Ooooh nice, so they’re effectively going to decide if they get to actually run concentration camps in an official capacity. Delightful.
Also, I don’t expect ICEatzgruppen to abide by the court order if it doesn’t go their way
Ooooh nice, so they’re effectively going to decide if they get to actually run concentration camps in an official capacity. Delightful.
Also, I don’t expect ICEatzgruppen to abide by the court order if it doesn’t go their way
If this shit happens then none of us (citizens included) have due process. ICE can just say they suspect you're an illegal immigrant and lock you up forever. A lot of people seem to think that if you just show them the documents or prove that you're a citizen this won't happen. All they have to do is snatch you up. You typically see this line of thought from folks defending the current administration, like they believe if you rationally present your argument to authority they'll always agree.
There are already enough cases of people showing their papers to ICE and discovering that ICE don't care and aren't held to account. But the people supporting it tend to be the "pay no attention until it happens to me" type.
Mate, with respect, they don't give a fuck about the constitution nor civilians nor citizenship and have proven so multiple times.
Mom kinda thinks like this. I told her that no one should even be asked to prove their identity like that in public. She'd be more firmly on the right if my father isn't tempering her.
My parents are reversed, with my mom tempering my dad’s conservatism. But it’s the same basic idea. My mom and I will be discussing whatever Government Atrocity of the Week^TM^ is making the news cycle, and my dad will basically go “good, I hope it sucks for {victim}. If they don’t like it, they can leave.”
Gee, and you wonder why I don’t ever want to hang out…
My retort to a lot of these people is to ask if they can prove their citizenship right now, on the spot.
They can't.
A lot of people seem to think that if you just show them the documents or prove that you're a citizen this won't happen.
Aren't there already cases where holding valid documents has had no effect?
Don't the US already hold people indefinatly in Guantanamo Bay?
Not endorsing the interpretation at all, but the idea with the people in Gitmo is that they were "combatants" from a "war" and were therefore prisoners of war and subject to a different set of laws. The whole point of putting them in Gitmo was to avoid the legal complications of the domestic American justice system.
Conversely, immigrants are, by definition, inside of the United States and therefore protected by American laws. At least that has been the case historically. The court is going to determine if that is in fact the case.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
And Republicans have already tried calling this a "war" on illegal immigration so that we can treat them as enemy combatants.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The Constitution references "under the jurisdiction of the United States" so if they do rule that these people aren't entitled to Constitutional rights, I'm curious how that doesn't also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Historically "not under the jurisdiction of the United States" meant exactly what you think it meant. It meant that they were not subject to the laws of the US and was a status commonly called "diplomatic immunity".
I agree with your conclusion that people cannot be both immune from rights and subject to law, but sadly the courts have disagreed.
Trans people are next. They are trying to bring back psychiatric detention and calling Trans people mentally ill.
I'm not sure if transgender people or "antifa" is next. I think "antifa" because that allows them to classify any dissent about anything as supporting terrorism (NSPM-7 executive order). That would be more efficient at removing dissent, then when there's no way to speak out, they'll go after transgender, socialists, eventually gay/lesbian, anyone who's not white.
aka the Nazi's list of enemies
Yes but also anyone that doesn’t like Trump will be accused of derangement syndrome. We’re all on that list
No one should get treated like this but additionally. What’s to stop them from grabbing citizens and claiming they can’t verify their identity and holding them indefinitely?
Literally nothing.
The answer has always been no. Whoever's asking the court for this is who we should be worried about.
I don’t even know why they bother pretending they have laws anymore. No one on the outside buys their bullshit and their loyal zombie hordes will bend over for any reason. It’s just a silly larp now.
The answer is an emphatic no. This shouldn't even be a question that needs asked.
It's OK! The CONSTITUTION is CLEAR that this is Illegal and the Robert's Republican Supreme Court is KNOWN to UPHOLD the Constitution and NOT whoever gives them the BEST Vacation!
I'm thinking we should start banning yahoo.com from this commag. All that site does is copy from another site and attribute it so that we can't see what the actual publisher is from the domain. (You can see at the top here that the OG source is Slate.)
Time to allow the racists to do something else unethical because you could technically interpret a 250 year old document in a way that allows for that, even though everyone that's not a bigot knows what the decent decision should be and that document could be interpreted that way as well.
how long Immigration and Customs Enforcement can keep lawful permanent residents in immigration detention without any opportunity to post a bond.
How is this even up for discussion? If they're legal permanent residents, they shouldn't be detained at all, and should have the right to sue if they are. Fucking hell, America. Get your shit together.
arnt they already, and its not even likely they are instructed to listen the supreme court anyways. so its fair game if they get the same response.
The fun part will be treating all these MAGA politicians the way they want everyone else treated.
JD Vance? Locked the fuck up without charges forever. Clarence Thomas? Locked the fuck up without charges. John Roberts, Drunken McRapey Kavanaugh? Locked the fuck up without charges.
No Habeas Corpus, no judicial review, no one to look out for their human rights, since they have no concern for anyone else's humanity.
You get the idea.
That will not happen with a Democrat in office. Still probably worth voting for them in the general for harm reduction. But don't kid yourself. The next Democratic president will appoint a Republican as attorney general and FBI head. Their cabinet will be half centrist Democrats, 1/4 progressive, and 1/4 Republican.
Putting faith in Democrats to bring justice to Republicans is literally believing in magic. It's completely divorced from history. You might as well put your faith in a literal angel coming down from heaven and personally hauling Trump kicking and screaming into Hell. Both events are equally likely.
Such Democracy!
top 50 comments