>>220090>like at least 10% of all legal and natural born people of Hispanic decent are effected by this right?
I don't think it should be a question of what percentage of Hispanic people are affected by it. Or even
a question of what percentage of ICE detainers are erroneous. In either case, 100% of ICE detainers are issued without regard for due process, are unconstitutional, and should therefore be done away with, and ICE should issue proper warrants instead. But they don't, because they don't want to bother proving probable cause in court, because those pesky brown people will get away while they're doing that!
>Anti illegal immigration.
I didn't know the "Muslim travel ban" was targeting illegal immigrants by revoking lawfully granted visas and detaining law abiding travelers. (I guess that's not explicitly about immigration, but it's rooted in the same thing -- nativism and fear of foreigners.) Nor that the RAISE Act, which is the law I was referring to that would cut legal immigration in half, is anti-illegal immigration (and, in fact, wouldn't likely worsen
illegal immigration, since getting in legally would be even more of a pain in the ass than it already is).
>I feel like your stats are pretty misrepresented too tbh
Which ones? The ones relating to crime rates? Or the number of erroneous ICE detainers? Because as I said, to me, the number is unimportant. What's important is that in and of themselves
, they are unconstitutional.
>Also, if they want to cut immigration in half, its the right of a sovereign nation to do so, ask Nordic countries who are have a notoriously rigorous immigration policy, and every right to do so.
I never said it wasn't. I might not agree with it, but they do have a right to do so. What they don't have a right to do is claim they're not anti-immigration, only anti illegal immigration, while also trying to cut legal immigration. That's just dishonest.
>If thats they case, why is overloading the system illegally being fought for so hard?
I don't think anybody is seriously saying that we shouldn't have any kind of immigration law enforcement at all. People just take umbrage with the way it's executed and the level of severity with which it's treated. And in general, most economists agree that immigration has a positive impact on economic growth.
>I do use noscript, but i had to allow the aclu site to display any content haha.
Ah, makes sense. I use them both personally.
>ICE is fucking good at what they do and doing it right, apparently. >You know im not arguing against you right? That im simply arguing that your data is being presented in an alarmist manor?
Why can't they just demonstrate probable cause and get warrants like the Constitution says they're supposed to? ICE shouldn't get a free pass to operate above the Constitution and bypass due process, even if it makes them do their job more effectively. That's what I take issue with, and the reason for my alarmist tone. NSA surveillance makes us "safer", but I take issue with that too. These are fundamental rights being violated, and those rights are being violated even if the person is here illegally
>While defendants in criminal proceedings have a Sixth Amendment right to a government-appointed attorney if they are poor, that right doesn’t extend to immigration court, where the violations are considered civil and not criminal, said Cornell law professor Stephen W. Yale-Loehr.>"Yes, immigrants do have constitutional rights, but those rights are not equal to U.S. citizens," he said. "They have due process rights, but when it comes to immigration court proceedings, those rights are often watered down by courts."
Fucking ouch, man. Maybe they'd actually be better off if being here illegally was considered a crime, then they'd at least have attornies!
>The caveat being, that only applies to when the person is here legally because illegal immigrants are not citizens, and by law, have no constitutional protection.
...oh. Well uh, actually, you're incorrect about that. See previous link, and see:>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/politics/due-process-undocumented-immigrants.html
and see the Fourteenth Amendment:>No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Case law is very, very consistent on this. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the rights pertaining to the judicial system apply to everyone -- even if they're not supposed to be here. They've done so as early as 1886...https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/#369
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:
"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that
"all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
...and as recently as 2001.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-7791.ZS.html
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206–in which an alien was indefinitely detained as he attempted to reenter the country–does not support the Government’s argument that alien status itself can justify indefinite detention. Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Nor do cases holding that, because Congress has plenary power to create immigration law, the Judicial Branch must defer to Executive and Legislative Branch decisionmaking in that area help the Government, because that power is subject to constitutional limits. Finally, the aliens’ liberty interest is not diminished by their lack of a legal right to live at large, for the choice at issue here is between imprisonment and supervision under release conditions that may not be violated and their liberty interest is strong enough to raise a serious constitutional problem with indefinite detention.
As an aside, it's worth noting that the concept
of restricting immigration didn't even exist in the United States until the emergence of the Nativist/Know Nothing party in the mid-1800's (which, at the time, was mostly because they hated the Irish Catholics), and didn't become federal law until the Page Act of 1875, better known as the Asian Exclusion Act, followed by the explicitly named Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
Immigration laws over the next century were largely overtly racist and discriminatory in nature. In the early 20th century, millions of Russian Jews fled to the US to escape pogroms, along with an influx of Italians. The US responded by passing the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, restricting immigration from Southern Europe, which ultimately resulted in most Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust being denied entry to the United States...whoops. Some of that was "fixed" by the Displaced Persons Act, 3 years after the war was over.
It wasn't until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that overtly racist immigration policies were done away with, in favor of placing the preference on employment prospects and family relations. Which has had a number of successful and failed reforms over the years since then, but I'd say our immigration policy has a pretty long way to go before it's anything resembling "functional".
And hey, 'member Operation Wetback? Are there any, uh, parallels between that and what ICE is doing?
...what the fuck, Trump praised Operation Wetback early in his campaign?
I actually didn't even know that, but that's super fucked.
>I also argue that just because a small fraction of background checks for firearms come back with a fasle positive, that the system itself shouldn't be abandoned because its such a small fraction of an amount that it would be insane to dwell over it.
Do you think being refused a firearm sale is as severe a threat as being deported, or as severe an infringement on rights as unlawful deprivation of liberty?
Actually, there are many worse things about the background check system than simply denial of a firearm sale (like the illegal retention of names of gun owners), but even the delay
of a firearm sale has resulted in at least one death. There is, I think, a case to be made that dangerous people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, just as even the First Amendment has exceptions on speech that incites "imminent lawless action" or revealing classified information (the latter of which I think is oftentimes far too heavy-handed -- it should only apply to information that may get people killed). But it has to be done responsibly
and with great
care to preserve the spirit of the Second Amendment -- because while the Second Amendment surely was not written to guarantee that bank robbers can have a gun, it was definitely written to guarantee Carol Bowne could defend herself against her ex-boyfriend.
And the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were surely written to guarantee that bank robbers, murderers, rapists, and yes, even illegal immigrants, can have a fair trial, not be forced to self-incriminate, and not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.
>I dont understand the chemical profile part i guess.
You don't catch even a hint of secret-police-esque odor in the idea of (again, unconstitutionally) detaining people without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, and threatening funding cuts on jurisdictions that don't comply with requests to do so? The last bit is the most
evil part imo. Not only do they refuse to acknowledge, despite being told time and time again, that it's unconstitutional, they try to force
the rest of the country to comply with their unconstitutional practices.
This post was edited by a moderator on .