US Citizens getting detained by ICE.

[SirNitram]

Please indicate where in the Constitution it says 'Aiding and abetting an illegal alien violates your rights to due process and a lack of unreasonable search and seizure'.

I'll wait.

ICE gets court orders and went through proper legal procedures to get their warrants. I can't comment on the exact nature of the warrants as they are still sealed. Granted, the Special Agent in Charge screwed up big time by not letting detainees get attorneys as quickly as they should have. Still, before the operation went down ICE prepared lists of attorneys who would to pro bono work related to the Van Nuys raid, and after complaints were made about access the restrictions were eased. The SAC definitely made a mistake, but ICE rectified the situation.

Frankly, the question of constitutionality of these raids will be decided by Federal Court. ICE followed the proper procedures as it exists now.

Uh, no, they did not. They did not let the detainees get their lawyers, you yourself said that.. Which is a violation of Due Process.. Which is unconstitutional. I'm sorry this seems a little hard to track, but 'ICE' does not mean 'Immune from Constitution'.

[irishmick79]

Please indicate where in the Constitution it says 'Aiding and abetting an illegal alien violates your rights to due process and a lack of unreasonable search and seizure'.

I'll wait.

ICE gets court orders and went through proper legal procedures to get their warrants. I can't comment on the exact nature of the warrants as they are still sealed. Granted, the Special Agent in Charge screwed up big time by not letting detainees get attorneys as quickly as they should have. Still, before the operation went down ICE prepared lists of attorneys who would to pro bono work related to the Van Nuys raid, and after complaints were made about access the restrictions were eased. The SAC definitely made a mistake, but ICE rectified the situation.

Frankly, the question of constitutionality of these raids will be decided by Federal Court. ICE followed the proper procedures as it exists now.

Uh, no, they did not. They did not let the detainees get their lawyers, you yourself said that.. Which is a violation of Due Process.. Which is unconstitutional. I'm sorry this seems a little hard to track, but 'ICE' does not mean 'Immune from Constitution'.

ICE quickly corrected the situation.

I do think that there are certainly constitutional issues with the raids, and I hope that it gets properly aired in Federal court. You can raise a whole slew of issues with just how quickly the process can move, and how limited or expansive ICE's detention capabilities should be. The whole machinery needs to be overhauled to be more immigrant friendly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yep. The basic problem with a lot of these ops is that so many of the illegals have fradulent documents claiming US citizenship it's an investigative nightmare to figure out who's actually a legit citizen or not.

Well quite frankly, that's your problem, isn't it? The fact that a lot of illegal immigrants have fake paperwork does not mean you can just start sweeping up people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You act as if their rights are something you can just brush aside if it slows down your arrest rate.

Yep, that is our problem. You also have the problem that these people are here illegally, and using fraudulent documents to gain benefits that they otherwise wouldn't be eligible for. That alone violates a whole series of criminal statutes, both on federal and state levels. In workplace raids like this where there's evidence of systematic abuse, how else would you treat the problem from a law enforcement perspective?

We can start by treating them like human beings, instead of sub-human scum.

[SirNitram]

ICE quickly corrected the situation.

I do think that there are certainly constitutional issues with the raids, and I hope that it gets properly aired in Federal court. You can raise a whole slew of issues with just how quickly the process can move, and how limited or expansive ICE's detention capabilities should be. The whole machinery needs to be overhauled to be more immigrant friendly.

Courts that have been appealed to have ruled it out of their jurisdiction. So.. Good luck on actually making that whole 'Rule of law' thing work. Oh, and it will not get overhauled. Not in any time soon. Because there is a nice chunk of the population and gasbag commentary section which advocate anything up to and including physical violence against immigrants.

[Darth Wong]

Well quite frankly, that's your problem, isn't it? The fact that a lot of illegal immigrants have fake paperwork does not mean you can just start sweeping up people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You act as if their rights are something you can just brush aside if it slows down your arrest rate.

