3 ms·

The problem is that people are detained indefinitely in extremely horrible camps (ICE facilities), essentially concentration camps, and are constantly pressured

The problem is that people are detained indefinitely in extremely horrible camps (ICE facilities), essentially concentration camps, and are constantly pressured to self-deport before they get to see a judge who can clear them. It is their gameplay. Think about it happening to you. This is what's inappropriate and wrong. Another serious problem is that the context of fraud is not well defined. Does it pertain to immigration or naturalization fraud, or to a general criminal history, or even to traffic violations? It is intentionally under-specified, open to exploitation, to selective enforcement. As noted in the Smithsonian article you linked, Supreme Court cases in the 1950s and ’60s declared unconstitutional several statutes pertaining to denationalization.

rayiner 9mo ago
> The problem is that people are detained indefinitely in extremely horrible camps (ICE facilities), and are constantly pressured to self-deport before they get to see a judge who can clear them. The law specifically permits detention pending a determination of immigration status, and in some cases requires such detention: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1226 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1226 > Another serious problem is that the context of fraud is not well defined. Does it pertain to immigration or naturalization fraud, or to a general criminal history, or even to traffic violations? It is open to exploitation. The statute says: "It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate..." 8 USC 1451(a). So it is strictly limited to fraud in obtaining citizenship. But the statute is broad as to what constitutes fraud in procuring citizenship. Any "concealment of a material fact or ... willful misrepresentation" can be grounds for revoking citizenship. > Supreme Court cases in the 1950s and ’60s that declared unconstitutional several statutes pertaining to denationalization. Not ones related to fraud in procuring naturalized status.
- lunar-whitey 9mo ago
  “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
- vharuck 9mo ago
  >The law specifically permits detention pending a determination of immigration status, and in some cases requires such detention In many cases, they are using detention where a simple bond would work. There's a NY Times opinion today detailing this: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-immigration-court-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.PeVx.YFPyku-VJ0Mh&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-im... It's hard to see this policy choice as anything other than putting pressure on people alleged to have committed a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, it will cost the federal government gobs of money to set up these camps, hire guards, and provide for the detainees. I don't want the government to waste my taxes on cruelty.
  - rayiner 9mo ago
    > In many cases, they are using detention where a simple bond would work. But the bonds didn't work! That is what the prior administrations did, and the result of that was 22 million illegal immigrants in the country (according to a Yale and MIT study from 2018: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twic...). The law specifically provides for detention and release on bond as two alternatives the Attorney General may choose between: "On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. Except as provided in subsection (c) and pending such decision, the Attorney General— (1) may continue to detain the arrested alien; and (2) may release the alien on— (A) bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by, and containing conditions prescribed by, the Attorney General; or (B) conditional parole..." 8 USC 1226(a).
    - OutOfHere 9mo ago
      The law does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. The Eight Amendment is strongly being violated by the administration. The ICE facilities are extremely poor, unfit for habitation, and are essentially concentration camps. Refer to https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-immigration-court-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.PeVx.YFPyku-VJ0Mh&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-im...

rayiner 9mo ago

> The problem is that people are detained indefinitely in extremely horrible camps (ICE facilities), and are constantly pressured to self-deport before they get to see a judge who can clear them. The law specifically permits detention pending a determination of immigration status, and in some cases requires such detention: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1226 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1226 > Another serious problem is that the context of fraud is not well defined. Does it pertain to immigration or naturalization fraud, or to a general criminal history, or even to traffic violations? It is open to exploitation. The statute says: "It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate..." 8 USC 1451(a). So it is strictly limited to fraud in obtaining citizenship. But the statute is broad as to what constitutes fraud in procuring citizenship. Any "concealment of a material fact or ... willful misrepresentation" can be grounds for revoking citizenship. > Supreme Court cases in the 1950s and ’60s that declared unconstitutional several statutes pertaining to denationalization. Not ones related to fraud in procuring naturalized status.

lunar-whitey 9mo ago
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
vharuck 9mo ago
>The law specifically permits detention pending a determination of immigration status, and in some cases requires such detention In many cases, they are using detention where a simple bond would work. There's a NY Times opinion today detailing this: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-immigration-court-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.PeVx.YFPyku-VJ0Mh&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-im... It's hard to see this policy choice as anything other than putting pressure on people alleged to have committed a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, it will cost the federal government gobs of money to set up these camps, hire guards, and provide for the detainees. I don't want the government to waste my taxes on cruelty.
- rayiner 9mo ago
  > In many cases, they are using detention where a simple bond would work. But the bonds didn't work! That is what the prior administrations did, and the result of that was 22 million illegal immigrants in the country (according to a Yale and MIT study from 2018: https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twic...). The law specifically provides for detention and release on bond as two alternatives the Attorney General may choose between: "On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. Except as provided in subsection (c) and pending such decision, the Attorney General— (1) may continue to detain the arrested alien; and (2) may release the alien on— (A) bond of at least $1,500 with security approved by, and containing conditions prescribed by, the Attorney General; or (B) conditional parole..." 8 USC 1226(a).
  - OutOfHere 9mo ago
    The law does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. The Eight Amendment is strongly being violated by the administration. The ICE facilities are extremely poor, unfit for habitation, and are essentially concentration camps. Refer to https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-immigration-court-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.PeVx.YFPyku-VJ0Mh&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/opinion/mass-detention-im...