Post New

The Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process. The Government seems to be focused on deporting the maximum number of people. Mistakes are being made, and due process ignored. Madness.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
"In the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process, IT IS ORDERED that the matter be set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 16, 2025, at the Monroe Federal Courthouse, 201 Jackson St, Monroe, LA, 71201."
Terry A. Doughty
United States District Judge
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

Now there are two:
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/ice-deports-3-...

Today [April 25], in the early hours of the morning, the New Orleans Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Field Office deported at least two families, including two mothers and their minor children – three of whom are U.S. citizen children aged 2, 4, and 7. One of the mothers is currently pregnant. The families, who had lived in the United States for years and had deep ties to their communities, were deported from the U.S. under deeply troubling circumstances that raise serious due process concerns.

ICE detained the first family on Tuesday, April 22, and the second family on Thursday, April 24. In both cases, ICE held the families incommunicado, refusing or failing to respond to multiple attempts by attorneys and family members to contact them. In one instance, a mother was granted less than one minute on the phone before the call was abruptly terminated when her spouse tried to provide legal counsel’s phone number.

The only problem I have with the order from Judge Doughty is that the court date is almost 3 weeks away. It should have been next week - bumping some other cases if needed. This is vital stuff to handle quickly.

Another thing that bothers me is that we're not hearing of ICE officers refusing to follow orders to violate these peoples' rights, even to the point of resigning if necessary.

Come 2029 (or sooner if possible), we need a serious re-think of the hiring practices at ICE. The job is not to humiliate people and inflict pain and anguish. It is to humanely but firmly enforce the law.

--Peter

I am not MAGA by any means, but I have to offer a counterpoint to all you leftists. Is ICE deporting US citizen children who are underage, with their illegal immigrant mothers, an actual violation of the law? If not, then all your handwringing does not matter one whit.

I am not MAGA by any means, but I have to offer a counterpoint to all you leftists. Is ICE deporting US citizen children who are underage, with their illegal immigrant mothers, an actual violation of the law? If not, then all your handwringing does not matter one whit.

I am not an attorney nor am I a Constitutional scholar (nor do I play one on TV), but the 5th and 14th Amendments specifically mention that any “person” is entitled to due process.

Maybe albaby will chime in.

I follow The Auschwitz Memorial on BlueSky and Xitter. The Memorial posts pictures daily of people who were born on this day. The number of children with their mothers who were sent to be murdered in the gas chambers immediately on arrival is staggering.

This link has a description of the criteria and history of how it changed.
https://www.mp.pl/auschwitz/journal/english/205964...

History seems to be rhyming. I feel we are on a very slippery slope.

I don't want this story to get buried. And we have an update.

This is a 4 1/2 minute interview with the attorney representing the 2 year old child who is a citizen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTwvOjs46So

A couple quick things I picked up. The mother was asked to write a letter saying the child would go with her. The mother was not given the opportunity to talk to the child's father to jointly make a decision about the child - whether to stay with the mother or the father. The mother is currently pregnant with some complications to her pregnancy. So her health is at risk here. ICE retained the child's passport, so the child does not have access to it to return to the US.

I guess this is all consistent with the basic premise of the Trump presidency and much of his MAGA supporters. Cruelty IS the whole point.

--Peter

I guess this is all consistent with the basic premise of the Trump presidency and much of his MAGA supporters. Cruelty IS the whole point.


No it isn't.

This is yet another red herring by the usual suspects in the democrat party, the media, and this board.

Here.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/191684051922266957...

"What we did is remove children with their mothers who requested it - that's a parental decision. Parenting 101. I'll tell you what - if we DIDN'T do it, the story today would be, 'Trump administration's separating families again!'"

"No. We're keeping families together. When a parent says, I want my 2YO to go with me, we made that happen. They weren't deported, the parents made the decision."

What we did is remove children with their mothers who requested it - that's a parental decision.

No, Dope. That is a lie. They did NOT give her a choice. Her attorney claims that ICE did not allow her to communicate with the child's father and make a joint parental decision about where the child should be. They actively stopped that conversation when it began to happen. The attorney also claims that ICE asked her to write the letter under the threat of separating the mother from the child with no indication of what would happen to the child - no guarantee that the child would be delivered to the father. Further, they actively kept the mother from getting legal counsel - which loops back to the due process issues the Trump administration has been blatantly violating.

I'll tell you what - if we DIDN'T do it, the story today would be, 'Trump administration's separating families again!

More lies. They DID separate families. They separated the child from her father and did not allow the father to choose to retain custody of the child in the US.

I don't know why you continue to defend the indefensible. This is why you continually get accused of being in a cult. You can't acknowledge information that is contrary to your preferred ideas.

I stand by my statement. Cruelty is the point. I can think of nothing more cruel than making a mother choose to be separated from her child with no idea what is going to happen to the child.

--Peter

Let's just go straight to an actual lawyer discussing actual facts and actual issues.

27 minutes from Legal Eagle. (Who will undoubtedly be dismissed as some kind of liberal hack by those who want to remain willfully blind.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS-for7pUxU

--Peter

To those who said and say, "It can't happen here." You were wrong.

