"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How is this being followed? Specifically,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This is what people are upset with, not your (loaded language) "violent immigrants"
This is the key is that the president presides over the execution of the law created by the legislature under the framework of the constitution as judged by the judicial. The president being elected by a vast majority l to do X isn’t license to achieve X under any method - let alone by a minority of the electorate. The presiding over the execution under the law is by constitutional construction an administrative role, and the political promises made to be elected are not justification to break the constitutional order of the republic. The promises made must be executed legally and constitutionally, and when the law and the constitution prohibits that execution, the president must break their promise to the electorate. That’s the order of things and it’s entirely intentional. I expect this from any elected president regardless of party, promises made, or any other details of the situation. Anyone who doesn’t see this is either a) not particularly committed to the American system of government, b) not particularly literate of the system, or more often than not likely both.
So, yeah, “Trump promised to do X so he’s doing it by any means necessary” doesn’t hold water. And it’s specifically shocking coming from people who have been howling about the “other sides” overreach. I just can’t understand if it’s just hypocrisy, if it’s naked ambition to overthrow the democracy and replace it with a single party system, blindness to the overreach - but it’s probably the most disturbing part of all of this. If the “others” did these things and that was a problem, why is it ok for your guy to do it too ?
The way I read it is that US citizens have a right to not be murdered or assaulted by people who enter the country illegally.
So it seems like a Judge would have an obligation to prevent someone accused of being in the country illegally and accused of a violent crime to not leave the courthouse and instead turn that person over to the federal authorities who are outside the court waiting for the proceedings to finish.
Being accused of a violent crime is not the same as being guilty of a crime. She has obligation to conduct her court in an orderly fashion that ensures due process and compliance. Police marching into proceedings of the court administering due process and trying to arrest people in front of the court without even providing a warrant violates all sorts of laws - including the fact the judge has say over the events in their court and the disposition of the accused during the session. This is crucial because if people who are at risk from arrest by federal authorities are routinely arrested when they appear before the court, people will stop appearing before the court. This means the administration of justice breaks down fundamentally and victims have no real opportunity to press their cases. If someone is a murderer or committed assault we should absolutely NOT deport them. We should send them to prison and punish them; then deport them. However this structure of ICE using the courts to make their burden of finding people easier breaks that system for the expediency of ICE, but our system isn’t built for the expediency of the police but for the expediency of justice.
I assume you can understand that the 'illegal' part is found as a result of the 'due process' part.
Otherwise, do you have any proof that you're not an illegal criminal? Is there any reason why I should not turn you in for crimes against the state and have you deported?
> On one hand I find the current administration's approach to deportations too heavy-handed, but on the other hand it seems almost necessary because of the level of obstruction at the judicial level compared to the Obama era
This is just "ends justifies the means" via hand waving. If you claim to have principles at least stand by them.
Not really. I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society. If this can't happen due to systematic obstruction, then it's not a violation of my principles to be less critical of toeing a line I'd otherwise not like to see breached. If we all had hard lines drawn in the sand that never moved around, this wouldn't even be a conversation, because 15 years ago mass deportations were uncontroversial.
It would help to discuss this using the same terms. This is not different from the "due process" that others talk about. I would presume you don't think that due process is needlessly obstructive but you also seem to think this obstruction is needless. If I'm wrong, what am I wrong about? If I'm not wrong, why do you think this obstruction is needless?
The idea is that the justice system should work in a reasonable way so that victims and potential victim rights are protected.
For example, someone who allegedly beat their wife, has a right to a trial. But if activist judges make decisions that cause the trial to not take place for 10 years that is obstructive and the alleged victim doesn't get justice or protection from future assaults. So if that person is deported before the trial you could complain about lack of "due process" but you would be ignoring the rights of the victim.
In my understanding, the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration and did bypass standards of "due process" being raised today to block deportations. If it's practically impossible to expel the illegal immigrants allowed in via open border policies over the previous term, that's dysfunctional and the standards should be relaxed.
This case is particularly egregious, as the judge personally helped a violent illegal immigrant evade law enforcement outside of her jurisdiction, which explains the arrest; but "systematic obstruction" refers to the injunctions being issued constantly to block executive actions, suggesting that the Trump administration's attempts to reverse open border policies are subjected to a much higher standard than Democrats were under Obama just 15 years prior when they correctly viewed illegal immigration as a problem.
> In my understanding the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration
The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was about two decades before Barack Obama was born.
> If it's practically impossible to reverse open border policies that let in a flood of illegal immigrants for almost 4 years
The US hasn't had anything like open borders policies for more than a century (more precisely, since the original national origin quota system was adopted in 1921.)
It's probably easier to discuss policy in this area if the premises are something resembling facts rather than partisan propaganda fictions.