Yep, that is our problem. You also have the problem that these people are here illegally, and using fraudulent documents to gain benefits that they otherwise wouldn't be eligible for. That alone violates a whole series of criminal statutes, both on federal and state levels. In workplace raids like this where there's evidence of systematic abuse, how else would you treat the problem from a law enforcement perspective?

Wrong. Until they are tried in court, they are only suspected of being here illegally. Do you see what you're doing here?

[irishmick79]

Well quite frankly, that's your problem, isn't it? The fact that a lot of illegal immigrants have fake paperwork does not mean you can just start sweeping up people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You act as if their rights are something you can just brush aside if it slows down your arrest rate.

Yep, that is our problem. You also have the problem that these people are here illegally, and using fraudulent documents to gain benefits that they otherwise wouldn't be eligible for. That alone violates a whole series of criminal statutes, both on federal and state levels. In workplace raids like this where there's evidence of systematic abuse, how else would you treat the problem from a law enforcement perspective?

Wrong. Until they are tried in court, they are only suspected of being here illegally. Do you see what you're doing here?

That's not necessarily true when it comes to immigration cases. A subject can and often does find themselves found removable by an Immigration Judge without ever appearing in court. You don't need a trial to be found removable. A lot of aliens wind up with outstanding Warrants of Deportation based on purely administrative matters. The system is fairly automated, since the immigration law is pretty specific in outlining what grounds a subject can be found removable. The basic thrust of the system has survived numerous court challenges, so it probably won't be changing anytime soon unless congress actually fixes the mess.

When ICE raids these places, they work very quickly to determine alienage for people detained. Permanent Residents and naturalized US citizens are released if they haven't been charged with any other crimes, and illegals wind up in custody to face deportation proceedings seperately from any criminal proceedings.

It's the same principle as police raiding a suspected drug house. If you know two dealers live in the house, but when you show up and find 10, it's entirely reasonable to detain everyone for awhile until you find the people you're looking for.

[SirNitram]

Irishmick, do you understand that Presumption Of Innocence is constitutional law?

Coffin v. United States, 1895.

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

Ergo, you have just admitted immigration proceedings violate this.

[irishmick79]

Irishmick, do you understand that Presumption Of Innocence is constitutional law?

Coffin v. United States, 1895.

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

Ergo, you have just admitted immigration proceedings violate this.

Explain that to the idiots who wrote the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the courts which later upheld it. Most deportation and removal hearings are considered civil matters. Besides, the case you cite specifically refers to criminal matters, and isn't the best precedent.

[SirNitram]

Explain that to the idiots who wrote the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the courts which later upheld it. Most deportation and removal hearings are considered civil matters. Besides, the case you cite specifically refers to criminal matters, and isn't the best precedent.

Civil Matters, but they can be placed in jails. Have you considered the inherent irrationality of that position?

The law here is broken. That's the whole point I've been trying to make.

[Darth Wong]

Wrong. Until they are tried in court, they are only suspected of being here illegally. Do you see what you're doing here?

That's not necessarily true when it comes to immigration cases. A subject can and often does find themselves found removable by an Immigration Judge without ever appearing in court.

You know, if you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong about the incredible unfairness with which these people are treated, you're doing a terrible job.

[Death from the Sea]

so why was that one US citizen deported to Tiajuana? that seems like a huge error not only with ICE but with the SO that handed him over.

[SirNitram]

so why was that one US citizen deported to Tiajuana? that seems like a huge error not only with ICE but with the SO that handed him over.

Probably didn't have his papers. When the Red Gu.. I mean, ICE asks for your papers, you better have 'em.

[Qwerty 42]

I should note the above where LadyTevar assists in my immigration status is entirely non-necessary: I've been a full legal permenant resident since the mid-80s. In short, the only real difference between my present status and Citizen is I cannot be drafted by the US Military(The British military can still yank me up, and I could volunteer for the US Military), and I cannot serve Jury Duty. I consider both a formality; my high education and attention to detail would make any lawyer hate me on the jury, and my birth defects ensure I wouldn't really bit fit for most military jobs.

