5 ms·

Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It

Spying on people is a violation of plenty of amendments. Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. Stop treating the law as a binary illegal or not. It just leads to brain dead interpretations of the law. There is plenty of “illegal” things people do every day and yet we don’t install public dragnet cameras to stop it. Illegal immigration hasn’t shown any real harm to people that regular citizens don’t also take part in. Immigration has just been used to rile you up because you can scream “illegal illegal illegal” a bunch of times without reading the 14th amendment and understand that you can’t have a country of rights if you don’t extend those rights to non-citizens within your borders.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
kristjansson 6mo ago
Viz: any public comment session on any proposal to add speed cameras to any American city.
xp84 6mo ago
[flagged]
- john_strinlai 6mo ago
  >A “misdemeanor”? I don’t really care what you define it as, the user 'righthand' didnt define it that way... its how the government defined it in 8 U.S.C. § 1325 >Also non-citizens don’t have any particular rights beyond the Geneva Convention. this is also wrong. the constitutions protections generally extend to all people in the US
- MrBuddyCasino 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - pavel_lishin 6mo ago
    None of this is true, see my other comment.
  - john_strinlai 6mo ago
    it is far from correct... its actually, like, the opposite of correct.
  - righthand 6mo ago
    No it’s not correct. Please leave.
- pavel_lishin 6mo ago
  > non-citizens don’t have any particular rights beyond the Geneva Convention That's just untrue. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... > Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) ("There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.");
  - xp84 6mo ago
    Show me where it says sending them to their home country is depriving them of life, liberty, or property. If I'm overseas and overstayed my visa and broke, it's a huge favor if the authorities there pay my airfare to come home -- not a human rights violation.
- righthand 6mo ago
  You have a brain dead interpretation of the law it seems. You may be interested in the US Constitution Amendments 4-14 should give you quite a few answers to your confusion on how we treat people here. Your interpretation of the laws would make you an illegal for misinterpreting the laws. Let’s deport you.
  - xp84 6mo ago
    You and others here have so much to say about these legal details, but you haven't explained where it establishes a right for people with no legal status here to just show up and move in, even commit crimes, and not be sent home. I'm not saying people should be harmed. I'm saying they should be fingerprinted (to track repeat offenders) and sent home. IMHO part of why things have gotten so toxic, stuff like ICE etc. is that one side of the debate has staked out the position that coming here illegally should be met with zero consequences whatsoever - not even being gently walked back across the border with a stern but toothless warning! And any response other than complete acceptance of this form of immigration is a crime against humanity, racist, evil, fascist. And most of the Democrats who hold those opinions live in large cities in the North with manageable amounts of such migration, not the rural border areas where the impact is most felt. So, with this going on for 30 years or so and not being taken seriously by Washington, it's in turn radicalized the other side of the debate, such that they are more likely to support measures we should all view as probably too extreme, like armed ICE agents being sent out on exploratory missions.
    - LocalH 6mo ago
      I've said for years that the correct way to do it would be to pick up an undocumented immigrant, and give them the option right then and there to begin the legal process of immigration, in return if they accept then they will not be deported. Strangely I've never seen that idea pick up ground (and it's a basic idea, there's no way I'm the only one to have ever come up with it).
suburban_strike 6mo ago
[flagged]
- righthand 6mo ago
  Lol you’re a troll account and looking at your comment history reveals how pathetic and non-serious you are. Most likely non-American. The borders are enforced quit making up lies. In United States of America we still extend due process because that allows us to punish actual criminals. Instead you want to label everyone and deport them to a safe distance but do not want to actually punish anyone with the law or determine innocence. You have no respect for any law, and just use your own ideas of how things should work. So what is the point of the laws and punishment system if we can’t use it? When you just deport someone without due process you’re letting the “illegal” off the hook without consequences. But you know this, hence your phrasing.
- kashunstva 6mo ago
  The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments due not provide for selective application depending on the specific suspected crime. If the suspected crime relates to unlawful immigration, the system is bound by the Constitution to practice due process. Few here, and few progressives overall advocate for dispensing with immigration enforcement. Most deeply reject the wanton, indiscriminate and violent manner in which the current regime has carried out its practices. But the mischaracterization of this stance is a favourite straw man of the right.
GorbachevyChase 6mo ago
So assuming you drive, when a police car gets really inappropriately close behind you for a couple minutes and then backs off, then they are probably using their eyes to look at your license plate and having someone run that or texting while driving to do that on the computer in the car. I don’t think there is a fundamental difference between this process and using a camera other than a camera doesn’t expect you to give it a pension.
- righthand 6mo ago
  The cops actions are vetted and have responsible party attached. The camera is used to bypass responsibility of bad actors entirely. Infact the camera is used to enable bad actors instead of catching bad actors. Huge difference in my opinion but okay just shrug your shoulders and claim there’s no difference.
  - BobaFloutist 6mo ago
    And, crucially, cops are expensive, so the percentage of drivers they can do this to is low. Whereas a stationary camera can scan the license plates of ~100% of cars that go past it and save that data for later fishing expeditions. And is cheap enough that we can (and have) blanketed roads with them.
buzer 6mo ago
> Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. My understanding is that entering without getting inspected is misdemeanor (or felony in some cases), but that's often not the case. Usually people just overstay and that's civil case. And because it's treated as a civil matter a lot constitutional protections do not apply (to clarify: some still do).

