6 ms·

There is no suggestion that the agents conducted a search or entered a non-public area. And this has nothing to do with the claim that the judge actively obstr

There is no suggestion that the agents conducted a search or entered a non-public area. And this has nothing to do with the claim that the judge actively obstructed their efforts.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ajross 1y ago
It can't very well be "obstruction" if they aren't empowered to do the search in the first place, can it? No, this is a disaster. Hyperbole aside, this is indeed how democracy dies. Eventually this escalates to arresting more senior political enemies. And eventually the arbiter of whoever has the power to make and enforce those arrests ends up resting not with the elected government but in the law enforcement and military apparatus with the physical power to do so. Once your regime is based on the use of force, you end up beholden to the users of force. Every time. We used to be special. We aren't now.
- linksnapzz 1y ago
  As it turns out, hyperbole is not aside.
- asdsadasdasd123 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ty6853 1y ago
    Garcia could have been deported literally anywhere but el salvador as he had an active deportation order, and withholding only from El Salvador. They could have just dropped him in a barren reef in the middle of the Pacific and said good fucking luck, why they took him the one place he couldn't go evades all logic.
    - asdsadasdasd123 1y ago
      I think you have the wrong case; is Garcia also a domestic abuser?
      - ty6853 1y ago
        His wife claimed in a restraining order filing that he was one writing she was "punched" "scratched" and had her clothes forcibly ripped. No idea if he was one as she claimed the exact opposite of what she wrote on her GoFundMe donation page about how they needed money because he is such a great husband/father.
- maxlybbert 1y ago
  Immigration law is wildly different from what people expect. But it is the law and it has been held up in countless court cases. This weirdness is not new. I think most of the weirdness comes from the fact that entering the country illegally, or remaining in the country illegally can be crimes, but they can also be civil offenses. “Civil” means no jail time, but people still get deported without going to criminal court. “Civil” also means “doesn’t have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “no constitutional right to a public defender.” Immigration law tries to provide limited forms of some of those ideas. There’s a kind of bail system, and people have a right to be represented by attorneys, but no right for those attorneys to be paid by the government. There is somebody referred to as an immigration judge, and they have a federal job, but they aren’t regular federal judges. It’s possible to appeal an immigration court’s decision to a federal district court to get into the legal system we’re more familiar with. * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11536 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11536 * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12158 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12158 * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10559 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10559 * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10362 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10362
  - exe34 1y ago
    apparently immigration law infringement only goes to court if you're trying to stop them now - if they want to send you to a concentration camp, there's no right to due process.
    - maxlybbert 1y ago
      The Alien Enemy Act is actually an incredibly old law (i.e., it’s not a new development). What is new is attempting to use it based on a declaration that there’s been a non-military invasion ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11269 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11269 ). I think it’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court is going to eventually strike that down, but the courts can only act in response to the cases they get, and only answer specific legal questions at different phases of those cases. But about a month ago, the Court did rule people who the government wanted to send to El Salvador have a due process right to challenge that decision in regular federal court as a habeas corpus proceeding ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf ). They later issued an order that the people covered by the original ruling cannot be deported based on the Alien Enemy Act until further notice ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18... ).