The crimes against humanity are happening here again under our watch.

No, Dope. That is a lie.

Yeah, you were there and you know more than they do :rolleyes

Her attorney claims that ICE did not allow her to communicate with the child's father and make a joint parental decision about where the child should be.

Did the dad show up at the hearing? I read that he didn't. So who's lying now?

More lies.

No, Homan was 100% right.

I don't know why you continue to defend the indefensible.

I don't know why you can't think for yourself, understand issues and generally have zero skills at debating. You also seem to lack a grasp of current events. Yet here you are proudly advertising those facts while venting your spleen all over an internet message board. Hey, you do you homie.

This isn't very difficult to understand: Crossing the border illegally is a crime. People who do that are subject to deportation. Sometimes these people have kids who ARE US citizens...and in many instances when the parent is detained for the crime they committed, something must be done.

Your solution - based on the ignorant spleen venting in this and in other threads - is to have the country throw up its hands and say "Oh, well!" and everybody stays. Why? Cause emotional reasons words words words cruelty Orange Man Bad cult. Or something. You've not thought this through because thinking things through isn't on your radar.

If you want the moms and the kids to stay, then flat out *say so* and propose changes to the law. Otherwise...you're just venting your spleen on an internet message board.

This isn't very difficult to understand: Crossing the border illegally is a crime. People who do that are subject to deportation. Sometimes these people have kids who ARE US citizens...and in many instances when the parent is detained for the crime they committed, something must be done.

Leaving aside that not all people who are undocumented crossed the border illegally, the due process problem stems from the government trying to speedrun these deportations.

The Administration appears to have figured out that if they can get these folks sped away and out of the country fast enough, they can prevent them from availing themselves of their due process rights. Normally, this woman might be able to get herself in front of a judge to contest her deportation. Trump is very frustrated about having to go in front of judges. It takes time, it takes manpower - and so doing that constrains how fast he can deport people.

The due process problem here is when you take the parents of a young child, deliberately separate them from each other and give them only a few minutes to make an insanely important decision about what they are going to do with their child. For no good reason. Even if you stipulate that this woman has to leave, and has to do it very soon, there's no earthly reason why "very soon" has to be "in a few couple of hours after we detain her." You end up causing very avoidable harms to an innocent U.S. citizen. And the only reason to do it that fast is to make it impossible for the woman to exercise any of the due process rights that she is entitled to - to consult with counsel and request a hearing to contest her deportation.

What's most egregious is that this woman was not a criminal, apart from her illegal status in the country. Which means she posed zero threat to anyone. Again, there is no earthly reason why this had to happen so fast as to inflict horrible trauma on everyone, rather than an orderly process that allowed her and her husband to make arrangements that were best for their kid.

Leaving aside that not all people who are undocumented crossed the border illegally, the due process problem stems from the government trying to speedrun these deportations.

They're prioritizing criminal illegal aliens. In other words, people who have committed crimes *on top of* being an illegal alien in the first place.

They have no right to be here. Ergo, they're being picked up and deported.

What's most egregious is that this woman was not a criminal, apart from her illegal status in the country.

Uh, huh. Did the mom have an existing deportation order?

They're prioritizing criminal illegal aliens. In other words, people who have committed crimes *on top of* being an illegal alien in the first place.

No, they're not. This woman hadn't committed any crimes apart from her immigration status.

Did the mom have an existing deportation order?

Yes. For missing one of her immigration hearings. Which is not a crime.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration...

No, they're not. This woman hadn't committed any crimes apart from her immigration status.

Yes they are. People like this pop up when in the course of chasing down Bad Guys they happen to appear on the feds' radar.

Like this case:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/othello-wa-womans-arres...

The mom, who runs a taco truck in SE Washington, ended up on ICE's radar as a part of another investigation. Once you end up on the feds' radar and you're here illegally...the law says what the law says.


Yes. For missing one of her immigration hearings. Which is not a crime.

So she missed her deportation hearing. There you go.

This isn't very difficult to understand: Crossing the border illegally is a crime. People who do that are subject to deportation. Sometimes these people have kids who ARE US citizens...and in many instances when the parent is detained for the crime they committed, something must be done.

Being a Jew was a crime.

https://bsky.app/profile/auschwitzmemorial.bsky.so...

Something had to be done.

The mom, who runs a taco truck in SE Washington, ended up on ICE's radar as a part of another investigation. Once you end up on the feds' radar and you're here illegally...the law says what the law says.

That's not what happened here. She didn't "end up" on ICE's radar. They're doing big sweeps of people whose addresses they have and who show up to their ICE hearings, because those are the easy fish to catch. Rather than going after the people that are actually dangerous, because those people are harder (and take more resources) to catch.

So she missed her deportation hearing. There you go.

There I go, what? That doesn't make her a criminal.

That's not what happened here. She didn't "end up" on ICE's radar. They're doing big sweeps of people whose addresses they have and who show up to their ICE hearings, because those are the easy fish to catch. Rather than going after the people that are actually dangerous, because those people are harder (and take more resources) to catch.

