We should be clear that many (most?) of the immigration raids you are describing are taking place in cities that have explicitly stated that they will not cooperate with the federal government regarding immigration, meaning that anyone in these cities who interacts with the police or justice system (generally speaking, in most cases) will not be reported for being in the country without documentation. This means that the federal government has fewer means of detaining individuals without documentation in a safe manner, even those convicted of serious crimes. We see the result of these policies now.

Is that supposed to absolve the methods ICE uses in those places?

That’s a nonsequitur. My neighborhood in DC, with high immigrant population, has a lower crime than Capitol Hill, with a far lower immigrant population. DC has a lower crime rate than the places that are sending federal agents here.

NO we shouldn't.

You are defending playground rules "why are you making me punch you" with people's lives.

Detaining and deporting individuals who are in a foreign (to them) country without documentation is not "punching them".

Punching them actually is "punching them." And these "agents" are basically roving patrols which target and violently detain people based on skin color. These aren't normal enforcement operations, they're intended to be cruel and violent and deprive everyone of their rights.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5440311/ice-raids-maske...

"Why are you making me punch you" is a stand-in for the kind of broken logic a child uses on a playground. It isn't about actually punching people (although many have been assualted by ICE). Instead, it is about deploying maliciously faulty logic in defense of bad action.

Think of it as a cousin to the "he's no angel" style defense of bad acts.

Governments have a right to detain and deport individuals in the country without documentation. The fact that ICE resorts to the tactics we are describing is unfortunate but necessary because many cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration. These operations of ICE, generally speaking, are legal. (I say "generally speaking" because I cannot speak for every action of every ICE agent in the USA). You may find it distasteful or disagreeable, but it is within the purview of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws.

> Governments have a right to detain and deport individuals in the country without documentation. The fact that ICE resorts to the tactics we are describing is unfortunate but necessary because many cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration. These operations of ICE, generally speaking, are legal. (I say "generally speaking" because I cannot speak for every action of every ICE agent in the USA). You may find it distasteful or disagreeable, but it is within the purview of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws.

Legal is a moving target. Legal was used to justify interment camps.

Be careful justifying what should and could be done based on "it's technically legal"

Governments don't have rights. They didn't spring fully formed from the wombs of other governments without a say in the matter.

They have privileges. Provisional privileges derived from the people (or at least that is what some very drunk men in wigs seemed to imply). I don't like it when my government uses dressed-up faux authority (DHS just issues itself administrative "warrants") as the basis for assaulting people. Seems pretty cut-and-dry wrong. And as responses go, really lopsided.

So here I am... making a fuss about it.

They aren’t legal. They disregard the rule of law, ignore judge’s orders, and display an immense amount of cruelty in the process.

They only get to do this crap if they follow the rule of law, which they aren’t.

I mean detaining jews were also "legal" at one point in time. So, let's just base our morals on what's legal and defend people who abuse the laws to do more heinous stuff, so we can hide behind "Generally I'm against it, but it's legal, so nothing wrong is going on here".

That'll surely make things work out great. right?

>That'll surely make things work out great. right?

Yep. I'm not sure why we're even bothering with deportations. Just shoot 'em in the head and grind them up for fertilizer and pig/chicken feed.

And if a few hundred thousand citizens get caught up in that, it's no big deal. They wouldn't have been involved if they didn't look like illegals, right?

Besides, folks like me (with the map of Ireland all over my face) won't get caught up in that. So why should I care?

Yeah, why bother deporting them. Shooting them is quicker and cheaper. We could save even more money by converting warehouses to gas folks and then we can cremate them and/or use them as agricultural inputs.

Easy peasy. I mean, it's not like they're human or anything. My god! They're criminals, every last one of them! Rapists, killers, gang bangers. If they weren't subhuman, we wouldn't need to treat them like this.

But they're not like us decent, hard working people. They're evil, twisted murderers, just like the pedophile demonrats who murdered all the ICE folks during the Obama and Biden administrations.

