3 ms·

It is absolutely federal overreach to send people to foreign torture prisons (or even domestic utopian cuddle farms) without due process, full stop.

frumplestlatz 2y ago
[flagged]
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  It's applying reality to your abstract question. Almost no one disagrees with enforcing federal immigration law. The pushback has to do with the illegal manner in which it's happening in reality. One of the most pernicious memes among the pseudo-intellect crowd is isolating an event from its context and then saying "see, not a problem in isolation!" But these things are not happening in isolation. With high enough levels of motivated pseudo-intellectual dissection, you can portray a fatal car crash as a series of mundane procedural details and then just say "what bearing does the fatality have on it?"
  - potsandpans 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      Pernicious is the right word. Sorry if that triggered you.
      - potsandpans 2y ago
        Correct word, actually
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  If you have reason to believe that someone will be deprived of due process, which the Trump administration has essentially assured us, then it's a serious ethical violation to allow that to happen in your jurisdiction. And by the way, the reason why due process is important is that it's all that stands between you and me and a permanent vacation in El Salvador, if we do or say something that offends the Trumpists sufficiently.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Arguably even a violation of one's oath to the US Constitution, in fact.
typeofhuman 2y ago
[flagged]
- crooked-v 2y ago
  It doesn't.
  - typeofhuman 2y ago
    We shall see.
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      Oh good, a comment I can reply to: If there is an invasion of millions of people, are you suggesting the federal government would have to merely say that you are one of them in order to pack you and your family into an airplane to a foreign slave camp for the rest of their lives, without even giving you an opportunity to argue that you're not one of those "invaders"? Give a direct answer please.
      - typeofhuman 2y ago
        I trust the government to reasonably determine whether someone is an illegal immigrant. The courts can determine if that process is reasonable. I don't think illegal immigrant "invaders" are entitled to due process (especially when they are gang members). If we didn't have that then we'd have a gaping hole for foreign adversaries to exploit. Send their people to do harm, bog down our courts, and our government has no recourse. Does every enemy combatant get "due process" when they are engaged by US military personnel? No. Are police officers required to provide "due process" when using their firearm on a dangerous perp? No. We entrust them with the agency to act accordingly and there are systems for review.
        sorcerer-mar 2y ago
        It was a yes or no question, but hey I guess a comment literally 100% full of incorrect information works too. > I trust the government to reasonably determine whether someone is an illegal immigrant. Your trust is demonstrably misplaced. We already know with 100% certainty that American citizens have been detained beyond the permissible 24hr window without charges. We already know with 100% certainty that completely legal immigrants were deported. > The courts can determine if that process is reasonable They have. 9 to 0, SCOTUS said the process is not reasonable. > I don't think illegal immigrant "invaders" are entitled to due process (especially when they are gang members). Can you show me this carveout in the 14th or 5th Amendments? (You can't) > Does every enemy combatant get "due process" when they are engaged by US military personnel? No. Are US military personnel regularly engaging enemy combatants within US jurisdiction under which the 14th and 5th Amendments apply? And in any case, even abroad: yes there is a process for legally authorizing specific military engagements. > Are police officers required to provide "due process" when using their firearm on a dangerous perp? No. Using your firearm on a dangerous perp is only legal in an immediate defense context, it is not a legal punishment for breaking the law. If you want to use your firearm on a dangerous perp as legal punishment, then yes, they will get due process first. It's called being "sentenced to death," and is pretty much the most elaborate form of due process we have. > We entrust them with the agency to act accordingly and there are systems for review. Funny you say that, because the current administration's argument is quite literally the opposite. Their specific legal argument is that courts do not have any right of judicial review over their deportations.

frumplestlatz 2y ago

[flagged]

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
It's applying reality to your abstract question. Almost no one disagrees with enforcing federal immigration law. The pushback has to do with the illegal manner in which it's happening in reality. One of the most pernicious memes among the pseudo-intellect crowd is isolating an event from its context and then saying "see, not a problem in isolation!" But these things are not happening in isolation. With high enough levels of motivated pseudo-intellectual dissection, you can portray a fatal car crash as a series of mundane procedural details and then just say "what bearing does the fatality have on it?"
- potsandpans 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Pernicious is the right word. Sorry if that triggered you.
    - potsandpans 2y ago
      Correct word, actually
CamperBob2 2y ago
If you have reason to believe that someone will be deprived of due process, which the Trump administration has essentially assured us, then it's a serious ethical violation to allow that to happen in your jurisdiction. And by the way, the reason why due process is important is that it's all that stands between you and me and a permanent vacation in El Salvador, if we do or say something that offends the Trumpists sufficiently.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Arguably even a violation of one's oath to the US Constitution, in fact.

typeofhuman 2y ago

[flagged]

crooked-v 2y ago
It doesn't.
- typeofhuman 2y ago
  We shall see.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Oh good, a comment I can reply to: If there is an invasion of millions of people, are you suggesting the federal government would have to merely say that you are one of them in order to pack you and your family into an airplane to a foreign slave camp for the rest of their lives, without even giving you an opportunity to argue that you're not one of those "invaders"? Give a direct answer please.
    - typeofhuman 2y ago
      I trust the government to reasonably determine whether someone is an illegal immigrant. The courts can determine if that process is reasonable. I don't think illegal immigrant "invaders" are entitled to due process (especially when they are gang members). If we didn't have that then we'd have a gaping hole for foreign adversaries to exploit. Send their people to do harm, bog down our courts, and our government has no recourse. Does every enemy combatant get "due process" when they are engaged by US military personnel? No. Are police officers required to provide "due process" when using their firearm on a dangerous perp? No. We entrust them with the agency to act accordingly and there are systems for review.
      - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
        It was a yes or no question, but hey I guess a comment literally 100% full of incorrect information works too. > I trust the government to reasonably determine whether someone is an illegal immigrant. Your trust is demonstrably misplaced. We already know with 100% certainty that American citizens have been detained beyond the permissible 24hr window without charges. We already know with 100% certainty that completely legal immigrants were deported. > The courts can determine if that process is reasonable They have. 9 to 0, SCOTUS said the process is not reasonable. > I don't think illegal immigrant "invaders" are entitled to due process (especially when they are gang members). Can you show me this carveout in the 14th or 5th Amendments? (You can't) > Does every enemy combatant get "due process" when they are engaged by US military personnel? No. Are US military personnel regularly engaging enemy combatants within US jurisdiction under which the 14th and 5th Amendments apply? And in any case, even abroad: yes there is a process for legally authorizing specific military engagements. > Are police officers required to provide "due process" when using their firearm on a dangerous perp? No. Using your firearm on a dangerous perp is only legal in an immediate defense context, it is not a legal punishment for breaking the law. If you want to use your firearm on a dangerous perp as legal punishment, then yes, they will get due process first. It's called being "sentenced to death," and is pretty much the most elaborate form of due process we have. > We entrust them with the agency to act accordingly and there are systems for review. Funny you say that, because the current administration's argument is quite literally the opposite. Their specific legal argument is that courts do not have any right of judicial review over their deportations.