This really doesn't seem like a good idea. If people like the idea of browser independence they just need to stop brigading Ladybird with frivolous nonsense[0].
This seems identical to saying that convincing someone with anorexia that they aren't overweight is "social death", and "social death" is (somehow) genocide.
> You think I'm joking? There are hundreds of issues with as many emojis with no official response for years. And when you finally get a response, it's to tell you that what you're doing is wrong and a solution to your real problems is on the way. Then they proceed to keep the "solution" in canary for years on end.
It's so much easier to hire people to do prioritisation (or deprioritisation) or code of conduct enforcement or whatever than to just do good work.
This reply is a complete non sequitur. Taxing capital gains as ordinary income does not mean the removal of a "reward for risking capital" because the potential upside is still unlimited compared to working a wage job.
> Whether you’re learning Ruby and Rails, pushing open-source forward, creating dev content, or building your passion project, we want to make sure you have the tools to enjoy what you do even more… for free.
I don't know why they say this fatuous stuff. Obviously they don't want to do that, or they'd make all their tools available for nothing.
> On the other side, who the hell would pay for pro EU propaganda?
No one - the EU gets its money from force: taxes on citizens and fines from companies created in more entrepreneurial environments than the EU can produce.
> 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.
> 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'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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
My understanding is the court said not to send him back to El Salvador (he is from there) because he's an El Salvadorean gang member, and a rival gang would kill him there.
No, that is merely what the US government alleged. There's an allegation from a suspended cop that he is a gang member because he wore a Chicago Bulls hat, and that's all ICE is basing itself on to call him a gang member.
The court said not to send him back to El Salvador because he applied for asylum, and was granted asylum because he faced dangers in El Salvador. Not because he's a gang member, which are allegations that have never been proven.
Ah, yes, "Tired of Being Politically Correct (@USBornNRaised)" is certainly a very accurate source for information, and is definitely not the kind of person that would repost shitty edited pictures for political gain.
Journalists ? Judges ? What's that ? Real americans get their news from random propaganda accounts on X.
The problem is (2) has been pushed recently by the left in America (unlike 20 years ago when it was the right that liked illegal immigration) as a racist stance, and "open borders" was a big policy idea.
So many, many thousands of illegal immigrants (renamed 1984-style to "undocumented" by the media outlets who operate in lockstep with the Democrat party) have been allowed in, and have been sheltered by businesses who like below-minimum wage labour, and by democrat cities in general.
This means there's not much left to do when left-wing activists violently defend illegal immigrants from ICE removal other than escalating ICE activities to compensate.
they still like illegal immigration, because it's good for businesses (the primary concern of the right)
its Trump/MAGA's xenophobic popularism that is reflected in ICE's thuggery (which is clearly designed to instill fear; the same way that S.Miller's plans to separate children from parents at the border was overtly designed to instill fear). It is not reflective of the traditional GOP. In fact, GOP senators have pressed Trump into making "exceptions" -- you'll notice how ICE is primarily operating in "blue" cities, and not raiding farms and chicken processing plants in the Midwest or the CA central valley -- this is not a coincidence.
[0] https://hyperborea.org/reviews/software/ladybird-inclusivity
reply