Both Biden and Obama just sent the Marines in to ICE offices and killed them all dead!

So it's perfectly fine to do that to all the brown^W illegal people too, right? I certainly won't have to worry about it, nor will the other white^W real Americans.

USA! USA! USA!

The results of the opposite of these policies (as practiced by many other countries) are, generally speaking, worse. Undocumented immigrants are necessarily an economic underclass, but whether they will be a lawless underclass is a deliberate choice that pretty much entirely boils down to whether you make it unsafe for them to turn to the police. (I mean, the first part, creating an underclass at all, is also a deliberate choice—that of having immigration laws of the post-WW2 kind—but any alternatives seem to have been thoroughly pushed out of the Overton window.)

Can you name another country in which I can enter without inspection, commit a crime, and then be released, all without having anyone ask, "what is your basis for being in this country"?

Argentina. Possibly Brazil. (Kurdish / KRG) Iraq released me as an illegal after the cops decided they liked me, they even gave me a police card in case I ran into further trouble. Kurdish part of Syria will not check either, they're 'stateless' people so see such enforcement as tyrannical. Most ethnic enclaves of Lebanon would similarly work, particularly if you are Druze or something.

Also in Argentina you can arrive, on day 1 file court case for citizenship, which bars deportation. Then stall case for 2 years until you meet criteria. I personally have seen court case documents that did this successfully for criminal who arrived with fake passport.

So should we model our immigration system on that of those countries? My point is that we are a country of laws, based on rule of law, and therefore must start by impartially enforcing the laws we have. Syria and Iraq (to name two of your examples) are certainly not what I would describe as countries based on rule of law. As you yourself point out, in Iraq the police liked you, so they let you go. I do not want to see such a system in the USA.

> My point is that we are a country of laws, based on rule of law, and therefore must start by impartially enforcing the laws we have.

Would be nice if that were the reality. But we have a POTUS with 34 counts giving out a presidential medal of freedom to a crooked guy with melting hair goo and releasing all J6ers with a pardon.

Impartiality isn't real.

Honestly, I would hate to live under the rule of law in the USA. Everyone that waited 31 days to register for the draft would be a felon, the guy who gets wasted and takes a nap instead answering the census worker would be in jail, and about 10% of the USA would be in the federal pen for 10 years because they own a squirrel hunting gun while also at sometime in the past year smoking a marijuana cigarette.

Meanwhile the so called people enforcing the "rule of law" are bagging people up all masked up, no visible credentials, shifting them around in jurisdictions faster than their lawyer can keep up, then sending them in 3rd world shithole prisons even if there is an active order barring that from happening.

If you want to show me rule of law, first of all show me a government that even vaguely follows the very constitution that authorized its existence in the first place. I would rather have anarchy than rule of law enforced by bandits.

> I would rather have anarchy than rule of law enforced by bandits.

This indicates to me that you have no idea how desperate people become in a failed state, in the absence of law and order.

I've lived in a failed state. The US government brutalized me far worse.

In the failed state I joined a militia, and we actually were able to fight off the people trying to brutalize us. In the USA if you tried this they would just insta Waco you.

Then you should move to a country run that way.

I could run away and abandon any hope of fixing my country and also abandon my children. It wouldn't put me in any morally superior position.

Just telling people "You should run away" because the country is run by people grossly violating the constitution isn't the flex you think it is, and in fact I think it is attitudes like the one you've just presented that help get us into these kinds of situations.

> by people grossly violating the constitution

I'm sorry what was that? You want rules after all?

I said anarchy was better than "rule of law" by bandits. Somehow you read that as I need to move away because those are the only two options.

Even if we do suppose for the sake of argument, that anarchy is better than rule of law by bandits, and those are literally the only two options -- even then I don't see merely moving away and letting my children deal with it as a clear superior option. It's merely possibly more convenient for me.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Not cool.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.

This situation in and of itself is very unique and American. No one seems to be happy about it, but this is separation of powers playing out - in how many countries out there will you find states that actively obstruct federal law enforcement because that's what the people in that state voted for, versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for? Well when they're worked up enough Americans will do just that.

