4 ms·

> 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 purp

> 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.

Hizonner 1y ago
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 Salvador violates some laws that weren't being violated before. Was US immigration law always inhumane and immoral, both as written and as enforced? Yes. Was ICE always full of thugs, and did it always tend to push to the very edge of what it was allowed to do? Yes. Have things gotten worse in qualititative ways, including violating laws? Also yes.
- generalizations 1y ago
  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 due process question is. 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, plus the alien enemies act, is probably legally enough to justify this - and we also have all kinds of exceptions for dealing with "terrorists" (thanks, Obama). Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists". I don't think you've been specific about any other laws - just a couple of guesses about 'probably violating' things.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    > Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process 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.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read 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.
    - generalizations 1y ago
      The question is whether an illegal immigrant has access to due process. The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to. The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it. Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.
bloppe 1y ago
You consider blatantly disregarding a court order "preexisting legal machinery"?
- generalizations 1y ago
  [flagged]

Hizonner 1y ago

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 Salvador violates some laws that weren't being violated before. Was US immigration law always inhumane and immoral, both as written and as enforced? Yes. Was ICE always full of thugs, and did it always tend to push to the very edge of what it was allowed to do? Yes. Have things gotten worse in qualititative ways, including violating laws? Also yes.

generalizations 1y ago
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 due process question is. 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, plus the alien enemies act, is probably legally enough to justify this - and we also have all kinds of exceptions for dealing with "terrorists" (thanks, Obama). Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists". I don't think you've been specific about any other laws - just a couple of guesses about 'probably violating' things.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > Non-citizens may or may not actually legally merit due process 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.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read 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.
  - generalizations 1y ago
    The question is whether an illegal immigrant has access to due process. The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to. The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it. Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.

bloppe 1y ago

You consider blatantly disregarding a court order "preexisting legal machinery"?

generalizations 1y ago
[flagged]