A state law can only be illegal if it violates the state's own constitution or the US constitution.
States are not obligated to participate in the enforcement of federal law, and are entitled to control the official conduct of their own officers and agencies.
If a state has a law that prohibits local police officers from furnishing data to federal agencies, that law is completely valid, and officers that act contrary to it are in violation of state law.
It’s strange to me that we see people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and many people consider lawfulness to be sufficient justification. No, right and wrong don’t derive from laws. It’s supposed to be the other way round.
if i were to visit any country, and then just randomly stay and try to get a job, I expect that it won't last long. why is this not the case for people that come here?
Because that's not what it's happening. It's a dragnet of paramilitary forces using skin color to determine who to abduct, and they're kidnapping loads of legal residents and even citizens, because skin color and spoken language are not legitimate proxies for legal residency status.
Why do you use these silly words: “abduct”, “kidnapping”? Those are specific crimes and by trying to exploit the emotional weight of those words instead of making an honest account you come off as unsophisticated and manipulative. If what is happening is so problematic why do you need to describe it in bombastic, provably untrue terms?
How else do you describe plainclothes "officers" picking up people from the street, putting people into unmarked vehicles, and locking them up in faraway detainment facilities despite never officially charging them with a crime?
If it was an arrest, wouldn't they be charged with a crime or released after a short processing time if not actually charged? If it was an arrest, why not have the officers properly identify themselves?
Kidnapping does have specific legal meaning depending on jurisdiction. But it also has a common meaning of "the action of abducting someone and holding them captive". Abduction has a common definition of "the action of taking someone away by force or deception". Do these actions not fit these definitions?
You're acting like it's impossible for the government to kidnap or abduct people. Seems like quite a limited world view to believe such a thing.
The ignorance here is just staggering. Every single person arrested for any and all crimes in the US is initially detained without being charged with a crime. This is normal. The police do not charge people with crimes: courts do. This is called an arraignment and it must occur within 48 hours of arrest. There is zero non-standard conduct from ICE in this regard.
ICE officers are required to identify themselves “as soon as practical or safe” as a regulation. They are not required to identify themselves in the same manner as state police because they are not state officers, they are federal officers. Federal law applies to them, not state law. Again, zero non-standard conduct from ICE.
> Do these actions not fit these definitions?
No they absolutely do not, because we’re talking about law enforcement so the only reasonable frame of reference is the legal definition of these words not the “I feel like it” definition. By your definition all arrests are “taking someone away by force” and are therefore abduction: obviously a stupid definition.
I think it’s entirely possible for the government to abduct people: please don’t put strawman words into my mouth. You have, however provided zero evidence to make your case and in fact demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand the most basic everyday workings of our legal system.
> This is called an arraignment and it must occur within 48 hours of arrest
This isn't happening for these people. They're being locked up for weeks to months without any due process at all. They're being sent to overseas prisons indefinitely once again without ever facing such arraignment or charges or a courtroom. You're saying this is normal, and yet saying an arraignment must occur within 48 hours. Which is normal, being held for months without an arraignment or being released within 48 hours if not being officially charged?
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. An arraignment must happen or its not normal, but arraignments not happening without being released is normal.
> we’re talking about law enforcement so the only reasonable frame of reference is the legal definition of these words
> I think it’s entirely possible for the government to abduct people
So, the government can choose to pick people up on the street without identifying themselves and lock them away indefinitely in overseas prisons without any arraignment or charges or court case and argue they're removed from the jurisdiction of the US court system, but it's not abduction because the government says it's not. I guess the government only abducts people when it says it abducts people, guess there's nothing to worry about then.
I'm not trying to talk to some specific legal definition in a court of law; I'm speaking to morality. Plainclothes agents failing to identify themselves to normal people and shoving them into the backs of unmarked cars isn't a good thing to do. Having this just become a normal part of life seems pretty fucked up to me, but maybe that's the world you prefer to live in.
I can't see how anyone can look at cases like Abregio Garcia's as anything but kidnapping. He had a legal status of "withholding of removal". His status was changed without any notification to him other than when he was "arrested". No worries though, he'll be arraigned in 48 hours or be charged, right? Nope. Sent to CECOT to be detained indefinitely without having any charges levied against him, and seemingly without having any other options of self-deportation. He wasn't officially charged with a crime until he was removed from CECOT months later and brought back to the US. Where was that arraignment? Where was the due process?
I can't see how anyone can look at cases like Mahmoud Khalil's as anything but kidnapping. He had a green card. He was detained for over 100 days, was seemingly close to also be sent to CECOT indefinitely. To this day he still has not officially been charged with a crime.