Personally I'm not sure I have a huge problem with this, yes it's a mess, but I'm not at all convinced we need more consolidation of power just because of that. I'm DEFINITELY not convinced that one side or the other has what it takes to permanently govern everything and always get their way.

The same general principles are at work when it comes to the legalization of weed, with lots of little details being different of course.

> ... versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for

Are we talking about a different country than the USA? There's ~174 million potential voters in the US, 77 million voted republican vs 75 million voted democrat at the last presidential election (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cas...)

So there's an about even population split that is in theory in support of those policies, versus the same amount of people against. Surely it's not "one state against what the rest of the country voted for" like you're suggesting...

This just feels like nitpicking over the exact numbers? At the end of the day, it's still cities/states representing some fraction of the country unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government.

>This just feels like nitpicking over the exact numbers? At the end of the day, it's still cities/states representing some fraction of the country unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government.

No. That's not it at all. While Federal law is the supreme law of the land, it is enforced by the Federal government.

The several states and any municipalities within them are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws, just as the Federal government is under no obligation to enforce state and local laws.

Which is why the Federal government often ties funding to legislation, using the carrot of funding (and the stick of pulling such funding if states do not) to compel states to cooperate with the Federal government.

What's more, the Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have repeatedly ruled that the states are not required to enforce Federal law for the Federal government.

And no one is "unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government." In fact, state and local law enforcement have repeatedly been used to back up Federal agents executing those immigration policies.

No Federal law requires a state to enforce Federal immigration policies. And not enforcing a law outside of a law enforcement agency's jurisdiction (again Federal law is the jurisdiction of Federal government not state/local governments) isn't "overriding" anything.

You appear to be confused about the law and how it works in the US and the several states. Here are a few links to help straighten you out:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/144/

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-the-u.s.-government...

>The several states and any municipalities within them are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws, just as the Federal government is under no obligation to enforce state and local laws.

Be careful with this argument. Cops also don't have any "obligation" to stop crime, so if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then it's fine (or at least, it's "not unilaterally overriding laws") for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched.

Yes it is 'fine' for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched. The supreme court ruled as such. They generally only have a duty to act if they've formed a special relationship, like having someone in their custody.

>Be careful with this argument. Cops also don't have any "obligation" to stop crime, so if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then it's fine (or at least, it's "not unilaterally overriding laws") for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched.

You're just figuring that out now? You're 50 years late[0] for Warren v. District of Columbia (rape, assault and burglary) and 20 years late[1] for Castle Rock v. Gonzales (triple murder).

Maybe you should start paying attention?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...

No, it was indeed a pedantic, dickhead take. One could interpret my comment as I intended, as in, the federal government being representative of the rest of the country (i.e. the states that don't obstruct federal immigration enforcement, which is most of them).

The responder chose not to give me the benefit of the doubt, and to interpret my statement literally so as to own me. Guess we know what he thinks about ICE. It was not really in the spirit of Hacker News which encourages people to respond in good faith. Haters gon' hate.

This is the thing that disappoints me: I was pointing out for the sake of information that this is a separation of powers thing, my comment was nonpartisan and intended simply to inform. It was directly relevant and intended to be helpful to the original guy who had a question, because he said he wasn't American, so he probably wouldn't have thought about this angle.

The dickhead guy had to go make this dirty though.

I think it is a stretch to conclude that because someone voted for Trump, they support all of his immigration policies. Some of the policies perhaps, but I think it is a matter of degree. Many viewed Biden (rightly or wrongly) as not enforcing the law at all.

I agree, I think this situation is uniquely American, and yes, this is exactly separation of powers (federal vs. state) playing out. I also agree with you that neither side, given more authority, would produce a better outcome. It is my personal observation that many on the left seem to believe that there should not be a border, and that many on the right are clearly xenophobic. The answer is somewhere in the middle but unfortunately that is not what wins votes.

