4 ms·

>Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have br

>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.

firesteelrain 1y ago
My original comment was not defending any attempt to strip citizenship from those born in the US under the 14th Amendment. No executive order can override the Constitution. My point was narrower: when people bring up “due process” it’s important to recognize that not all persons receive the same level of due process in every context. Courts have long held that undocumented individuals and particularly those subject to expedited removal or caught at the border have limited procedural protections compared to citizens
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  My point is that everyone's natural born citizenship is irrelevant if the executive can act so quickly (or against defendants so poor or so ill informed) that the means to dispute deportation are unavailable in practice
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Got it All I am advocating for is better safeguards that Congress must pass not throwaway the entire structure by allowing local injunctions. Understandably people are upset but point the anger at the right branch. Executive is operating within its legal parameters and the legislative branch needs to operate within theirs. Congress needs to provide better safeguards
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >Executive is operating within its legal parameters Huh? Since when is issuing executive orders that attempt to contravene the plain language of the US Constitution, something that's clearly illegal, "operating within [the executive branch's] legal parameters"? Whether Congress is doing its job or not (I'd argue they're not representing their constituents in any meaningful way -- hell, I wanted to vote against my congressman since I was moved into his district in the last two elections, but he ran unopposed) is irrelevant to a blatantly illegal assault on US citizens by executive order. There are plenty of things to take Congress to task for, but executive orders (you know, from the executive branch) aren't one of them.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        Not excusing bad executive orders. The remedy should come through the right constitutional channels: lawsuits, appeals, congressional action. The concern I raised is about courts going beyond their own limits to impose broad fixes when the real solution lies with Congress or SCOTUS.
        nobody9999 1y ago
        You misunderstand the situation. The SCOTUS ruling is about Preliminary Injunctions[0], which aren't remedies and they aren't permanent. They serve to prevent harm while litigation progresses. This isn't something new, nor (until very recently) has it been very controversial. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        I do not misunderstand the situation Preliminary injunctions have long been part of the legal system and their role in preventing harm during litigation is well recognized. The recent ruling does not eliminate preliminary injunctions The case at hand addresses their scope and the authority of district courts to extend them beyond the parties involved in a specific case The only thing I have consistently raised is maintaining that structure so courts operate within defined authority It’s about time that SCOTUS reigned things in

firesteelrain 1y ago

My original comment was not defending any attempt to strip citizenship from those born in the US under the 14th Amendment. No executive order can override the Constitution. My point was narrower: when people bring up “due process” it’s important to recognize that not all persons receive the same level of due process in every context. Courts have long held that undocumented individuals and particularly those subject to expedited removal or caught at the border have limited procedural protections compared to citizens

paulryanrogers 1y ago
My point is that everyone's natural born citizenship is irrelevant if the executive can act so quickly (or against defendants so poor or so ill informed) that the means to dispute deportation are unavailable in practice
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Got it All I am advocating for is better safeguards that Congress must pass not throwaway the entire structure by allowing local injunctions. Understandably people are upset but point the anger at the right branch. Executive is operating within its legal parameters and the legislative branch needs to operate within theirs. Congress needs to provide better safeguards
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >Executive is operating within its legal parameters Huh? Since when is issuing executive orders that attempt to contravene the plain language of the US Constitution, something that's clearly illegal, "operating within [the executive branch's] legal parameters"? Whether Congress is doing its job or not (I'd argue they're not representing their constituents in any meaningful way -- hell, I wanted to vote against my congressman since I was moved into his district in the last two elections, but he ran unopposed) is irrelevant to a blatantly illegal assault on US citizens by executive order. There are plenty of things to take Congress to task for, but executive orders (you know, from the executive branch) aren't one of them.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      Not excusing bad executive orders. The remedy should come through the right constitutional channels: lawsuits, appeals, congressional action. The concern I raised is about courts going beyond their own limits to impose broad fixes when the real solution lies with Congress or SCOTUS.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        You misunderstand the situation. The SCOTUS ruling is about Preliminary Injunctions[0], which aren't remedies and they aren't permanent. They serve to prevent harm while litigation progresses. This isn't something new, nor (until very recently) has it been very controversial. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        I do not misunderstand the situation Preliminary injunctions have long been part of the legal system and their role in preventing harm during litigation is well recognized. The recent ruling does not eliminate preliminary injunctions The case at hand addresses their scope and the authority of district courts to extend them beyond the parties involved in a specific case The only thing I have consistently raised is maintaining that structure so courts operate within defined authority It’s about time that SCOTUS reigned things in