So they're not going after criminals, just the easy fish? Then why are we having a national debate about all the gang member being sent to El Salvador?

There I go, what?

In the fine print, what does it say happens if you miss your deportation hearing?

The problem is that immigrants are more law abiding than US citizens on average with lower rates of crime as evidenced by numerous studies over the years. Trump and Fox managed to create a winning campaign issue by demonizing immigrants, but it was just another variant of the Big Lie.

So now more and more innocent people are being brutalized because the ‘worst of the worst’ do not exist in enough numbers to keep their deportation numbers up.

So they're not going after criminals, just the easy fish? Then why are we having a national debate about all the gang member being sent to El Salvador?

They're going after both - but that's the point. Resources spent rounding up abuelitas and housewives when they dutifully check in at the ICE building are resources that aren't spent building cases against and rounding up the folks that the Administration assured us would actually be the targets of the increased enforcement: genuine bad guys. So rather than having those agents (and lawyers and judges) spending their time on genuine bad guys, they're going after ordinary people who pose no threat. Because they need to get their numbers up.

In the fine print, what does it say happens if you miss your deportation hearing?

You can get deported. I think you're confusing "process" and "outcomes." This isn't a discussion about whether it would ultimately be the result that this woman could be deported - it's about how she was rushed out of the country without being given an opportunity to make a case to a judge that she should be given some amount of time to make arrangements for her infant child.

You can get deported.

And there you go.

And there you go.

There I go where? I think you're missing the point of the criticism being levied against the Administration - which is how they're deporting people that are subject to deportation, not questioning whether they're subject to deportation.

There I go where? I think you're missing the point of the criticism being levied against the Administration - which is how they're deporting people that are subject to deportation, not questioning whether they're subject to deportation.

I'm not missing any point. You just admitted that she missed her deportation hearing and that the consequence for that is...deportation.

So what you really want here is a change in laws such that we automatically offer a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants. I don't support such a law and I suspect that most Americans don't either so you'll have to make a strong case for that.

So what you really want here is a change in laws such that we automatically offer a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Exactly not.

This is the rhetorical shift that the Administration needs, and exactly the problem with denying due process to people. Because we reach different conclusions when talking about an entire group of people than we do when considering a specific individual case. Again, to borrow from Les Miserable, people can agree both that the law is important and should be followed and that what Javert was doing was not appropriate and wasn't justice.

How you choose to deport people matters. Allowing them to exercise the rights that they are entitled to, to go in front of a judge and argue that there are humanitarian or other reasons specific to them why they should be given some consideration or accommodation. In the specific case we're talking about, it is absolutely unconscionable that at no point in the process was any consideration given to the specific fact that this woman had an infant. Even if she had been convicted of an actual crime in the U.S. criminal justice system, her lawyers would have been given the opportunity to go in front of a judge and argue for accommodations in her sentencing to take into account the needs of her child (certainly delaying the commencement of her sentence for a brief period to make arrangements).

Of course, it also matters on the substance as well. Most Americans don't want bad guys coming here illegally, and are happy to throw out the bad guys. But while they are comfortable throwing out people who are malicious or violent, they are more reluctant when it comes to cases of people who have proven after they arrived that they are actually upright and virtuous people. They want control over the border so that we don't inadvertently end up with malicious or violent people coming in, but once we know that someone is upright and virtuous after spending many years here, they reach a very different balance of the equities when they see what happens to them in the system. Which is why Trump is losing support in polls on immigration, even though he's been enormously successful in driving down border crossings - because people are uncomfortable once you start deporting the harmless abuela or the hardworking busboy at the local cafe.

That's why Stephen Miller will always pivot back to talking about millions of people - and why you shift away from talking about any specific case, and whether what's happened to this specific woman and her child is appropriate or fair. There's absolutely no reason why she shouldn't have been given some amount of time to sit down with her husband and figure out what was best for the child, whether to have to live under Cuban dictatorship or be separated forever from her mother. Forcing them to make that choice is already pretty damaging, but making them do it in the space of a few minutes when there was absolutely no reason for that is just unconscionable.

Exactly not.

Oh?

This is the rhetorical shift that the Administration needs, and exactly the problem with denying due process to people.

Sorry, you keep saying this, but you're not showing that this is happening. The people being deported are a) illegal b) have committed crimes c) been in front of judges already and d) have existing deportation orders and/or missed hearings (which triggers a deportation order).

In other words...they're getting due process.

This entire exercise is a running Cloward-Piven strategy designed to overwhelm the existing immigration system until the democrats can throw up their hands and say 'give us amnesty, this just can't work anymore' all the while pointing the wreckage and misery they deliberately caused.

Sorry, you keep saying this, but you're not showing that this is happening. The people being deported are a) illegal b) have committed crimes c) been in front of judges already and d) have existing deportation orders and/or missed hearings (which triggers a deportation order).