> The methods ICE is using currently to detain people for deportation look a lot like secret police tactics for disappearing folks

You could argue that this is also a trial run to gauge the American public and governmental tolerance for actual secret police on the streets disappearing people (both depressingly high, it turns out.)

> Whether you’re here legally or not, no one deserves the secret police tactics that fly in the face of the principles of limited government and freedom of movement.

Committing a crime might well result in your movement being curtailed, and addressing crime is definitely within the remit of limited government.

This is about the USA but here in The Netherlands the police force must apply the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity [2]. According to these articles, it also forms a basis for EU laws.

Quoting: "The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act. Within criminal law, the concept is used to convey the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. [..]"

And: "the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level"

Apply that to the national guard being rolled out, and apply that to masked police officers destroying the windows of a car. There is no probable cause here. You cannot be like that is a person of color I will detain them because they're illegal. You cannot even pull over a random person like that. Why not? Because the crime of being illegal is not proportional to the violence being used. Now, if they were a murderer, then yes. But then they're a murderer who is also illegal. Not the fact that they're illegal itself is the dangerous factor. Moreover, these illegals actually benefit the economy as they're HR.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

> You cannot be like that is a person of color I will detain them because they're illegal

I'm not saying that, whatever "person of color" is. Plenty of legal e.g. hispanics, and plenty of illegal white people in America.

Immigration violations are a civil matter in the United States,though, not a criminal one.

You know. Back when "the rule of law" was a thing.

You're missing a major component of the strategy actually being pursued, which is worth understanding whether or not you support the policy:

U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli pulled together an all-star federal taskforce comprising agents from five federal law enforcement agencies—including ICE and the FBI—all working out of an office in Los Angeles. When an illegal alien with a prior deportation is inevitably arrested, upon identification and booking into the local jail, the taskforce seeks a federal criminal warrant—signed by a federal judge—for felony re-entry under 8 USC §1326.

By using available criminal databases to find illegal aliens who were arrested and jailed the day before, the team quickly learns of each new offender. Then, a federal warrant is served on local officials, who obviously won’t buck a federal judge’s warrant. That warrant requires local officials to hand over the illegal criminal alien to ICE.

The critical point is that reentry after having already been deported is a felony, and by getting a federal criminal warrant the government can legally force state and local compliance (which they cannot in a civil matter). That is the rule of law as it stands. It also sets up a dynamic of high-profile "heads I win tails you lose" fights with state & local officials who don't want to comply, providing grist for the base.

https://www.heritage.org/border-security/commentary/sanctuar...

Pretty much all illegal immigrant males 18-25 commit a felony by not registering for the draft. They are required to do so within 30 days of becoming eligible . You need a valid active visa to be exempted.

No because a) "illegal immigrant" is not a term with a meaningful legal definition in the first place and b) Although sss.gov says undocumented immigrants need to register under their FAQ, their chart of acceptable documentation effectively excludes the exact population. https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Documentation...

But since those who entered without inspection have almost no way to show when they actually entered, full stop, and ICE doesn't actually have a comprehensive and reliable way of tracking the population that wouldn't run afoul of the Constitution, it's basically a violation that is effectively performative. The people this targets are not eligible for any benefits whatsoever on the federal level for themselves anyway (but still have to pay taxes) and cannot naturalize so there's no carrot and no viable stick. It's a rump piece of legislation.

a) Let's not be coy, I'm using the word as Cornell Law/LII and many lawyers use []. Illegal as they are here unlawfully. It's well understood in a legal context.

b) A chart does not trump law, and that chart appears to be for people older than 26, who don't need evidence they signed up for the draft. Or people who entered before 26 and have a reason why they'd be excluded. That chart isn't for evidence needed to submit to the draft, it's a way to show you didn't have to sign up.

I'm not talking about all undocumented immigrants (for instance, instances of foreign born perhaps female or otherwise draft exempt children that are born US citizens but never documented as such and enter the US without documentation), that's why I used illegal rather than undocumented which could be legal presence.

[] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigrant

American citizens don't take draft registration seriously, so obviously nobody else does either. You could arrest millions for that.

They did until recently because you had to in order to file a FAFSA, and every student counselor told them they'd be living under a bridge drinking Steel Reserve if they didn't try to come up with aid for college.

Also consider ICE pretends they have no choice, when in fact congress grants them unilateral power of parole. They can just make someone legal with a magic wand, but pretend like it's all out of their hands.

What does that mean in practical terms? You can ask illegal immigrants politely to leave, and if they don't then that's it?

There are more than a few options between politely asking them to leave and black bagging people off the streets by roving bands of masked, armed people with no identification

You (or the government) can ask a judge to order the civilian you don't like to leave. If the judge agrees, they have to leave. If the CYDL doesn't leave, you can ask a judge to order the police (or even you) to arrest and deport them. If the judge agrees, the police (or even you) can arrest and deport them.

If you don't have a judge's order to kidnap the person, then it's illegal by default.

It means you get deported rather than going to jail and you don’t get a public defender before being deported. There is no “due process” as in criminal law.

The concept of "illegal immigrant" is not a legal term and so it doesn't actually have any substantive meaning. One can accrue unlawful presence, one can be present with illegal status (when you do something your visa doesn't allow), but both of those are curable to varying degrees, the former subject to tolling (and also, doesn't count until one turns 18), the latter almost always because of the underfunded and overcomplicated bureaucratic morass that USCIS operates under.

But the common language of 'illegal immigrants" is exceedingly vague because it contradicts how the law its drawn up. One is not considered an immigrant legally until one has some sort of status that allows them to adjust their status to permanent residency. Before 1970 this was basically almost everybody. Today it's virtually nobody when they first enter the country. To be an immigrant is by definition to be legally present. The moral panic is actually based on a conflation between two distinct categories of people: those who entered the country without inspection (EWI) and those who are out of status and have yet to cure their status issue. Inspection doesn't literally mean what it means in the dictionary, by the way, it's a legal fiction. A wave-through is considered inspection even though one doesn't get their passport stamped. Parole can in some cases be considered the predicate that leads to inspection (advance parole establishes the inspection element that turns someone with no status into someone eligible for a green card) or it doesn't in other cases, although in those cases one is not legally considered to have been admitted into the country. Confused yet? Don't worry, DHS lawyers get confused over this as well, and even federal judges are frequently confused. Texas v. US was mooted but if it wasn't mooted, the petition actually reversed the terms of art which makes the petition gibberish if it reaches the merit stage.

Either way, whether someone is out of status or have status is not something that can be determined outside of a court and frequently, both administrative appeals and adjudication in actual Article III courts. ICE agents are not lawyers, they're not even technically cops, and they sure as hell can't tell the minutiae of immigration law where every word you think you know the definition of, you actually likely don't. One collateral attack that was commonly seen was that the person was actually a US citizen who never knew they were since depending on when you were born the criteria through which you acquire citizenship even while born overseas can differ dramatically. And by that I mean in the 1970s the criteria went under several changes that requires a whole new inquiry that requires some serious genealogical research to determine. This is a huge pain in the ass even if you know about the law, and ICE agents aren't lawyers and certainly aren't legal historians, but either way as a matter of statutory interpretation and application ICE agents making the determination would go far beyond what they're legally allowed to do. You and me and everyone else who aren't speaking for the government can use shorthands, but ICE agents can't while they're on the job. Who's "illegal" as a matter of law is not something ICE can actually decide, but they operate under presumptions that can't be rebutted since once they ship you out of the country, that's it. You can't get a visa to respond to a lawsuit. It used to be something that one can get parole for, but not anymore. Most no-shows in immigration court happen because of unavailability or because of lack of proper notice given. DHS OIG audits turn up this kind of problem all the time. I can believe that Trump and Miller having no clue about any of this, but the lawyers working for DHS? If they don't know, they're not competent for the position.