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

kristjansson 6mo ago

Viz: any public comment session on any proposal to add speed cameras to any American city.

xp84 6mo ago

[flagged]

john_strinlai 6mo ago
>A “misdemeanor”? I don’t really care what you define it as, the user 'righthand' didnt define it that way... its how the government defined it in 8 U.S.C. § 1325 >Also non-citizens don’t have any particular rights beyond the Geneva Convention. this is also wrong. the constitutions protections generally extend to all people in the US
MrBuddyCasino 6mo ago
[flagged]
- pavel_lishin 6mo ago
  None of this is true, see my other comment.
- john_strinlai 6mo ago
  it is far from correct... its actually, like, the opposite of correct.
- righthand 6mo ago
  No it’s not correct. Please leave.
pavel_lishin 6mo ago
> non-citizens don’t have any particular rights beyond the Geneva Convention That's just untrue. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8... > Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) ("There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.");
- xp84 6mo ago
  Show me where it says sending them to their home country is depriving them of life, liberty, or property. If I'm overseas and overstayed my visa and broke, it's a huge favor if the authorities there pay my airfare to come home -- not a human rights violation.
righthand 6mo ago
You have a brain dead interpretation of the law it seems. You may be interested in the US Constitution Amendments 4-14 should give you quite a few answers to your confusion on how we treat people here. Your interpretation of the laws would make you an illegal for misinterpreting the laws. Let’s deport you.
- xp84 6mo ago
  You and others here have so much to say about these legal details, but you haven't explained where it establishes a right for people with no legal status here to just show up and move in, even commit crimes, and not be sent home. I'm not saying people should be harmed. I'm saying they should be fingerprinted (to track repeat offenders) and sent home. IMHO part of why things have gotten so toxic, stuff like ICE etc. is that one side of the debate has staked out the position that coming here illegally should be met with zero consequences whatsoever - not even being gently walked back across the border with a stern but toothless warning! And any response other than complete acceptance of this form of immigration is a crime against humanity, racist, evil, fascist. And most of the Democrats who hold those opinions live in large cities in the North with manageable amounts of such migration, not the rural border areas where the impact is most felt. So, with this going on for 30 years or so and not being taken seriously by Washington, it's in turn radicalized the other side of the debate, such that they are more likely to support measures we should all view as probably too extreme, like armed ICE agents being sent out on exploratory missions.
  - LocalH 6mo ago
    I've said for years that the correct way to do it would be to pick up an undocumented immigrant, and give them the option right then and there to begin the legal process of immigration, in return if they accept then they will not be deported. Strangely I've never seen that idea pick up ground (and it's a basic idea, there's no way I'm the only one to have ever come up with it).

suburban_strike 6mo ago

[flagged]

righthand 6mo ago
Lol you’re a troll account and looking at your comment history reveals how pathetic and non-serious you are. Most likely non-American. The borders are enforced quit making up lies. In United States of America we still extend due process because that allows us to punish actual criminals. Instead you want to label everyone and deport them to a safe distance but do not want to actually punish anyone with the law or determine innocence. You have no respect for any law, and just use your own ideas of how things should work. So what is the point of the laws and punishment system if we can’t use it? When you just deport someone without due process you’re letting the “illegal” off the hook without consequences. But you know this, hence your phrasing.
kashunstva 6mo ago
The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments due not provide for selective application depending on the specific suspected crime. If the suspected crime relates to unlawful immigration, the system is bound by the Constitution to practice due process. Few here, and few progressives overall advocate for dispensing with immigration enforcement. Most deeply reject the wanton, indiscriminate and violent manner in which the current regime has carried out its practices. But the mischaracterization of this stance is a favourite straw man of the right.

GorbachevyChase 6mo ago

So assuming you drive, when a police car gets really inappropriately close behind you for a couple minutes and then backs off, then they are probably using their eyes to look at your license plate and having someone run that or texting while driving to do that on the computer in the car. I don’t think there is a fundamental difference between this process and using a camera other than a camera doesn’t expect you to give it a pension.

righthand 6mo ago
The cops actions are vetted and have responsible party attached. The camera is used to bypass responsibility of bad actors entirely. Infact the camera is used to enable bad actors instead of catching bad actors. Huge difference in my opinion but okay just shrug your shoulders and claim there’s no difference.
- BobaFloutist 6mo ago
  And, crucially, cops are expensive, so the percentage of drivers they can do this to is low. Whereas a stationary camera can scan the license plates of ~100% of cars that go past it and save that data for later fishing expeditions. And is cheap enough that we can (and have) blanketed roads with them.

buzer 6mo ago

> Illegal immigration is a misdemeanor not a felony. My understanding is that entering without getting inspected is misdemeanor (or felony in some cases), but that's often not the case. Usually people just overstay and that's civil case. And because it's treated as a civil matter a lot constitutional protections do not apply (to clarify: some still do).