This woman didn't commit any crimes that would make her at all a danger to the community. She's not someone to whom finite immigration resources should have been allocated. She wasn't "swept up" in an action against people who are a danger - she was detained at her normally scheduled check in meeting with ICE, which she dutifully attended.

Due process includes having a reasonable amount of time to ask a judge for relief about the specific thing that's happening to her. Which is being suddenly removed from the country without a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements for the infant child that is a U.S. citizen. The government deliberately tried to get her out of the country as fast as possible so that she couldn't have access to a lawyer or her spouse. You can still treat people unfairly even if there's already a deportation order. We treat people better than that when they've actually been convicted of a crime, giving them accommodations in their sentencing to make sure that innocent children aren't unnecessarily harmed. Some harm is often unavoidable, but part of due process is also having access to a judge to minimize the harm to dependent children from specific choices that are being made by the government.

No one's implementing a "Cloward-Piven" strategy. This is the existing situation. There is not now, and have never been, enough judges and lawyers and agents in the immigration system to deport more than a few hundred thousand people from the interior of the country in any given year. But Trump wants to deport more than that. So the problem isn't anyone trying to overwhelm the system (other than Trump). The problem is that the Administration is trying to do something that the government isn't staffed to do. Trump didn't want the bill that would have increased the staffing to pass last year, he didn't want to have a quick bill to pass the staffing earlier in his term, and he doesn't want to wait until well into the summer to get the staffing this year. So he's settled on walking back all the representations that the massive deportations would be focused on getting the bad people out, and instead is also including getting as many harmless people out as he can - while trying to deny them even the most basic hearings to examine either the fact of their deportations or the ways those deportations are being carried out.

This woman didn't commit any crimes that would make her at all a danger to the community

That's not the law. She came here illegally and is subject to removal for that reason.

You're arguing for amnesty without actually stating so. If that's what you want, then you need to change the law.

No one's implementing a "Cloward-Piven" strategy.

I'd argue that the previous admin very much did - let in a veritable flood of people that we couldn't possibly deal with. An exasperated public would eventually demand that CONGRESS MUST ACT and pass some kind of legislation favorable to the pro-amnesty democrats.

Trump's election changed all that. For one, the appetite for mass amnesty has never been there in the voting public. For two, all it took was the willpower to enforce existing laws to see border crossings drop by over 95%. In 4 weeks. That's remarkable. We also have a President willing to touch the Third Rail of the Immigration Debate in that he's willing to make the hard choices: it's a shame that the food truck owner in SE Washington is likely to be deported. It's a shame the young mother is.

But they made a choice and they broke the law.
If you want the law changed, then you have to propose new legislation.

That's not the law. She came here illegally and is subject to removal for that reason.

You're arguing for amnesty without actually stating so. If that's what you want, then you need to change the law.

No - I'm arguing for the government to do what it always does, in every law enforcement circumstance: allocate their finite resources to prioritize actions that will do the most good with the least harm, and provide those who are being subject to law enforcement with the opportunity to argue the specifics of their own cases.

That last bit is the key. You're trying to argue that if someone argues that any specific individual case should be treated a certain way, it means every individual has to be treated that way. But that's not true. We don't have to do that, and we don't do that. It's why we don't have mass trials where we convict (or deport) thousands and thousands of people collectively. People get the change to have the specifics of their own situation reviewed.

We do this easily and routinely in the criminal justice system. For example, in typical cases, when someone is found guilty of a crime and sentenced, they go through a standard process of when they have to begin their sentence. But they get a chance to tell the judge it there are special circumstances - and especially in cases where the interests of minor children will be affected. And the judges will take into account the fact that there are minor children involved, and use that to modify their sentences.

There's absolutely no reason why this woman couldn't and shouldn't have been afforded some time to confer with her husband and a lawyer about what was best for their daughter, rather than being given barely a few minutes and thereafter being cut off from all communication. It was unnecessary, cruel, and contrary to a bare minimum of due process.

Again, there's a reason why Trump's approval rating on immigration is dropping, even though he has been inarguably successful at cutting down border crossings. It's because of the way they're handling the immigration of people internal to the country. They're not making "hard choices" - they're taking the easy way out. They're taking the easiest way to get to the high deportation numbers they promised, and that means not making any material effort to narrow their focus on just the horrid people. Instead, they're sweeping up as many of the upright and harmless folks as they can, because that's where the easy pickings are. And people are upset when they see the treatment of people who aren't the baddies that they imagined when they thought of who Trump wanted to get rid of. "Surely not that nice Sra. Lopez who runs the food truck! Or the mom of my daughter's classmate! Those aren't bad people!"

I'm arguing for the government to do what it always does, in every law enforcement circumstance: allocate their finite resources to prioritize actions that will do the most good with the least harm, and provide those who are being subject to law enforcement with the opportunity to argue the specifics of their own cases.

Are there no deportation hearings? Are there no criminal trials and bench warrants for illegals caught committing additional crimes?
Yes to both.