Interestingly native born Americans actually don't have a definitive and mandatorily accepted way to prove their citizenship. ICE routinely without evidence treat real documents as fake. You are not required to even have a state ID or driver's license, and neither is dispositive of status, and neither is a social security card. God forbid you were born at home with a midwife since many don't have birth certificates that conform to the more standardized forms of today. Most Americans don't have a passport. If you naturalize, at least the same agency will give you a certificate of citizenship that attest to your status. A green card likewise attests to your legal permanent residency status. But DHS doesn't issue such documents to native-born citizens, and routinely rejects documents issued by other agencies. ICE deports US citizens every year and we only have a limited set of data on how many. If you manage to make it back, you can't even sue ICE. You'd have to sue the municipality that held you for ICE based on what amounts to a hunch, which is not evidence. Voluntarily cooperating with ICE almost inevitably will lead to lawsuits, settlements, and once in a while, the bankruptcy of the city. Thanks to indemnity clauses, local cops are the last to get hit.

And all that is really unnecessary. The country was founded with open borders and while we had a lot of problems, immigration was not viewed as a problem serious enough for the federal government to specifically intervene in in the harshest and most racist way possible for 100 years. If you want both the economic benefits of immigration and also want immigrants to truly be seasonal workers voluntarily, get rid of the system and that will happen. Militarizing the border forced people into choosing which side they want to be on. I'm old enough to remember driving from Vermont to Montreal to hang out with my cousin at McGill for weekend brunches and smoked meats with just a driver's license - not even one issued in Vermont, but California - and the border checkpoint in New Hampshire - the only one in the state - being unstaffed most of the time. The southern border was like that until the 70s. Most Americans and Europeans don't have to contend with visas since visa waiver programs cover the so-called "First world nations" and some well-to-do ex-colonies and so the problem is an abstraction to them. In reality, it's a reality based on abstractions. Either way, since "illegal immigrants" are not a thing as a legally meaningful descriptor, there's no actual answer. Feel free to read this pretty good summation of the specific problems that involve the constitution though, it essentially covers up to Kerry v. Din (2015). https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=19...

> To be an immigrant is by definition to be legally present

What does this mean? If you're a citizen you're legally present. If you're a tourist you're legally present.

What makes you think so?

Civil matter doesn't mean asking politely (only). Try not paying your mortgage for a while, and see what your bank is doing.

This isn't true.

improper entry is a felony if its a repeat offense.

Re-entry after having been removed can be a felony. But with ICE favoring expedited removal, these cases aren't ending up in Article III courts and in turn, without going through the judicial process ICE basically have made it next to impossible for this law to actually get triggered. There are a lot of laws on the books that end up unenforceable because the government is that meme of the kid sticking a stick into the front wheel of the bicycle he's riding. This is one of them.

(Also, the purposeful-availment test for personal jurisdiction in copyright cases is built on top of a set of facts that is established by geolocating Cloudflare IPs, and in turn, what was once a vague but at least potentially applicable law now has been turned into something that if merits of a contested case actually gets reached, basically no foreign defendant would be under the court's jurisdiction, because of how CDNs work. Since there's no visa for "responding to lawsuits" and in fact, it doesn't even look like proper service was conducted, meaning that the law is made ultimately on top of default judgments to foreign John Does. I have no idea whether this is a result of incompetence or short-term thinking, but that's where we are. The moment the law is applied correctly it becomes self-nullifying thanks to the facts. Same idea here.)

Everyone deserves a fair trial.

Whether someone committed a crime or not is for a judge to decide.

> Everyone deserves a fair trial.

Citizens certainly do.

You can't start carving exceptions into a universal principle like “everyone deserves a fair trial.”

Bipartisan politics decided some even legal immigrants aren't 'people' afforded bill of rights reserved to 'people', when the gun control act of 1968 was passed. The 'but muh amendments all use people differently' argument to bypass that is laughable.

It's already quite settled civil rights aren't universal because immigrants aren't people, and those rights were ascribed almost entirely to citizens, people, or the various government entities.

> Only applies to citizens.