- Jensson 1y ago
  > It can't very well be "obstruction" if they aren't empowered to do the search in the first place, can it? The allegation is that she obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure, she wasn't arrested for obstructing search that part was fine. The ICE agents were legally allowed to wait outside and arrest the man as he stepped out, the judge leading the man out the backdoor after she learned ICE agents were waiting at the front is very hard to defend as anything but obstruction of arrest.
  - ajross 1y ago
    > obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure Which sounds awfully novel to me. You really want to tear down the structure of democracy over this kind of nitpicking on "procedure"? I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office. Calling people who are against illegal immigration "racist" just makes it worse. A majority of people are fine with legal migration, a supermajority of people think illegal immigrants should get deported. So no, the issue most see isn't that they don't like Spanish, the issue is that they are here illegally.
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        As far as the Republican Party, statistics don’t back up the idea they are okay with legal immigration. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/republican-concerns-over-immigration-hit-all-time-high https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/rep... In Florida, Desantis is so against legal migration he is trying to relax child labor laws. Even now there is a share of Republicans especially in southern states who are still against interracial marriages. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/interracial-marriage-supreme-loving/tnamp/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/interracial-marri...
- switch007 1y ago
  > We used to be special. Oh. Do expand.
lolinder 1y ago
The claim is that the judge, upon finding out that they were there to make an arrest, deliberately led the man out a back door which would under almost no circumstances be available to his use (the jury door), allowing him to bypass the officers attempting to make the arrest. If true, that's pretty clearly a deliberate attempt to obstruct their efforts. The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction, but I don't have any specific reason to believe it wouldn't be.
- godelski 1y ago
  > The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction There's other questions tbh. I don't know the answers, but I think it is critical to point out. An important one is "does ICE have the authority to operate in the location they were operating in?" If the answer is no, then Dugan's actions cannot be interpreted as interfering with ICE's official operations. You cannot interfere with official operations when the operations are not official or legal. An extreme example of this would be like police arresting somebody, and in a formal interrogation they admit to murder, but the person was not read their Miranda rights. These statements would likely be inadmissible in a court. But subtle details matter, like if the person wasn't arrested or if they weren't being interrogated (i.e. they just blabbed). This matters because the warrant. In the affidavit it says Dugan asked if the officer had a judicial warrant and were told they had an administrative warrant.[0] That linked article suggests that an administrative warrant can only be executed in an area where there is no expectation of privacy. This is distinct from public. There are many public places where you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A common example being a public restroom (same law means people can't take photos of you going to the bathroom). So is there a reasonable expectation of privacy here? I don't know. I think it is worth reading the affidavit. Certainly it justifies probable cause (at least from my naive understanding). But the legal code is similar to programming code in that subtle details are often critical to the output. That's why I'm saying it isn't "the only question", because we'd need to not only know the answers to the above but answers to more subtle details that likely are only known to domain experts (i.e. lawyers, judges, LEO, etc) [0] https://www.motionlaw.com/the-difference-between-judicial-and-administrative-warrants/ https://www.motionlaw.com/the-difference-between-judicial-an...
pyuser583 1y ago
My understanding is that you have an obligation to act lawfully, even if another person is not acting lawfully. This why civil rights advocates say “don’t talk to the police.”