You're trying to argue that if someone argues that any specific individual case should be treated a certain way, it means every individual has to be treated that way. But that's not true. We don't have to do that, and we don't do that. It's why we don't have mass trials where we convict (or deport) thousands and thousands of people collectively. People get the change to have the specifics of their own situation reviewed.

This is contradictory. We don't do mass trials but we also don't have Perry Mason signed up to defend every single person we deport. So which is it? Who gets Perry Mason and who gets a Starbucks gift card to spend at the bus terminal? This was Miller's point: What percentage of the 10,000,000 or so are going to get more than what they're already getting?

There's absolutely no reason why this woman couldn't and shouldn't have been afforded some time to confer with her husband and a lawyer about what was best for their daughter, rather than being given barely a few minutes and thereafter being cut off from all communication. It was unnecessary, cruel, and contrary to a bare minimum of due process.

The husband didn't show up. That's on him. And why didn't they discuss this beforehand? Why is there no accountability for them in all this? They're in the situation because of the choices they made however many years ago; why was this scenario never brought up?

It's because of the way they're handling the immigration of people internal to the country.

No, it's because of the RELENTLESS campaign of the democrats/media (there's no difference) to try to find "personal stories" and conflate them with the entire effort. There's such zeal for it that the dems made absolutely fools of themselves by elevating the "Maryland father" to a martyr before they figured out he was a tattooed MS-13 wife-beating suspected human trafficker. I will give them this: given the scope of the problem they're bound to find at least 1 example of the government making a mistake and then argue to ground all of it to a halt.

This is contradictory. We don't do mass trials but we also don't have Perry Mason signed up to defend every single person we deport. So which is it? Who gets Perry Mason and who gets a Starbucks gift card to spend at the bus terminal? This was Miller's point: What percentage of the 10,000,000 or so are going to get more than what they're already getting?

That's a false binary. In criminal courts, we don't give everyone Perry Mason. We do give every single person a trial and a lawyer. It's a simple matter to give every person we're going to try to deport who isn't dangerous the bare minimum of time necessary to see whether they have a request for a judge that can be granted. To consult with their attorney and their family members. Instead of getting into a race to get them out of the country as fast as possible, to intentionally deny them the ability to file even a single request with a judge on their case.

The husband didn't show up. That's on him. And why didn't they discuss this beforehand? Why is there no accountability for them in all this? They're in the situation because of the choices they made however many years ago; why was this scenario never brought up?

Probably because they had been given an ICE determination that allowed her to remain in the country as long as she conducted her regular check ins with ICE, and they probably believed the Administration when they claimed they would be prioritizing the deportation of "bad guys." They probably didn't believe that any U.S. government Administration would do stuff like this.

No, it's because of the RELENTLESS campaign of the democrats/media (there's no difference) to try to find "personal stories" and conflate them with the entire effort.

But the "personal stories" matter. The reason we give everyone a fair trial, even though the vast majority of the people who are being tried are guilty, is because it's very important that we have as few "personal stories" of people being wrongfully imprisoned as possible. The reason why everyone gets to have a hearing before a judge before being deported, even though most people who are getting that hearing are going to be deported, is because it's important that we have as few "personal stories" of U.S. citizens being slated for deportation.

The reason the Administration is losing popularity on this issue is because they're framing it as a "hard choice" - we have to choose between real immigration enforcement or avoiding the personal stories. But that's not true. You can have both. You can have a stricter immigration system and avoid circumstances where you're doing this sort of horrible thing to an ordinary housewife and mother. And most Americans know that - they know that it wasn't necessary to do this to this woman this way.

It's a simple matter to give every person we're going to try to deport who isn't dangerous the bare minimum of time necessary to see whether they have a request for a judge that can be granted.

What's "The bare minimum of time" for a question you already know the answer for?

Probably because they had been given an ICE determination that allowed her to remain in the country as long as she conducted her regular check ins with ICE, and they probably believed the Administration when they claimed they would be prioritizing the deportation of "bad guys." They probably didn't believe that any U.S. government Administration would do stuff like this.

Like, enforce the law?
You're more or less arguing for selective law enforcement, and that's not going to fly. When someone gets on the radar, the law says what the law says. Go change it if you don't like it.

But the "personal stories" matter.

Right. It's totally cool if I rob a bank and steal millions of dollars. It's a victimless crime, amirite? Nobody likes the big banks. I take the money and I set up a bunch of cool charities with it. Real Robin Hood-type stuff.

I live clean for years, doling out the money to do good all over the place? What's not to like? Other than the initial law I broke and the initial crime I've committed, I've been a regular pillar of the community.

What's "The bare minimum of time" for a question you already know the answer for?

You don't always know the answer for it.

For example, in this case, the question is not, "Can the government deport me?" The question is, "Can I be given a period of time in which to make arrangements so that my daughter is not irrevocably harmed by the deportation?" The answer to that question may be "no," but it is a very reasonable question to ask.

Like, enforce the law?

You're more or less arguing for selective law enforcement, and that's not going to fly. When someone gets on the radar, the law says what the law says. Go change it if you don't like it.