If the right to a fair trial is restricted from any person, it may also be restricted from every person, by claiming that that person is part of a group not afforded a fair trial.

If you were arrested, how would you prove your citizenship without a trial?

I hereby declare that bitlax is not a citizen, and therefore they don't get to have a trial where they can prove their citizenship.

Edit: per MereInterest's reply below, OP edited their comment.

That's blatantly false: even when civil cases are involved (which is where immigration law lives, not criminal law), non-citizens have recourse to habeas corpus petitions, etc.

To any other readers, if nxobject’s post reads as a non-sequitur, it is because bitlax edited their post from its original “Only applies to citizens.” to “ Citizens certainly do.” shortly after posting.

How do you know if they're a citizen if there hasn't been a trial?

Well, I think you're not a citizen so I'm going to deport you to Uganda. Since I think you're not a citizen, you don't a trial.

Do you have a citation for this, or are you just telling us what you think that the situation should be? And if it's the former, have you actually considered the ramifications of what it would entail? Regular tourists in the US are not citizens. What would happen to them if they'd receive no protection from the law?

No, everyone does. Even ICE wouldn't argue that somehow the 5th and 6th and 14th Amendment only applies to citizens because that reading doesn't give them unlimited power to deny due process, but rather, it would place non-citizens out of their jurisdiction entirely. Although that would also conflict with the plain wording of the constitution itself and also, the drafters of the 14th Amendment have testified that their intent was to cover all people. Their argument had always been that as an administrative agency even though what they do is virtually indistinguishable from the exercise of judicial powers under Article III, they do not serve Article III courts and therefore, detention and removal are not "punishment", but an administrative matter. Otherwise, we'd have a public defender system at the very least for immigration cases, because Gideon v. Wainwright would apply under cases and controversies arising out of Article III powers and the exercise thereof. Instead, by explicitly not basing their actions on Article III powers, they've contended that the protections in the constitution doesn't kick in. This is not a winning argument but enough of their rationale have managed to stand. The 4th Amendment actually still applies except without a lawyer one can hardly seek redress, especially when ICE can remove you beyond the court's jurisdiction at will. ICE obviously wants its cake and eat it too, but since that doesn't tend to fly in court, even the Court during the first Trump admin, the only way they can thread the needle in any way that is even remotely persuasive would necessitate that they'd have jurisdiction over all who are present, since Article II powers delegated by Article I also requires the Constitution to establish personal jurisdiction over everyone in the country.

Btw, I would say that morally everyone deserves a fair trial. Whether the laws in any particular place agree is a separate question.

> Committing a crime might well result in your movement being curtailed

What about when you don't commit crimes?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-teen-detained-ice-after-mi...

I do love how you felt the need to comment about something that very obviously isn't in contention as if it somehow defends the actions of this current administration.

It definitely is in contention.

No, it's not.

Nobody is saying "You can't deport criminals". Literally nobody.

> Committing a crime

Is this reasonably and sensibly established before applying the secret police tactics on the respective person or the ones around them?

Of course not: https://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-teen-detained-ice-after-mi...

> Committing a crime might well result in your movement being curtailed, and addressing crime is definitely within the remit of limited government.

I expect televised footage of perp walks for the business owners and CEOs who hire "illegal immigrants" then. Otherwise, the point is cruelty rather than law and order.

You can't pull the "well they're criminals!!1!" card.

They still have rights. Do you know what we call countries where criminals don't have rights? Authoritarian.

Wake. Up.

It's the next iteration of the War On Drugs.

One the one hand, you have maybe-semi-reasonable arguments about law and social problems. On the other, you have extremely violent enforcement, carried out in discriminatory ways, which will also end up affecting the entirely innocent. While producing a huge prison population for private profit.

The war on drugs brought all sorts of search and seizure, including forfeiture (effectively a war on cash allowing the police to steal people's money). The war on terror brought mass surveillance and much more intrusive searches at airports. The war on immigration will bring "papers please" to American citizens, as well as the ability to disappear inconvenient public speakers.