-
"...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUte -
-
-
-
Of course. i think we can also all agree not to support ICE methods in going after nonviolent criminals.Originally posted by YOhio View PostComment
-
I can conditionally agree to that. I haven't thought through the exceptions or conditions, but I just don't want to be boxed in.Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View PostComment
-
I'll allow it. As with many other things about Trump, some objectives are okay, even great (e.g., stronger border control, expulsion of violent criminals,...). But putting incompetent or manifestly racist toadies in charge of operations, with stupid quotas and poor training for the agents, terrible things happen, objectives are undermined, and the citizenry loses confidence in the system and opposes what might otherwise be a legitimate governmental effort.Originally posted by YOhio View PostComment
-
With many of these untrained agents being completely ignorant of or hostile to Constitutional rights.Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View PostComment
-
If I may extrapolate YO's and PAC's exchange here, it encapsulates the US struggle balancing safety and constitutional rights. It was a heinous crime if the allegations are true, and there should be an official way to detain an undocumented immigrant to make sure justice is served. Would that crime have happened were the immigrant in the US? That specific instance, no. But the knee-jerk reaction to curtail all immigration in order to prevent these crimes is a marked overreaction, given what we know about immigrant-related crime. And if you're a classic liberal, the worst part of the reaction is to rubber-stamp official policies that if not are explicitly against the constitution, they run counter to the ideal of what most Americans used to hold.
For me there were two required readings/listenings this week. The first, a solid piece of independent journalism that showed how organized and ultimately successful the Project 2025 people were. Days after Biden's inauguration, all the usual suspects started meeting in an effort to radically reshape federal government. It included mechanisms for the federal government to oversee elections and use the military for perceived insurrections. In effect, the basis of all the federal/state crises we've seen in the last year had their origins in these meetings. ICE had a seat at the table, in the form of one Tom Homan. It is scary to read how military and government leaders were plotting how to radically give the federal government unprecedented power:
The other is this week's This American Life. It highlights 2 lawyers and their experiences with ICE this last year. One a whistleblower when ICE tried to casually do away with the 4th amendment, and another trying to find their client who had a legal asylum claim. ICE kept moving him just to break his will and encourage him to self-deport. Of course this has happened to many, many other non-violent immigrants.
Anyways, I see the debate between law enforcement and individual rights as necessary, and good people on both sides have valid opinions. But there are some very bad actors seizing their opportunity with public opinion and a demagogic president to do massive damage to the American ideal. Immigration curtailment by trouncing on the constitution is their mess of pottage. If the American ideal is to survive, there has to be a national reckoning of what we've witnessed in the last few years."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUteComment
-
No.Originally posted by YOhio View Post
The man is innocent until proven guilty. Convict him under state law. Then issue the detainer. Then, after he has been imprisoned for a very long time, and is potentially up for release, ICE can remove him.
This is cart-before-horse stuff.Comment
-
Thus far, all ICE has done is request a notice if the police or DA are going to release him. I'm okay with that.Originally posted by LVAllen View PostComment
-
Notice of what?Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
That this man, who is legally innocent, is being released because 1) we don't have the authority to detain him (possibly because we failed to convict) or 2) a judge has determined bail is appropriate, and he has paid an amount sufficient to secure his attendance in court hearings in the future? Get a conviction so that the issue of his guilt or innocence has been resolved. Then issue the detainer.
ICE issues a detainer because they want to take him into custody. They want to take him into custody here based on allegations, not because anything has changed on his immigration situation. Based on the intemperate statement from the DHS Acting Assistant Secretary, they don't know what the hell they are doing.Comment
-
Part of my thinking is colored by the alleged crime in question--I'd feel different for other alleged crimes, even if that's intellectually or legally inconsistent. Rightly or wrongly, the alleged forcible rape of a minor lowers the bar for me on constitutional protections. I don't want the guy to skip town before a full trial on the merits. But I expect bail will be set so high that that won't happen, and the detainer issue, at least for now, is moot.Originally posted by LVAllen View PostComment
-
That's quite an extrapolation!Originally posted by Northwestcoug View PostIf I may extrapolate YO's and PAC's exchange here, it encapsulates the US struggle balancing safety and constitutional rights. It was a heinous crime if the allegations are true, and there should be an official way to detain an undocumented immigrant to make sure justice is served. Would that crime have happened were the immigrant in the US? That specific instance, no. But the knee-jerk reaction to curtail all immigration in order to prevent these crimes is a marked overreaction, given what we know about immigrant-related crime. And if you're a classic liberal, the worst part of the reaction is to rubber-stamp official policies that if not are explicitly against the constitution, they run counter to the ideal of what most Americans used to hold.
For me there were two required readings/listenings this week. The first, a solid piece of independent journalism that showed how organized and ultimately successful the Project 2025 people were. Days after Biden's inauguration, all the usual suspects started meeting in an effort to radically reshape federal government. It included mechanisms for the federal government to oversee elections and use the military for perceived insurrections. In effect, the basis of all the federal/state crises we've seen in the last year had their origins in these meetings. ICE had a seat at the table, in the form of one Tom Homan. It is scary to read how military and government leaders were plotting how to radically give the federal government unprecedented power:
The other is this week's This American Life. It highlights 2 lawyers and their experiences with ICE this last year. One a whistleblower when ICE tried to casually do away with the 4th amendment, and another trying to find their client who had a legal asylum claim. ICE kept moving him just to break his will and encourage him to self-deport. Of course this has happened to many, many other non-violent immigrants.
Anyways, I see the debate between law enforcement and individual rights as necessary, and good people on both sides have valid opinions. But there are some very bad actors seizing their opportunity with public opinion and a demagogic president to do massive damage to the American ideal. Immigration curtailment by trouncing on the constitution is their mess of pottage. If the American ideal is to survive, there has to be a national reckoning of what we've witnessed in the last few years.Comment
-
Doesn't ICE have the legal right to issue a detainer at any time if a person is removable? Clearly this guy was, right? I didn't realize something had to change on the immigration status of the individual.Originally posted by LVAllen View PostComment
Comment