suspect they would rather get worse when someone with similar beliefs but more intellectual capacity to implement them is in charge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moment due process breaks down -- even for actual infractions of the law -- that means everyone (you and I included) has lost due process. You should want due process for criminals because due process is how is how you can prove that you are innocent when falsely accused. There is no such thing as "due process for me, but not for thee" because one day, you might be on the "thee" end.
In the case of illegal immigration, expedited removal [1] was established in 1997, under Clinton. It qualifies a number of different groups for immediate deportation without a hearing, including anybody who has been in the country for less than 2 years - which would include the individual in this article. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal