Comment by trhway
14 hours ago
Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law, for example :
(1) Right of counsel The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18.
When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations.
I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens.
There are two conceptions of law currently in the US. The first is what we see on TV, with lawyers and judges and law enforcement attempting, most often successfully, to apply a set of rules to everyone equally.
The second conception of law is what the federal government is doing now: oppression of opponents of the powerful, and protection of the powerful from any harm they cause to others.
We are currently in a battle to see which side wins. In many ways the struggle of the US, as it has become more free, is a struggle for the first conception to win over the second. When we had the Civil War, the first conception of law won. I hope it wins again.
I think the two can be called "rule of law" or "rule of men". I would have thought more people would support "rule of law".
It was always people who ruled, it's just more apparent when the people who rule are bullies itching for a fight, who care even less about the appearance of consistency.
For moral accountability, it should always in the end be "I say", not "the law says". No one should "just be obeying orders", they should make choices they can stand behind on their own judgment, regardless of whether some group of possibly long dead legislators stood behind it or not.
The extraditions are of people who have already had a hearing and are subject to a final order of removal.
That is just simply not true as was illustrated by many stories in the news. And in particular why would the ICE then use that checklist - young, Latino, tatoos ... -> gang member to extradite (to Guatemala).
And what final order of removal were for example the US citizens picked by ICE subject to?
US citizens were extradited? Who? To where?
8 replies →
> Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law…
Since you’re being deliberately obtuse, I will spell it out further.
See “8 U.S. Code § 1226 - Apprehension and detention of aliens”, which says this:
This is a long sentence, but I think you will agree that it is fundamentally very straight forward. It says that “the Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who [meets any one of this list of criteria].” Obviously the country is too big for the Attorney General to do the whole job themselves, so they have delegated it to ICE. Before ICE existed the job was done by the INS. As long as this law exists someone must be doing this job at all times. It’s required. It would be unconstitutional for the Executive Branch to ignore the law and not assign the job to anyone.
Therefore anyone who thinks that illegal aliens should not be deported should not be harassing ICE. They should be looking to _change the law_. Harassing ICE won’t change the fact that what they are doing is simply required of the Executive Branch by Congress.
> When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations.
Absolutely. You’ll have to follow up on individual cases, but anyone who has had a Final Order of Removal entered against by by a judge is supposed to be immediately deported as soon as they are picked up by law enforcement. By the time that order is issued they have already gone through the court process and had all the due process that the Constitution requires. The fact that they evaded deportation, or were deported and later reentered the country illegally, does not get them a new trial. The existing order still applies and they are still inadmissible and deportable.
> I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens.
Notice that the law does not limit _where_ law enforcement can enforce the law. They can pick people up off the street, or at work, or at school, or at home, or anywhere. Skin color likewise is irrelevant. Keep in mind that the majority of illegal immigrants have “dark skin” simply because most illegal immigrants come across our southern border from countries where the average skin tone is darker. That’s not evidence of racism.
The point of the Executive branch is to decide how to execute the law using limited resources. The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here. In the past, AGs used their discretion to target dangerous immigrants and low-hanging fruit.
The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors.
again, what the law says and what the ICE does is 2 very different things. Otherwise, explain how that law provides for random picking off the street dark skinned people, including citizens, that ICE has been doing.
[dead]