And to think what has happened to these people has happened to at least hundreds of others. People without any criminal backgrounds. People never formally charged with a crime. Currently in ICE detention facilities with no clear release date, no court date, no right legal representation, some even in overseas prisons.
> By your definition all arrests are “taking someone away by force” and are therefore abduction: obviously a stupid definition.
A police shooting that results in the death of someone is a homicide. It is potentially a legally and morally justifiable homicide, but it is still a homicide. We agree words can have a legal definition separate from the dictionary definition, right? It's not wrong to use the dictionary definition when we're not a lawyer arguing a case in a courtroom, right?
Do you expect that a properly granted visa will be revoked without any notice and then be quickly hurried off to a for-profit prison without any trial or representation for months?
So not in a concentration camp in Florida without ever formally being charged with a crime, correct? Just sent here, without any representation, without any due process, without any clear end date to your confinement.
Do you believe in due process? Do you think it's wrong to send people to these places without any due process, without formally being charged with a crime, and without any clear release date established?
For a lot of these people that was not even a given option. They went from having legal status in the US to being on a plane to a foreign prison without any notice or chance to do anything else.
Oh so you're purely arguing in bad faith. They're deporting legal residents by revoking their legal status through dubious means, not communicating said revocation, and then arresting previously legal residents. And "uproot your life or else we'll murder you by feeding you to wildlife" isn't the sort of government service I aim for.
> if i were to visit any country, and then just randomly stay and try to get a job, I expect that it won't last long. why is this not the case for people that come here?
If you have ever gone backpacking for any length of time, you will have met large numbers of people all over the developing world from Europe, Australia and America who are living there and working illegally. In general the result of being caught is being asked to leave and come back with a new visa, and not being violently arrested and thrown into a concentration camp indefinitely.
Billionaires have funded a coup, supported climate change, mass surveillance, and a genocide in Gaza. Why are they not held to account for their wrongdoing but immigrants are being sent to concentration camps without due process for the crime of crossing border for work? The reason is that billionaires are powerful and hard to unseat, while immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for society’s ills.
We already agreed "right and wrong" when we enacted certain laws. Any more complicated than that and you might as well live in a war zone. You don't get to cherry-pick laws because your definition of "right" doesn't align to what the democratic process concluded. You want to change it, go vote for it.
With a wave of a billionaire’s hand, officials are elected, the constitution undone, a dictator installed, a new political party formed. This political structure is oligarchy not democracy.
Due process, on the other hand, is a fundamental right of democratic systems. Yet this feature too is being curtailed - in favor of concentrations camps.
Billionaires have made scapegoats out of a racial minority. Basic humans rights are violated. Our democracy is in shambles thanks to this group - through their subversion of democratic processes and the undermining of democratic rights. What we are witnessing is not democracy - quite the opposite.
It is illegal to spend state money (i.e. wages for state and local police) to enforce federal law (the feds have their own budget for that).
California law also makes it illegal to do federal enforcement with state resources and specifically makes sharing this license plate information with federal investigators by state and local police illegal.
This has nothing to do with the supremacy of federal law over state law. It has to do with who does the enforcement of these laws. It is similarly illegal for me to enforce federal law, but I am certainly bound by it.
In fact, under well-established constitutional law it is illegal for the federal government to attempt to compel state governments to enforce federal law. US states are sovereign in their own right and are not administrative arms of the federal government.
The supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
The federal government and DOJ has declined to prosecute Marijuana, but they definitely have the right to do so.
> One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
Some states took over a decade after Brown v Board to actually integrate school systems. So again, another instance of state laws seeming to trump federal laws.
If the idea is just not enforcing the supremacy of federal laws is enough, then not enforcing the federal law over the state law which bar sharing info with federal agencies is also in place here so far
No -- states repealing their own laws against marijuana have nothing to do with federal law, and do not prevent the feds from enforcing their own laws in any way. The states are not obligated to implement their own policies in order to further federal interests, nor to participate in the enforcement of federal law.
A state law can only be illegal if it violates the state's own constitution or the US constitution.
States are not obligated to participate in the enforcement of federal law, and are entitled to control the official conduct of their own officers and agencies.
If a state has a law that prohibits local police officers from furnishing data to federal agencies, that law is completely valid, and officers that act contrary to it are in violation of state law.
