It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
If you mean we created an environment where people could come and find success and live their lives, and we perhaps weren’t as strict as we could’ve been in some situations… I don’t think that violently kidnapping people off the streets, without showing badges, in unmarked vehicles, masked, etc is a punishment that fits the crime.
Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity
"due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC". I think most people would be surprised how little process is owed to someone who is not legally present in the United States and how few opportunities there are for appeal.
These people are shuffled around the country without their lawyers being informed and are “lost” in the system for long stretches of time without representation.
This means they can’t prove if they are here legally or not.
Furthermore, the administration wants to end birthright citizenship, which they will no doubt aim to make retroactive. Not being able to prove citizenship or status means (according to you) that you have no rights. anybody born here or otherwise will subject to this process and unable to prove their citizenship.
And again, the treatment these people are receiving is absolutely heinous, especially considering that they’ve not been charged with or found guilty of a violent crime.
I’m not sure about specific rules around who can appeal to the Supreme Court, nor am I sure why such an appeal has been mentioned… but once people on American soil lose basic rights we all do. All it takes is being ACCUSED of the right non-violent crime and then you have absolutely zero rights and are treated like an animal.
We should be better than this even if the law doesn’t say we have to be (which it does). If folks are here illegally and subject to deportation, prove it. Don’t hide them in the system and deprive them of representation.
I’m not sure what an undocumented (or documented but missing some arbitrary checkbox) person did to you but I can assure you it doesn’t mean that person or others should be subjected to this treatment in a civilized society.
The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.
> The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""
More relevant to ICE, is the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from doing that.
Being deported isn't legally deprivation of "life, liberty, or property."
Deportation is not a punishment and is entirely avoidable in 99% of cases: don't overstay or enter illegally.
I always forget websters definition of punishment is “violent masked unidentified government sanctioned gangs roaming the streets and violently apprehending people”
That’s such a great point. Deportation is supposed to be incredibly violent because it’s a punishment. I’m jotting that one down since it’s certainly not written in any laws. I don’t wanna forget.
How about children being ziptied in their homes and roughed up in the middle of the night?
Oops a citizen, don’t look so brown next time. Catch and release.
How is it not deprivation of liberty to be forcibly removed from where you are and not allowed to return?
Because you didn't have the legal right to remain there in the first place?
You're confusing natural rights and civil rights. And backpedaling from "they're not being deprived of these rights" to "they deserve it". They may deserve it but you don't know that without- (please finish the sentence)
Little... but not none.
Follow the law. I'm not asking for more process than the law specifies, but ICE has to actually follow the law. If they won't, then they no longer have legal authority to do what they're doing, and they're just another gang.
> "due process" means "This is the process the government must follow" and is not shorthand for "You are allowed to appeal to the USSC".
Questions of due process, as due process is a federal Constitutional guarantee, are controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, as such, are within the judicial power defined in Article III of the Constitution.
What's moral vs what's legal aren't always the same thing. Especially in times like this, they get very quickly divergent.
To the parent poster's point, the obligation of the citizen in a democracy (at least in theory) is to try to align those.
Agreed.
Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
> Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue.
I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0]
I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
> An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping.
Okay, but dragging citizens out of their homes without a warrant (https://www.commondreams.org/news/ice-raid-chicago-apartment) sure is.
Obama’s deportation numbers were juiced compared to post-2015 numbers because there was a change in the definition of that term.
Obama’s deportations were mostly border patrol apprehending and pushing people back across the border, not ICE being super efficient at rounding up people in the interior of the country.
A good primer on immigration enforcement before and during the Obama admin:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
> Obama was quite strict about it and deported tons of illegals. An arrest isn't a violent kidnapping. Being arrested by the feds for breaking the law has usually been a fairly unpleasant ordeal.
Obama prioritized deportation of people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals after they got their day in court. He did not call Mexicans rapists. The admin did not arrest US citizens. Being arrested by the feds even if you did not break the law is a much worse ordeal.
> Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
The line for legal citizenship does not move faster if you deport more people.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
When masked men come out of a van and kidnap you off the streets in broad daylight, tell me if it's an emotional issue or not.
> Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
Were you always a fascist sympathizer or did Trump stoke those feelings in you?
Lmao
> as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal
In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.
Huh? They're either chasing down people with an administrative warrant (which as far as I can tell are largely valid) or they're using reasonable suspicion which SCOTUS just decided can be determined by a combination of ethnic, economic, and geographic factors. The latter seems wrongly-decided but it is lawful by definition.
What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.
How about denying the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens to be secure in their homes in the recent Chicago apartment raid? https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-sufferable-evil
How about detaining US citizens without warrants for days at a time and then releasing with no charges? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-...
Let's hope the people not subject to a warrant sue ICE's pants off. As far as I can tell, most of the dragnets are either in public places or with the permission of the property owner.
I'd love to be wrong because it means the judciary has a chance to shut this down but I fear outside of a few civil rights suits this will have to be remedied at the ballot box.
It's essentially impossible to sue ICE, they have qualified immunity. Police have been doing similar things for years.
The officers do, not the agency or police department. People sue and win against police departments all the time.
> What actions are you referring to
The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law).
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
Ecuador: my recollection is they did the deportations without process which is probably illegal and was therefore halted by SCOTUS pending a final decision. The administration sent a plane after a lower court had ordered them not to, then claimed incompetence. As far as I am aware, since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket. I'd personally bin this under "not descriptive of the legality of ICE's campaign in general" because it (afaik) is halted indefinitely. It's terrible, for sure, but that's not the question at hand.
Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.
> since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket
My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing.
> Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law
I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.
The SCOTUS abdicating their duty to the constitution does not make ICE's actions any less illegal, it just makes the Supreme Court as an institution illegitimate. It is unfortunate that things have devolved so far, but it is more important than ever that we state things clearly and succinctly in the face of those that have decided the constitution no longer matters.
You might believe SCOTUS has abdicated their duty, but that doesn’t make it illegal. The whole reason the Supreme Court exists is because there is no such thing as “clearly illegal” without some kind of adjudicating body that can decide if something breaks the law. Laws aren’t like math axioms; you can’t prove or disprove that a law has been broken with pure logic, you have to have humans interpret the words and apply it to a situation.
By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.
By definition, the law is what we, collectively, agree on as being the law. The Supreme Court is only able to serve as the executor of the law on the basis of the institution being seen as legitimate and by virtue of being given that right by society.
The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution.
Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
Well, the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law. That is what gives it the force of law.
Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however
> the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law
The Constitution vests "the judicial Power of the United States" in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" [1].
That isn't the same as "ultimate authority to interpret the law." In practice, SCOTUS does usually have this power, due to Marbury and other precedent. In practice, too, it can be bullied, e.g. by FDR and potentially right now.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
If that's true that's the same thing as Supreme Court simply having all the power isn't it? SCOTUS largely serves as a veto power on the other two branches. If they can actually unilaterally make a binding interpretation of the constitution then they could simply declare the constitution is actually saying SCOTUS has all of the federal powers and that Clarence Thomas is King.
SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.
There are supposed to be checks on the power of the supreme court through both the ability to impeach justices and the ability to pass constitutional amendments. Those checks are not working as they are supposed to for many reasons.
Immigration has always come under the plenary powers of The Congress and is not subject to judicial review. This plenary power doctrine has weakened over the centuries but it still holds.
https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
Immigration 'mostly' falls under plenary powers of The Congress and the courts have little to no authority in these matters (similar to how Presidential pardons may not be overturned by the Court or Congress). This legal theory has been changing over time but it still mostly holds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. It's interesting that you believe the Supreme Court is illegitimate for rightly ruling based on the letter of the law.
If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces.
You won't always get your way. That's Democracy.
> The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants.
Who are you responding to? I don't see that anywhere in this thread.
Just because SCOTUS says something doesn't make it just. Especially this court.
[flagged]
> as a general rule
To rudely open a dictionary:
"As a general rule" - phrase of general - in most cases.
