7 ms·

> It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. The actual parties will have been shipped off to another country, unable to bri

> It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. The actual parties will have been shipped off to another country, unable to bring the case, and anyone not already deported would lack standing to challenge the action. That seems awfully convenient for the executive.

firesteelrain 1y ago
Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  Are you arguing that the government should be free to act unconstitutionally?
- bravesoul2 1y ago
  Do you have a reference to the law about deporting citizens. I can't find it.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    I don’t know what you are referring to
    - bravesoul2 1y ago
      First paragraph of TFA > The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration’s ban on birthright citizenship See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...
      - msgodel 1y ago
        Those are only "citizens" because of a weird legal technicality that's a holdover from the civil war era. Most countries don't do that because the incentives it creates are kind of insane and very destructive in practice.
        bravesoul2 1y ago
        Sure. But I was replying to: > Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?
        dalyons 1y ago
        The weird technicality of the clear unambiguous text of the 14th amendment?
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        magicalist 1y ago
        > the US constitution > weird legal technicality
        paulryanrogers 1y ago
        > Those are only "citizens" because of a weird legal technicality that's a holdover from the civil war era. Indeed, if your ancestors didn't cross the Bering Land Bridge at least 10K years ago then you're clearly not a native, and should be deported back to your continent of origin ASAP. And if you don't like it then I hope your lawyer can catch up to the trucks hauling you to a distant, deportation-happy district where you'll be processed!
        msgodel 1y ago
        [flagged]
- vkou 1y ago
  It would be nice, for a start, if it actually followed the laws its supposed to enforce. Could you find me the one that lets the president's office strip citizenship from people?
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    I never said anything about stripping citizenship from people. Can you clarify?
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      If you can be deported quickly, without due process to dispute false claims you're not a citizen, then you may wake up in a foreign prison without any recourse. Those of us with white skin and no accent may find that a silly prospect. Citizens who are different are already facing this risk.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        You are referring to illegal aliens as citizens. They are persons under the law, not citizens. Constitution does not provide for identical due process between illegal aliens and citizens. Since expedited removal is authorized under 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(1), Courts have held up limited due process for those that not fully admitted or who can’t prove longstanding presence. Then, you have entry fiction doctrine where those at the border are treated as if they have not entered the US under the law. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) held that an immigrant stopped at the border had limited due process rights. Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have broad authority over who may enter and remain in the US
        nobody9999 1y ago
        >Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have broad authority over who may enter and remain in the US You do realize that the underlying case which SCOTUS limited the scope of preliminary injunctions relates to an Executive Order which directly contravenes the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States The Executive Order in question explicitly seeks to strip people born in the US of their citizenship. As such, this case as exactly zero to do with "illegal aliens" being removed. Rather it's a direct violation of the US Constitution. I get it. You want to throw lots of folks out. If that's what you want, then that's what you want. But if they can strip one natural born citizen of their citizenship without any due process, they can do that to any citizen -- including you and me. No thanks.
- atmavatar 1y ago
  I'm arguing that the Constitution guarantees due process to anyone subject to US jurisdiction, and the nationwide injunctions were necessary because ICE was sweeping people off the streets and quickly shipping them to different countries intentionally and explicitly in contravention of due process. If every single case must be prosecuted individually, those who have been illegally robbed of due process will already be stuck in El Salvadorean (or South Sudanese, etc.) prisons and unable to challenge it in US courts. In other words, ICE effectively gets carte blanche to continue violating constitutional due process under the ruling. The "judicial overreach" complaint is a distraction - injunctions can always be appealed at a higher level in the court system (excepting when the SC does it themselves), so there was already a mechanism to handle problematic injunctions. The implications for the unconstitutional executive order regarding birthright citizenship is just as gross, as an individual whose citizenship gets restored via court challenge will almost certainly face repeated citizenship challenges by other red states for the rest of their lives, any of which may require additional time in court to address.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    No that's completely insane. If that were actually what the constitution meant than the federal government needs to be dissolved because it's completely useless. Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.
    - magicalist 1y ago
      > Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them. Because what could go wrong with not determining if someone is a citizen or not before deporting them?
      - msgodel 1y ago
        Sure ask for ID. But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.
firesteelrain 1y ago
What case are you referring to?