It’s strange to me that we see people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and many people consider lawfulness to be sufficient justification. No, right and wrong don’t derive from laws. It’s supposed to be the other way round.
if i were to visit any country, and then just randomly stay and try to get a job, I expect that it won't last long. why is this not the case for people that come here?
Because that's not what it's happening. It's a dragnet of paramilitary forces using skin color to determine who to abduct, and they're kidnapping loads of legal residents and even citizens, because skin color and spoken language are not legitimate proxies for legal residency status.
Why do you use these silly words: “abduct”, “kidnapping”? Those are specific crimes and by trying to exploit the emotional weight of those words instead of making an honest account you come off as unsophisticated and manipulative. If what is happening is so problematic why do you need to describe it in bombastic, provably untrue terms?
How else do you describe plainclothes "officers" picking up people from the street, putting people into unmarked vehicles, and locking them up in faraway detainment facilities despite never officially charging them with a crime?
If it was an arrest, wouldn't they be charged with a crime or released after a short processing time if not actually charged? If it was an arrest, why not have the officers properly identify themselves?
Kidnapping does have specific legal meaning depending on jurisdiction. But it also has a common meaning of "the action of abducting someone and holding them captive". Abduction has a common definition of "the action of taking someone away by force or deception". Do these actions not fit these definitions?
You're acting like it's impossible for the government to kidnap or abduct people. Seems like quite a limited world view to believe such a thing.
The ignorance here is just staggering. Every single person arrested for any and all crimes in the US is initially detained without being charged with a crime. This is normal. The police do not charge people with crimes: courts do. This is called an arraignment and it must occur within 48 hours of arrest. There is zero non-standard conduct from ICE in this regard.
ICE officers are required to identify themselves “as soon as practical or safe” as a regulation. They are not required to identify themselves in the same manner as state police because they are not state officers, they are federal officers. Federal law applies to them, not state law. Again, zero non-standard conduct from ICE.
> Do these actions not fit these definitions?
No they absolutely do not, because we’re talking about law enforcement so the only reasonable frame of reference is the legal definition of these words not the “I feel like it” definition. By your definition all arrests are “taking someone away by force” and are therefore abduction: obviously a stupid definition.
I think it’s entirely possible for the government to abduct people: please don’t put strawman words into my mouth. You have, however provided zero evidence to make your case and in fact demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand the most basic everyday workings of our legal system.
> This is called an arraignment and it must occur within 48 hours of arrest
This isn't happening for these people. They're being locked up for weeks to months without any due process at all. They're being sent to overseas prisons indefinitely once again without ever facing such arraignment or charges or a courtroom. You're saying this is normal, and yet saying an arraignment must occur within 48 hours. Which is normal, being held for months without an arraignment or being released within 48 hours if not being officially charged?
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. An arraignment must happen or its not normal, but arraignments not happening without being released is normal.
> we’re talking about law enforcement so the only reasonable frame of reference is the legal definition of these words
> I think it’s entirely possible for the government to abduct people
So, the government can choose to pick people up on the street without identifying themselves and lock them away indefinitely in overseas prisons without any arraignment or charges or court case and argue they're removed from the jurisdiction of the US court system, but it's not abduction because the government says it's not. I guess the government only abducts people when it says it abducts people, guess there's nothing to worry about then.
I'm not trying to talk to some specific legal definition in a court of law; I'm speaking to morality. Plainclothes agents failing to identify themselves to normal people and shoving them into the backs of unmarked cars isn't a good thing to do. Having this just become a normal part of life seems pretty fucked up to me, but maybe that's the world you prefer to live in.
I can't see how anyone can look at cases like Abregio Garcia's as anything but kidnapping. He had a legal status of "withholding of removal". His status was changed without any notification to him other than when he was "arrested". No worries though, he'll be arraigned in 48 hours or be charged, right? Nope. Sent to CECOT to be detained indefinitely without having any charges levied against him, and seemingly without having any other options of self-deportation. He wasn't officially charged with a crime until he was removed from CECOT months later and brought back to the US. Where was that arraignment? Where was the due process?
I can't see how anyone can look at cases like Mahmoud Khalil's as anything but kidnapping. He had a green card. He was detained for over 100 days, was seemingly close to also be sent to CECOT indefinitely. To this day he still has not officially been charged with a crime.
And to think what has happened to these people has happened to at least hundreds of others. People without any criminal backgrounds. People never formally charged with a crime. Currently in ICE detention facilities with no clear release date, no court date, no right legal representation, some even in overseas prisons.
> By your definition all arrests are “taking someone away by force” and are therefore abduction: obviously a stupid definition.