We have selective law enforcement. You can't avoid it. Police departments don't have enough resources to arrest every single person who commits any crime. The IRS doesn't audit every tax return. Not just because it's not possible, but because we don't want there to be a policeman watching every single thing we do, or a million IRS agents double-checking every line on every tax return. Nor do we throw the book at every person who breaks the law and ends up in the system - there's lots of opportunities for prosecutors and judges to look at a defendant and decide that they're a "Valjean" - someone who has broken the law but is generally an upright and virtuous person such that society will be worse if they throw the book at them.

Right. It's totally cool if I rob a bank and steal millions of dollars. It's a victimless crime, amirite? Nobody likes the big banks. I take the money and I set up a bunch of cool charities with it. Real Robin Hood-type stuff.

No. But if you get caught taking a few deductions you shouldn't have, there's virtually no chance you're going to get sentenced to five years in federal prison if you are otherwise an upright and virtuous person. Because not every instance of lawbreaking is the same, and no two lawbreakers are the same.

Again, that's the rhetorical device one needs to engage in to defend things like this. Instead of defending the actual case, and saying that the government was right to do this specific thing to this woman and her daughter, you have to abstract it to the highest level of generality. But you can't make the argument that the government can't simultaneously treat this woman differently and still have rules against robbing banks and stealing millions of dollars, on the grounds that they both involve the law. The law isn't that inflexible or one-dimensional. You can have a system of laws that recognizes that what happened to this woman was wrong and that someone willfully stealing millions of dollars from a bank deserves to go to prison.

For example, in this case, the question is not, "Can the government deport me?" The question is, "Can I be given a period of time in which to make arrangements so that my daughter is not irrevocably harmed by the deportation?" The answer to that question may be "no," but it is a very reasonable question to ask.

How do you know this wasn't answered?

Police departments don't have enough resources to arrest every single person who commits any crime.

Of course. But that doesn't mean they're allowed to watch someone actively breaking the law and just ignore it. They're not given that power formally.

But if you get caught taking a few deductions you shouldn't have, there's virtually no chance you're going to get sentenced to five years in federal prison if you are otherwise an upright and virtuous person. Because not every instance of lawbreaking is the same, and no two lawbreakers are the same.

I still robbed a bank even though I did good later. Does the good - that resulted from the crime - outweigh the crime? Should I pay no price?

Linking this to this one particular immigrant: there's only 1 penalty for being here illegal and that's deportation. Are you suggesting another punishment or are we giving her amnesty?

But you can't make the argument that the government can't simultaneously treat this woman differently and still have rules against robbing banks and stealing millions of dollars, on the grounds that they both involve the law.

That's *your* argument, not mine. I'm not the one saying, "Don't deport this woman, she's lived a clean life", you are. Again, there's really only 1 penalty for illegal entry and that's to be sent out across the border. In that sense it's different from our bank robbing scenario because the judge has discretion in what to sentence me more - I could pay restitution, I could do community service, I could serve 1 year or I could serve 20 at hard labor. All the extenuating circumstances you're arguing are in the play there because there is a Pain Knob on the potential punishment. Shoot, the government could even charge me some other kind of crime.

But in deportation cases you're either here illegally and subject to deportation or you've been granted some kind of reprieve. There's no public service or parole or some other kind of option available.

THAT's why I'm pressing you on amnesty.

How do you know this wasn't answered?

Because her daughter is less than a year old. When the mother had her last hearing, she hadn't yet been born.

That's *your* argument, not mine. I'm not the one saying, "Don't deport this woman, she's lived a clean life", you are.

There's two arguments here.

The first is the due process argument, which deals not with final outcomes but with process. That argument isn't about addressing whether this woman will ultimately be deported, but whether she is given fair treatment in getting to that point. It is in no way a fair process for her or her daughter for her to be denied more than a bare moment to confer with her husband or an attorney about what to do with her daughter. There's no reason at all that this needed to happen so quickly.

The second is enforcement priorities, and you're exactly right in identifying this as a key factor:

Again, there's really only 1 penalty for illegal entry and that's to be sent out across the border. In that sense it's different from our bank robbing scenario because the judge has discretion in what to sentence me more - I could pay restitution, I could do community service, I could serve 1 year or I could serve 20 at hard labor. All the extenuating circumstances you're arguing are in the play there because there is a Pain Knob on the potential punishment. Shoot, the government could even charge me some other kind of crime.

But in deportation cases you're either here illegally and subject to deportation or you've been granted some kind of reprieve. There's no public service or parole or some other kind of option available.

When there's only one penalty, and it's a really extreme penalty, the need for mercy and leniency and "making the punishment fit the crime" doesn't go away. It just gets folded into the binary decision of whether to impose that penalty or not. And that does happen, and it's part of law enforcement too.