Agents of the state are supposed to be acting within the law IN ALL CASES.
The SS & SA were operating entirely within the law, if you ignore the times where they weren't.
Did it seem from how I employed the term "as a general rule" that I didn't understand its meaning?
It seemed quite the opposite. That you knew exactly what you were saying, but using weasel words to imply ICE was acting above board without stating any falsehoods that might be challenged.
The rhetorical trick of my reply being that it forces you to either address to the meat of the subject, or leave the statement uncontested.
But congratulations, conceding the argument rather than ousting yourself as a fascist was the better choice.
Please read the rules.
ICE is targeting groups of people based upon a probability that some are illegal. This violates the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment requires reasonable suspicion of a specific individual. This is also why they don’t have warrants, because no judge would grant it. The LA courts have ruled their activity illegal. The federal government is appealing. The SCOTUS ruling allows ICE to continue doing what they are doing until the appeal is heard.
I mean slavery was legal, Jim Crow was legal...
A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.
So call what they're doing 'wrong' not 'illegal'. The remedies for those two things are very different.
Well also a lot of what they're doing to enforce laws without warrants, arresting citizens without cause, lack of due process, etc is illegal.
But a lot of this won't change without "active, provocative, non-violent" resistance as Gandhi would say.
Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal?
If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
> Out of curiosity, what makes "arresting citizens" illegal?
Without probable cause? The Fourth Amendment.
> shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence
I see that you are comfortable with a presumption of guilt so long as the burden of proof of actual innocence isn’t too rigorous, but that’s exactly backwards.
I should have said "without cause" (now edited). Brown folks are detained randomly because they don't have their papers on them and "look Mexican".
due process
[flagged]
Well it might be emotional if you're one of these people about to be sent to South Sudan
It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
Either human beings have rights and deserve due process, or they don't.
People are reduced to the point of keeping airtags on them so loved ones and their lawyers can find them because the administration wants to hide them away.
>It's either right or wrong for ICE to run a dragnet through a city, cuffing everyone, checking their papers, as they hope to find someone undocumented.
What does the fact that ICE is doing it to catch illegal matter? Because as far as I'm concerned ICE has no bearing on this. It's wrong no matter who does it or what their goals are.
Being an illegal is barely a crime. Whoops, you overstayed your visa, big fucking deal. If we are going to take issue with this sort of enforcement behavior used on such minor infractions then we need to do so on principal, because not giving a shit when it was used on drug dealers and terrorists and tax evaders and everything else that's "bad" is how we fucking got here.
ICE is just particularly egregious example. But a lot of Federal agents on the ground are participating in Midway Blitz.
You're missing the point. No agency should be behaving this way over a paperwork crime.
It's not even a crime. It's an administrative infraction.
Majority of Americans want immigration law enforced. Democracy worked last November.
I voted for it. Happy that rational Americans are now getting what we want despite the best efforts of those with poor judgment, who should never speak on policy.
[flagged]
I'm not trying to be combative here; genuinely would like to see things from "the other side" here and have a rational discussion. Using some specifics, I see the following as wrong:
1. Doing mass detentions and checking papers. Of course not literally through the entirety of a city, but do you agree this happens in mass at say home depot parking lots, construction sites etc, where ICE doesn't know who exactly is here illegally, so they detain everyone and check. This vs having a specific individual in mind and going to arrest that person.
2. Sending people to countries they have no ties to. CECOT for instance, where they're imprisoned indefinitely without a specific charge.
Do you agree these have happened? If so do you think they're ok?
> Really don't understand the hyper-emotional hyperbole around this topic.
If you can’t understand the emotion of being sent to a random country and being separated from your family, I can’t help you.
Nothing more rational than dismissing other viewpoints as astroturfing
> That's not happening
Yes it is [1].
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
Might help if you specify which views you don't share? The fact that slavery etc was legal or that they were wrong or that citizens should oppose them?
It was terrible that the Democrats opposed abolishing slavery.
Which modern political party waves confederate flags?