There is no suggestion that the agents conducted a search or entered a non-public area. And this has nothing to do with the claim that the judge actively obstructed their efforts.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ajross 1y ago

It can't very well be "obstruction" if they aren't empowered to do the search in the first place, can it? No, this is a disaster. Hyperbole aside, this is indeed how democracy dies. Eventually this escalates to arresting more senior political enemies. And eventually the arbiter of whoever has the power to make and enforce those arrests ends up resting not with the elected government but in the law enforcement and military apparatus with the physical power to do so. Once your regime is based on the use of force, you end up beholden to the users of force. Every time. We used to be special. We aren't now.

linksnapzz 1y ago
As it turns out, hyperbole is not aside.
asdsadasdasd123 1y ago
[flagged]
- ty6853 1y ago
  Garcia could have been deported literally anywhere but el salvador as he had an active deportation order, and withholding only from El Salvador. They could have just dropped him in a barren reef in the middle of the Pacific and said good fucking luck, why they took him the one place he couldn't go evades all logic.
  - asdsadasdasd123 1y ago
    I think you have the wrong case; is Garcia also a domestic abuser?
    - ty6853 1y ago
      His wife claimed in a restraining order filing that he was one writing she was "punched" "scratched" and had her clothes forcibly ripped. No idea if he was one as she claimed the exact opposite of what she wrote on her GoFundMe donation page about how they needed money because he is such a great husband/father.
maxlybbert 1y ago
Immigration law is wildly different from what people expect. But it is the law and it has been held up in countless court cases. This weirdness is not new. I think most of the weirdness comes from the fact that entering the country illegally, or remaining in the country illegally can be crimes, but they can also be civil offenses. “Civil” means no jail time, but people still get deported without going to criminal court. “Civil” also means “doesn’t have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “no constitutional right to a public defender.” Immigration law tries to provide limited forms of some of those ideas. There’s a kind of bail system, and people have a right to be represented by attorneys, but no right for those attorneys to be paid by the government. There is somebody referred to as an immigration judge, and they have a federal job, but they aren’t regular federal judges. It’s possible to appeal an immigration court’s decision to a federal district court to get into the legal system we’re more familiar with. * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11536 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11536 * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12158 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12158 * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10559 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10559 * https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10362 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10362
- exe34 1y ago
  apparently immigration law infringement only goes to court if you're trying to stop them now - if they want to send you to a concentration camp, there's no right to due process.
  - maxlybbert 1y ago
    The Alien Enemy Act is actually an incredibly old law (i.e., it’s not a new development). What is new is attempting to use it based on a declaration that there’s been a non-military invasion ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11269 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11269 ). I think it’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court is going to eventually strike that down, but the courts can only act in response to the cases they get, and only answer specific legal questions at different phases of those cases. But about a month ago, the Court did rule people who the government wanted to send to El Salvador have a due process right to challenge that decision in regular federal court as a habeas corpus proceeding ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf ). They later issued an order that the people covered by the original ruling cannot be deported based on the Alien Enemy Act until further notice ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18... ).
Jensson 1y ago
> It can't very well be "obstruction" if they aren't empowered to do the search in the first place, can it? The allegation is that she obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure, she wasn't arrested for obstructing search that part was fine. The ICE agents were legally allowed to wait outside and arrest the man as he stepped out, the judge leading the man out the backdoor after she learned ICE agents were waiting at the front is very hard to defend as anything but obstruction of arrest.
- ajross 1y ago
  > obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure Which sounds awfully novel to me. You really want to tear down the structure of democracy over this kind of nitpicking on "procedure"? I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office. Calling people who are against illegal immigration "racist" just makes it worse. A majority of people are fine with legal migration, a supermajority of people think illegal immigrants should get deported. So no, the issue most see isn't that they don't like Spanish, the issue is that they are here illegally.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      As far as the Republican Party, statistics don’t back up the idea they are okay with legal immigration. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/republican-concerns-over-immigration-hit-all-time-high https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/rep... In Florida, Desantis is so against legal migration he is trying to relax child labor laws. Even now there is a share of Republicans especially in southern states who are still against interracial marriages. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/interracial-marriage-supreme-loving/tnamp/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/interracial-marri...
switch007 1y ago
> We used to be special. Oh. Do expand.

lolinder 1y ago

The claim is that the judge, upon finding out that they were there to make an arrest, deliberately led the man out a back door which would under almost no circumstances be available to his use (the jury door), allowing him to bypass the officers attempting to make the arrest. If true, that's pretty clearly a deliberate attempt to obstruct their efforts. The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction, but I don't have any specific reason to believe it wouldn't be.

godelski 1y ago
> The only question is whether obstructing ICE is classified as the legal offense of obstruction There's other questions tbh. I don't know the answers, but I think it is critical to point out. An important one is "does ICE have the authority to operate in the location they were operating in?" If the answer is no, then Dugan's actions cannot be interpreted as interfering with ICE's official operations. You cannot interfere with official operations when the operations are not official or legal. An extreme example of this would be like police arresting somebody, and in a formal interrogation they admit to murder, but the person was not read their Miranda rights. These statements would likely be inadmissible in a court. But subtle details matter, like if the person wasn't arrested or if they weren't being interrogated (i.e. they just blabbed). This matters because the warrant. In the affidavit it says Dugan asked if the officer had a judicial warrant and were told they had an administrative warrant.[0] That linked article suggests that an administrative warrant can only be executed in an area where there is no expectation of privacy. This is distinct from public. There are many public places where you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A common example being a public restroom (same law means people can't take photos of you going to the bathroom). So is there a reasonable expectation of privacy here? I don't know. I think it is worth reading the affidavit. Certainly it justifies probable cause (at least from my naive understanding). But the legal code is similar to programming code in that subtle details are often critical to the output. That's why I'm saying it isn't "the only question", because we'd need to not only know the answers to the above but answers to more subtle details that likely are only known to domain experts (i.e. lawyers, judges, LEO, etc) [0] https://www.motionlaw.com/the-difference-between-judicial-and-administrative-warrants/ https://www.motionlaw.com/the-difference-between-judicial-an...

pyuser583 1y ago

My understanding is that you have an obligation to act lawfully, even if another person is not acting lawfully. This why civil rights advocates say “don’t talk to the police.”