Reply to “I’m not against immigrants. I just want them to come here legally.”

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "“I’m not against immigrants. I just want them to come here legally.”"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This five-year-old and his dad are legal. They have an active asylum case.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/21/ice-arrests-five-year-old-boy-minnesota

They WILL be released, you know, because they are legal. In the meantime, Kristi Noem endangered a child who came home to an empty house, endangered a family and neighborhood by leaving a car running, traumatized a five-year-old, and is terrorizing a family who is here legally. Our grandchildren will be paying the legal fees and therapy bills through their taxes.[/quote]

Asylum seekers who enter illegally are supposed to be detained while their claim is processed. Biden refused to follow the law. He turned asylum into a free-for-all for all of the world’s economic migrants. [/quote]

So process them in accordance with international law, and if they don’t meet the standard,  send them back.

It really baffles me how much the “law and order” people are willing to set aside both law and order if it involves brown people or people standing up for the Constitution. You might want to consider if you’re the baddies after all. Take some time, because I’m sure it will be one of those “ego destroying” moments for you.[/quote] Why would we put international law (totally undefined) ahead of own immigration laws already on the books, makes no sense. If Democrats want to campaign on repealing the current immigration laws in favor of open borders, then they should do it. If they win, they can have their way. But not following current law is not an option.[/quote]

We actually have a very big law, the Constitution, with some very big amendments, like the Fourth. I’d be great if our cops could try following it. [/quote] Yeah, it’s also very vague, which is why there are so many Supreme Court cases (hundreds) that try to define it. Any illegal can a get lawyer to press their cause, might be a[b] big payday[/b] for them. But, doesn’t seem to happen does it ?[/quote]

Not necessarily, and it's very different from suing local governments. Lawfare has an article regarding the Todd Ryan memo and 4th amendment violations. It's kind of depressing (btw it's also depressing to think that the 4th amendment might not have been just about OUR rights but about protecting the government):

[quote]Some may be thinking, well, if that's the approach the DHS is adopted, surely it can be challenged in court, right?  But this is less than obvious to me.  It may be that there are ways of challenging the DHS policy under the judicial review doctrines of administrative law, like the APA. I don't know. It's not my area, so I will leave that to others.

It seems worth flagging, though, that this is another place where the Supreme Court's gradual cutting back on the scope of the Bivens remedy—the civil action against federal agents for violating the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment—may make the most obvious form of judicial review unavailable. Even if the policy is unconstitutional, as it seems to be, a person who is illegally searched probably can't sue ICE for violating their constitutional rights.

This will seem weird to a lot of people.  And it is pretty weird, I think. Back when the Fourth Amendment was enacted, the most fundamental remedy for an unlawful government entry into your home was a civil suit for trespass against the officers.   The Fourth Amendment was about whether there was an affirmative defense to liability for trespass, all against the backdrop of preexisting tort liability under trespass and other torts. These days, though, you need a cause of action.  And the Supreme Court has basically said that courts shouldn't provide that cause of action—even though, historically, courts provided the trespass tort.  It's all kind of a complicated mess, and I'll spare you the details, but the basic idea is that the federal government generally can't be sued for damages for violating the Fourth Amendment.[/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics