Comment by trhway

Comment by trhway 5 days ago

40 replies

View on Hacker News

Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law, for example :

(1) Right of counsel The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18.

When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations.

I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens.

epistasis 5 days ago

There are two conceptions of law currently in the US. The first is what we see on TV, with lawyers and judges and law enforcement attempting, most often successfully, to apply a set of rules to everyone equally.

The second conception of law is what the federal government is doing now: oppression of opponents of the powerful, and protection of the powerful from any harm they cause to others.

We are currently in a battle to see which side wins. In many ways the struggle of the US, as it has become more free, is a struggle for the first conception to win over the second. When we had the Civil War, the first conception of law won. I hope it wins again.

Reply View 2 replies
  • reverius42 4 days ago

    I think the two can be called "rule of law" or "rule of men". I would have thought more people would support "rule of law".

    Reply View 1 reply
    • vintermann 4 days ago

      It was always people who ruled, it's just more apparent when the people who rule are bullies itching for a fight, who care even less about the appearance of consistency.

      For moral accountability, it should always in the end be "I say", not "the law says". No one should "just be obeying orders", they should make choices they can stand behind on their own judgment, regardless of whether some group of possibly long dead legislators stood behind it or not.

      Reply View 0 replies
zahlman 5 days ago

The extraditions are of people who have already had a hearing and are subject to a final order of removal.

Reply View 28 replies
  • trhway 3 days ago

    You’re really so telling not truth.

    The ICE picks brown skinned people without any order or warrant and makes them sign voluntary deportation, no hearings/attorneys/etc. That "works" even for the people who has a valid applications say for asylum, temporary protection status, court orders protecting them from deportation, etc. as long as they sign that "voluntary" thing. It "works" even for citizens! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman

    Reply View 0 replies
  • trhway 5 days ago

    That is just simply not true as was illustrated by many stories in the news. And in particular why would the ICE then use that checklist - young, Latino, tatoos ... -> gang member to extradite (to Guatemala).

    And what final order of removal were for example the US citizens picked by ICE subject to?

    Reply View 26 replies
    • zahlman 5 days ago

      US citizens were extradited? Who? To where?

      Reply View 25 replies
      • 15155 5 days ago

        Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."

        Reply View 24 replies
db48x 4 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 7 replies
  • vharuck 4 days ago

    The point of the Executive branch is to decide how to execute the law using limited resources. The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here. In the past, AGs used their discretion to target dangerous immigrants and low-hanging fruit.

    The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors.

    Reply View 4 replies
    • db48x 4 days ago

      > The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here.

      Sadly true. Traditionally most removals happen at the border where illegal aliens are easier to detect and where they can simply deny entry. Biden neglected to do that quite deliberately. He made speeches about it.

      Trump did increase ICE’s budget though.

      Anyway, https://www.dhs.gov/wow has twenty thousand examples of dangerous criminals who were insufficiently targeted by previous administrations if you’re interested.

      > The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors.

      This is the stated motive, sure, but the observed motive is different. Any time a “protester” sees what they think is an ICE operation their first actions are to try to save the people ICE is there to arrest. Yelling and blowing whistles to warn illegal aliens that ICE are present is just the start. Those Signal groups were training their members on how to surround officers and wrestle the arrestees away from them. They have no actual care at all for warrants; that’s merely an excuse for lawless behavior.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • defrost 4 days ago

        Speaking of motives, The Economist asks a simple question

        * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_DWKIugWvY

        Why are ICE agents targeting Minneapolis? - the current estimate is 3,000 ICE agents that outnumber the Minneapolis-St. Paul police, sworn officers, 3-to-1 in a state with damn near the lowest actual numbers of actual undocumented immigrants.

        Clearly this MN deployment is not about efficiency in rounding up criminal immigrants, it's a political power move designed to intimidate that has already been (unsuccessfully) used to leverage access to vote rolls, etc.

        * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-trump-immigration-i...

        As I'm not an American can you refresh my memory as to what the US founders had to say and felt about Federal over reach into state territories?

        On a related note, are you aware of the initial moves by both Stalin and Hitler before they each became infamous?

        To quote a US historian:

          In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open.

  One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply.

  Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border.
        * https://snyder.substack.com/p/lies-and-lawlessness
        Reply View 2 replies
  • trhway 4 days ago

    again, what the law says and what the ICE does is 2 very different things. Otherwise, explain how that law provides for random picking off the street dark skinned people, including citizens, that ICE has been doing.

    Reply View 0 replies