A police shooting that results in the death of someone is a homicide. It is potentially a legally and morally justifiable homicide, but it is still a homicide. We agree words can have a legal definition separate from the dictionary definition, right? It's not wrong to use the dictionary definition when we're not a lawyer arguing a case in a courtroom, right?
Do you expect that a properly granted visa will be revoked without any notice and then be quickly hurried off to a for-profit prison without any trial or representation for months?
I expect that if I were to lose my visa status that I would be on a flight within a few days! And with my own money!
So not in a concentration camp in Florida without ever formally being charged with a crime, correct? Just sent here, without any representation, without any due process, without any clear end date to your confinement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_Alcatraz#/media/File...
Or quickly sent to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo in El Salvador, once again without any kind of hearing or choice of potential outcomes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Confinement_Center#/...
Do you believe in due process? Do you think it's wrong to send people to these places without any due process, without formally being charged with a crime, and without any clear release date established?
Honestly, I would rather be in my home country!
Due process is the process that is due! It's not a court hearing it's a much more simplified process.
If the process to get into the country is next to none, then the process to get out is the same.
For a lot of these people that was not even a given option. They went from having legal status in the US to being on a plane to a foreign prison without any notice or chance to do anything else.
as far as I know they all had notice on Jan 20. Tom Homan didn't make any moves for a few weeks.
And even now, the day they announce alligator alc they said, download CBP Home app and get 1k and a free plane ticket!!!!!!
Oh so you're purely arguing in bad faith. They're deporting legal residents by revoking their legal status through dubious means, not communicating said revocation, and then arresting previously legal residents. And "uproot your life or else we'll murder you by feeding you to wildlife" isn't the sort of government service I aim for.
> if i were to visit any country, and then just randomly stay and try to get a job, I expect that it won't last long. why is this not the case for people that come here?
If you have ever gone backpacking for any length of time, you will have met large numbers of people all over the developing world from Europe, Australia and America who are living there and working illegally. In general the result of being caught is being asked to leave and come back with a new visa, and not being violently arrested and thrown into a concentration camp indefinitely.
Billionaires have funded a coup, supported climate change, mass surveillance, and a genocide in Gaza. Why are they not held to account for their wrongdoing but immigrants are being sent to concentration camps without due process for the crime of crossing border for work? The reason is that billionaires are powerful and hard to unseat, while immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for society’s ills.
We already agreed "right and wrong" when we enacted certain laws. Any more complicated than that and you might as well live in a war zone. You don't get to cherry-pick laws because your definition of "right" doesn't align to what the democratic process concluded. You want to change it, go vote for it.
With a wave of a billionaire’s hand, officials are elected, the constitution undone, a dictator installed, a new political party formed. This political structure is oligarchy not democracy.
Due process, on the other hand, is a fundamental right of democratic systems. Yet this feature too is being curtailed - in favor of concentrations camps.
Billionaires have made scapegoats out of a racial minority. Basic humans rights are violated. Our democracy is in shambles thanks to this group - through their subversion of democratic processes and the undermining of democratic rights. What we are witnessing is not democracy - quite the opposite.
It is illegal to spend state money (i.e. wages for state and local police) to enforce federal law (the feds have their own budget for that).
California law also makes it illegal to do federal enforcement with state resources and specifically makes sharing this license plate information with federal investigators by state and local police illegal.
This has nothing to do with the supremacy of federal law over state law. It has to do with who does the enforcement of these laws. It is similarly illegal for me to enforce federal law, but I am certainly bound by it.
Which federal law exactly requires states to spend money to enforce federal law?
I'll give you a hint: none.
In fact, under well-established constitutional law it is illegal for the federal government to attempt to compel state governments to enforce federal law. US states are sovereign in their own right and are not administrative arms of the federal government.
If you think it's illegal, explain how. Don't just toss out innuendos.
Marijuana was legalized in contravention to federal law
The supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
The federal government and DOJ has declined to prosecute Marijuana, but they definitely have the right to do so.
> One clear example is segregation which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
Some states took over a decade after Brown v Board to actually integrate school systems. So again, another instance of state laws seeming to trump federal laws.
If the idea is just not enforcing the supremacy of federal laws is enough, then not enforcing the federal law over the state law which bar sharing info with federal agencies is also in place here so far
No -- states repealing their own laws against marijuana have nothing to do with federal law, and do not prevent the feds from enforcing their own laws in any way. The states are not obligated to implement their own policies in order to further federal interests, nor to participate in the enforcement of federal law.