One obvious example of that in criminal law enforcement is sexual encounters between teenagers in the 20 or so states that don't have "Romeo and Juliet" laws. In those states, if two teenagers have consensual sexual relations, they are both committing statutory rape. Under the law both should be prosecuted, go to jail, and register as sex offenders. But that never happens (or happens so rarely as to be all but unknown). We know that those states are filled with pretty much just as many teenagers having sexual encounters as any other state, but you never see a prosecutor put two seventeen-year-olds in prison for years for consensually messing around. They don't prosecute or enforce against the cases where it's still technically illegal but the people aren't bad people for doing it, and they do prosecute heavily where the act is no less illegal but far more contemptible.

It also gets folded into the concept of humanitarian parole, which is part of immigration law as well. Because the binary "banish or remain" penalty is so harsh, you can be granted a temporary reprieve from deportation if deporting you right then would result in terrible consequences with no public benefit.

So at a minimum, this woman should have had the opportunity to seek a humanitarian parole of limited time - perhaps only weeks - to allow her to make the appropriate arrangements to minimize the damage to her daughter (and perhaps prevent an American citizen from having to grow up under a dictator).

The first is the due process argument, which deals not with final outcomes but with process. That argument isn't about addressing whether this woman will ultimately be deported, but whether she is given fair treatment in getting to that point. It is in no way a fair process for her or her daughter for her to be denied more than a bare moment to confer with her husband or an attorney about what to do with her daughter. There's no reason at all that this needed to happen so quickly.

So what were they talking about the entire 9 months she was pregnant? They had no contingency planning?

So at a minimum, this woman should have had the opportunity to seek a humanitarian parole of limited time - perhaps only weeks - to allow her to make the appropriate arrangements to minimize the damage to her daughter (and perhaps prevent an American citizen from having to grow up under a dictator).

This is where we get to Miller's argument, but I'm going to say this - there are methodologies for requesting amnesty. Did she do any of those? There are already pathways for illegals to stay. She missed her deportation hearing and that's a big no-no in the process.

So what were they talking about the entire 9 months she was pregnant? They had no contingency planning?

Probably not - she had a parole document from ICE, was engaged in regular check-ins with ICE for years, and almost certainly had no expectation whatsoever that the government would do something like this.

This is where we get to Miller's argument, but I'm going to say this - there are methodologies for requesting amnesty. Did she do any of those? She missed her deportation hearing and that's a big no-no in the process.

That comment wasn't about requesting amnesty - it was about requesting a limited humanitarian parole to have sufficient time to make arrangements for her daughter. And no, she wasn't given the opportunity to ask for that specific thing. She wasn't given any time. She already had the temporary status that allowed her to remain in the country outside of detention. That's why she was checking in at the ICE office in the first place. It's a condition of that status that she have to report to the ICE office every so often for that check in.

The Administration decided to abruptly change that status - as abruptly as possible. There was no need, and no justification, for not allowing her the opportunity to ask for a brief parole so she would have enough time to arrange for her daughter.

So what were they talking about the entire 9 months she was pregnant? They had no contingency planning?

That will be the example entry in the dictionary next to the term victim blaming.

Why are you engaging this flat-earther, anyway?

Why are you engaging this flat-earther, anyway?

The same reason I engage with most people on the internet - to hopefully learn something. I find that discussing these topics with conservative folks is the best way to learn what conservative folks believe, and the reasons why they believe it. It often has the added benefit of clarifying my own thinking on the topics as well.

The same reason I engage with most people on the internet - to hopefully learn something. I find that discussing these topics with conservative folks is the best way to learn what conservative folks believe, and the reasons why they believe it. It often has the added benefit of clarifying my own thinking on the topics as well.

No idea who you're conversing with (and don't care, that's the beauty of the Ignore function here).

Most folks don't understand our debates and that's why they don't get to participate in them. I actually enjoy the challenge of debating you *on your turf and on your terms* because doing so ups my game across the board.

Pity there aren't more folks here with the sand to step onto the field. Sad.

My brother-in-law would do that too. He was one of the kindest most intelligent people I was ever graced to know.

Instead, they're sweeping up as many of the upright and harmless folks as they can, because that's where the easy pickings are. And people are upset when they see the treatment of people who aren't the baddies that they imagined when they thought of who Trump wanted to get rid of. "Surely not that nice Sra. Lopez who runs the food truck! Or the mom of my daughter's classmate! Those aren't bad people!"

This part is true Dope. I told my wife's friend last night, who did polls that Trump was grabbing the low hanging fruit, not just the baddies, and we question many of the baddies because the evidence isn't there. Don't throw your humanity away for Trump, Dope.

Don't throw your humanity away for Trump, Dope.

Neither Anecdotal fallacies nor appeals to emotion win arguments.

"I'm not missing any point. You just admitted that she missed her deportation hearing and that the consequence for that is...deportation.

So what you really want here is a change in laws such that we automatically offer a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants. I don't support such a law and I suspect that most Americans don't either so you'll have to make a strong case for that." - Dumbass Dope.

You are missing the point because your reading comprehension is terrible. You should take Alpha's advice and sue your teachers for passing you when you clearly cannot comprehend what you read.

You are missing Al's point. That is why you keep making up dumb ass strawmen like "So what you really want here is a change in laws such that we automatically offer a blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants." when Al hasn't said anything like that. Stop looking like an idiot and read what Al is actually saying. If you need to, have someone explain it to you.