firesteelrain 1y ago

Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
Are you arguing that the government should be free to act unconstitutionally?
bravesoul2 1y ago
Do you have a reference to the law about deporting citizens. I can't find it.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  I don’t know what you are referring to
  - bravesoul2 1y ago
    First paragraph of TFA > The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration’s ban on birthright citizenship See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...
    - msgodel 1y ago
      Those are only "citizens" because of a weird legal technicality that's a holdover from the civil war era. Most countries don't do that because the incentives it creates are kind of insane and very destructive in practice.
      - bravesoul2 1y ago
        Sure. But I was replying to: > Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?
      - dalyons 1y ago
        The weird technicality of the clear unambiguous text of the 14th amendment?
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - magicalist 1y ago
        > the US constitution > weird legal technicality
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        > Those are only "citizens" because of a weird legal technicality that's a holdover from the civil war era. Indeed, if your ancestors didn't cross the Bering Land Bridge at least 10K years ago then you're clearly not a native, and should be deported back to your continent of origin ASAP. And if you don't like it then I hope your lawyer can catch up to the trucks hauling you to a distant, deportation-happy district where you'll be processed!
        msgodel 1y ago
        [flagged]
vkou 1y ago
It would be nice, for a start, if it actually followed the laws its supposed to enforce. Could you find me the one that lets the president's office strip citizenship from people?
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  I never said anything about stripping citizenship from people. Can you clarify?
  - paulryanrogers 1y ago
    If you can be deported quickly, without due process to dispute false claims you're not a citizen, then you may wake up in a foreign prison without any recourse. Those of us with white skin and no accent may find that a silly prospect. Citizens who are different are already facing this risk.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      You are referring to illegal aliens as citizens. They are persons under the law, not citizens. Constitution does not provide for identical due process between illegal aliens and citizens. Since expedited removal is authorized under 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(1), Courts have held up limited due process for those that not fully admitted or who can’t prove longstanding presence. Then, you have entry fiction doctrine where those at the border are treated as if they have not entered the US under the law. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) held that an immigrant stopped at the border had limited due process rights. Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have broad authority over who may enter and remain in the US
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have broad authority over who may enter and remain in the US You do realize that the underlying case which SCOTUS limited the scope of preliminary injunctions relates to an Executive Order which directly contravenes the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States The Executive Order in question explicitly seeks to strip people born in the US of their citizenship. As such, this case as exactly zero to do with "illegal aliens" being removed. Rather it's a direct violation of the US Constitution. I get it. You want to throw lots of folks out. If that's what you want, then that's what you want. But if they can strip one natural born citizen of their citizenship without any due process, they can do that to any citizen -- including you and me. No thanks.
atmavatar 1y ago
I'm arguing that the Constitution guarantees due process to anyone subject to US jurisdiction, and the nationwide injunctions were necessary because ICE was sweeping people off the streets and quickly shipping them to different countries intentionally and explicitly in contravention of due process. If every single case must be prosecuted individually, those who have been illegally robbed of due process will already be stuck in El Salvadorean (or South Sudanese, etc.) prisons and unable to challenge it in US courts. In other words, ICE effectively gets carte blanche to continue violating constitutional due process under the ruling. The "judicial overreach" complaint is a distraction - injunctions can always be appealed at a higher level in the court system (excepting when the SC does it themselves), so there was already a mechanism to handle problematic injunctions. The implications for the unconstitutional executive order regarding birthright citizenship is just as gross, as an individual whose citizenship gets restored via court challenge will almost certainly face repeated citizenship challenges by other red states for the rest of their lives, any of which may require additional time in court to address.
- msgodel 1y ago
  No that's completely insane. If that were actually what the constitution meant than the federal government needs to be dissolved because it's completely useless. Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.
  - magicalist 1y ago
    > Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them. Because what could go wrong with not determining if someone is a citizen or not before deporting them?
    - msgodel 1y ago
      Sure ask for ID. But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.

firesteelrain 1y ago

What case are you referring to?