There is actually only one way to fast track citizenship and not permenancy. That's the recent changes for those who enlist in the military. I fully support this, though I would like to see it expanded to more forms of public service.

Out of purely academic curiosity, are you permitted to vote? I don't mean anything by it, I simply do not know the answer.

[SirNitram]

I should note the above where LadyTevar assists in my immigration status is entirely non-necessary: I've been a full legal permenant resident since the mid-80s. In short, the only real difference between my present status and Citizen is I cannot be drafted by the US Military(The British military can still yank me up, and I could volunteer for the US Military), and I cannot serve Jury Duty. I consider both a formality; my high education and attention to detail would make any lawyer hate me on the jury, and my birth defects ensure I wouldn't really bit fit for most military jobs.

There is actually only one way to fast track citizenship and not permenancy. That's the recent changes for those who enlist in the military. I fully support this, though I would like to see it expanded to more forms of public service.

Out of purely academic curiosity, are you permitted to vote? I don't mean anything by it, I simply do not know the answer.

For American elections, I am not allowed to...

Vote.
Contribute monetarily to the campaign(Not even an Obama '08 lawn sign can be bought).
Serve a number of minor campaign positions.
And I believe there's an archaic thing about not 'directly, overtly influencing the vote', but that's all ancient history.

I am able to act normally in British elections, IIRC.

[The Dark]

For American elections, I am not allowed to...

Contribute monetarily to the campaign(Not even an Obama '08 lawn sign can be bought).

This may be me being sleepy stupid, but how could this be enforced, since Tev is an American citizen? Assuming you had such a lawn sign, wouldn't it be legal so long as it had been bought by Tev rather than by you?

[SirNitram]

For American elections, I am not allowed to...

Contribute monetarily to the campaign(Not even an Obama '08 lawn sign can be bought).

This may be me being sleepy stupid, but how could this be enforced, since Tev is an American citizen? Assuming you had such a lawn sign, wouldn't it be legal so long as it had been bought by Tev rather than by you?

That is the workaround, yes. Basically, it can't come from any account in my name, but can come from hers or a joint.

[irishmick79]

Wrong. Until they are tried in court, they are only suspected of being here illegally. Do you see what you're doing here?

That's not necessarily true when it comes to immigration cases. A subject can and often does find themselves found removable by an Immigration Judge without ever appearing in court.

You know, if you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong about the incredible unfairness with which these people are treated, you're doing a terrible job.

I'm not trying to say it's fair. It's obviously unfair, and the law needs to be rewritten. I'm trying to point out that ICE is acting within the law as it is currently established, and that these are issues that need to be resolved at the congressional level or in the judiciary. A lot of the outrage and protest that gets directed at ICE over this stuff needs to be directed at congress or the administration to really mean anything. ICE takes a lot of flak for this kind of thing that it frankly doesn't deserve. It's caught squarely between the ideological camps battling over immigration. Consequently ICE frequently (and unfairly) gets used by both pro and anti immigrant camps as cannon fodder in their ideological battles.

[Qwerty 42]

I should note the above where LadyTevar assists in my immigration status is entirely non-necessary: I've been a full legal permenant resident since the mid-80s. In short, the only real difference between my present status and Citizen is I cannot be drafted by the US Military(The British military can still yank me up, and I could volunteer for the US Military), and I cannot serve Jury Duty. I consider both a formality; my high education and attention to detail would make any lawyer hate me on the jury, and my birth defects ensure I wouldn't really bit fit for most military jobs.

There is actually only one way to fast track citizenship and not permenancy. That's the recent changes for those who enlist in the military. I fully support this, though I would like to see it expanded to more forms of public service.

Out of purely academic curiosity, are you permitted to vote? I don't mean anything by it, I simply do not know the answer.

For American elections, I am not allowed to...

Vote.
Contribute monetarily to the campaign(Not even an Obama '08 lawn sign can be bought).
Serve a number of minor campaign positions.
And I believe there's an archaic thing about not 'directly, overtly influencing the vote', but that's all ancient history.

I am able to act normally in British elections, IIRC.

That's interesting. Thank you.