Until you are able to comprehend what others are saying, you are going to be nothing more than Dumbass Dope, the laughingstock of the boards.

Don't throw your humanity away for Trump, Dope.

Neither Anecdotal fallacies nor appeals to emotion win arguments.

I'm not making an argument Dope. You are showing a loss of humanity.

'm not making an argument Dope. You are showing a loss of humanity.

Yeah, you are. You have to prove everything you say and back it up with measurable facts and data. Calling me names doesn’t meet that bar.

I appreciate Albaby's measured responses. It's like a master class in civil social media.

I, for one, have learned a lot about how to talk about the issues du jour without becoming emotional or distracted by squirrels.

Your relentless and desperate arguments in favor of willful, intentional and unnecessary cruelty by the government certainly are…enlightening.

Yeah, you are. You have to prove everything you say and back it up with measurable facts and data.

Why don't you explain to us how y'all are being humane - with facts and data.

Why don't you explain to us how y'all are being humane

So you don’t want to answer. That’s fine.

The administration is enforcing the law. We did it your way for 4 years and by “your way” I mean we created a MASSIVE incentive for anyone to pack up and cross the southern border.

You folks never understand what kind of powerful forces that unleashes. Cartels quickly realized the opportunity of a wide open border and what it meant in terms of smuggling drugs, weapons and people. So they acted.

What you created was not only a flood of illegal immigrants but a wave of human misery. Here’s just one example:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/27/texas-migr...

There’s your legacy. This is what stupid policy leads to.

That’s what your arrogance led to, congrats.

IMHO, it's far more important than any individual case you could name. It's about due process in the 5th and 14th Amendments (I believe). No matter who you are, or what you've done, you're entitled to due process. Whether you missed an ICE appointment, or were Charles Manson, due process matters. If we tolerate government short-cutting that because [reasons], it's the beginning of the end for us.

1poorlady grew up in the Philippines under Marcos. She is well aware of people disappearing in the night, never to be seen again. We're dangerously close to that state of affairs.

It's one of the reasons why she has recently starting commenting to me that "the US is becoming a third world country".

The administration is enforcing the law.

Judges have been saying in cases that it looks like you are violating basic constitutional rights for persons, and issuing injunctions to stop things till they can be better sorted out. Some of those cases have been posted here. And kids are involved, parents. You don't seem to care that people who committed no crimes are imprisoned in foreign jails. Almost none of your evidence based on tattoos and hearsay, etc., seems to stand up to minimal scrutiny. It looks like you are making things up, throwing people and kids across the border far to quickly to meet some imaginary quota throughput. In doing this you violate common decency, humanity, and the Constitution's requirement that person be given at least minimal due process - rights that go all the way back to the Magna Carta. It's throw them across the border and everything be damned, we'll fabricate some excuse to satisfy MAGA who seem to think only citizen White Folks have rights - f$@k everyone else.

The administration is enforcing the law.

No, they are not--by their own admission. Enforcing the law requires compliance with all the required due process. What would be the result if a bunch of the Magats (especially their leadership) were rounded up and deported to El Salvador's (and perhaps other nations' prison(s) without due process?

Judges have been saying in cases that it looks like you are violating basic constitutional rights for persons, and issuing injunctions to stop things till they can be better sorted out

So you think that full Constitutional rights should be extended to anybody, is that it? That means we have to throw out the immigration courts completely.

we'll fabricate some excuse to satisfy MAGA who seem to think only citizen White Folks have righM/i>

You lose. Thanks for playing, though!

It's one of the reasons why she has recently starting commenting to me that "the US is becoming a third world country"

I say, "The US created Banana Republics and is now becoming one."

I say, "The US created Banana Republics and is now becoming one."

Due to Spankee, there won't be any bananas in the US. Tariffs make them too expensive. So, let's see who are the domestic banana producers....

So you think that full Constitutional rights should be extended to anybody, is that it?

According to the Constitution, yes.

That means we have to throw out the immigration courts completely.

Why? We can still deport individuals as long as it’s done legally. You know, due process, etc.

Text

The clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[4]

The clause in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[5]

So you don't recognize the Constitution?

So you think that full Constitutional rights should be extended to anybody, is that it?

Absolutely. If they are on US soil, they are protected by the Constitution**. Also, a US citizen abroad is protected by the Constitution insofar is any US action against them. The Constitution doesn't protect us from other governments, but it absolutely protects us from our own (no matter where we are).

Albaby explained that to all of us several years ago. Or maybe it was on TMF.



**Which is why EO 9066 was so odious, and clearly unconstitutional. I think (though maybe albaby can confirm) that POWs held in the states during WWII were exempted (and, had they had any children somehow, those children would not have been citizens). But that's about the only situation where the Constitution would not apply.

I can learn from conservatives. Flat-earth cultists, not so much. I don't see perfect Venn alignment of these two cohorts. After all, I'm pretty conservative and loathe this regime.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.