Which is that there aren't many people who are reasonable on that side of this (this, of course, being a total generalization but it is based on far more than my experience personally). — AmadeusD

The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. The news shows only those looting, or throwing objects, or burning waymo cars. Entirely reasonable people have serious objections to the methods and process being used by Trump. You don't respond to lack of due process or the invocation of laws intended for other purposes.
Typically law enforcement wears badges, name tags or at least badge numbers, dresses clearly to identify themselves and their agency, presents identification on request and uses warrants.
Most Americans are law and order people.
Your profile indicates you are an attorney. Following the law, enforcing the law all legitimate goals.
We don't generally say the ends justifies the means when enforcing the law, we follow procedures.

Nope, US law has no such provisions. Europe is much more advanced in the area of human rights in that respect.

Properly understood being in the country illegally is a civil not a criminal offense — prothero

But see, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

There is a statute of limitations in criminal cases that will toll only if the person concealed their illegal status, which can result in the time limit not starting until discovery. Whether that would apply would be fact specific.

There are no limits on civil proceedings that would remove the person.

Entirely reasonable people have serious objections to the methods and process being used by Trump. — prothero

They do, but this was the platform Trump ran under. Elections have consequences. It is the will of the people.

Is that just talk to make us feel good, or are those words to live — RogueAI

I think it's a poem.

And the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some words, right?

And the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some words, right? — RogueAI

No. That's a legal document.

No. That's a legal document. — Hanover

Do you think we should be sending immigrants to an El Salvadorean prison?

They do, but this was the platform Trump ran under. Elections have consequences. It is the will of the people. — Hanover

The majority of Americans do not seem to approve of the methods being employed.
I wish I thought the majority of voters did indeed pay close attention to a candidates platform.
Unfortunately, I think they do not.
Everyone is for arresting and deporting murderers, rapists, thieves and the like.
They are not so wild about having their gardener, maid, employee or neighbor deported
Again, enforcing the law is one thing, the methods currently being employed is another.

Do you think we should be sending immigrants to an El Salvadorean prison? — RogueAI

These are complicated legal questions, and so I'd really have to read the court opinions on it. I generally know how the courts ruled, but whether I agree or not would require a deep dive into it before I said it made sense to me or not.

What I push back on is the idea that these questions are addressed through basic notions of fairness or decency. Those nebulous concepts don't control. So, if you have some analysis that suggests a misconstruction of the law and you want to debate various precedent, I don't know I'm up for it, but that would be the only argument I'd consider valid.

I feel terrified by it all -- they're targeting anyone they feel they can get away with, and given human nature I'm pretty sure that's not exactly going to be the purification they're marketing it as. (i did not vote in the poll)

I'm going to be honest. As someone who is very anti-illegal immigration for the purposes of robust social programs, job security in the face of automation/AI, social cohesion and UBI, I have found that there seems to be literally no "good optics" when it comes to enforcing immigration aside from rolling over and letting it happen. I've seen fairly milquetoast and reasonable stances shouted down as bigoted and racist time and again over my lifetime. I'm sad to say, at this point it's made me fairly authoritarian on this particular issue, as even normal enforcement seems to get people's knickers twisted. As long as the problem is fixed, I am willing to allow a lot. People really underestimate how bad things are going to get if we don't get our population under control before the jobs start going away.

Does that make me reactionary? Maybe. But if someone complains every time you try to fix a problem, eventually you stop caring about their complaints.

Is being in the country illegally a criminal or civil offense? From AI
This is a nuanced area of law in the United States, and it's easy to get confused. Here's a breakdown:

1. Unlawful Presence is Generally a Civil Offense:

"Being in the country illegally" (unlawful presence or overstaying a visa) is, by itself, generally a civil violation of immigration law, not a criminal offense. The primary consequence for this civil violation is deportation (removal) from the U.S.
This means you won't typically face jail time or a criminal record just for being unlawfully present.
2. However, Certain Actions Related to Unlawful Presence ARE Criminal Offenses:

This is where the confusion often arises. While simply being present without authorization is civil, the way someone enters or re-enters, or other actions, can be criminal:

Illegal Entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325): Entering the U.S. without inspection by an immigration officer, or by making false representations to gain entry, is a criminal offense.
First offense: Typically a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or up to six months in prison.
Subsequent offenses: Can be treated as felonies, carrying penalties of up to two years in prison.

Civil vs. Criminal Immigration System:

Civil Immigration Proceedings: These take place in immigration courts and deal with issues like deportation (removal). Individuals in these proceedings do not have the same constitutional rights as criminal defendants (e.g., the right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one).
Criminal Prosecutions: These take place in federal criminal courts. If someone is charged with a criminal immigration offense (like illegal entry or re-entry), they have the full range of constitutional rights afforded to criminal defendants. END AI

Note criminal offenders are supposed to have legal rights and due process. Have to admit I was not aware of all the nuances.l

These are complicated legal questions, and so I'd really have to read the court opinions on it. — Hanover

Really? You need a court opinion to figure out whether a non El Salvadorian person should be sent to an El Salvadorian prison?

What about returning Albrego Garcia back to the states when the Trump Administration admitted they sent him there by mistake? Do you agree with the way the Trump Admin handled that?

And the Constitution is just a piece of paper with some words, right? — RogueAI

Do you think the constitution and its legal protections are strong enough to withstand an authoritarian like Trump? Or do you think he will simply walk all over it with no or minimal opposition? After all, a Constitution isn't magic, what power will ensure it is upheld?

It's awful. I'm ashamed to be an American.

Really? You need a court opinion to figure out whether a non El Salvadorian person should be sent to an El Salvadorian prison? — RogueAI

Really. That's what it means to be a nation of laws.

Do you see anything racist in brown immigrants being sent to CECOT and white South Africans being welcomed as refugees? Anything at all?

Really. That's what it means to be a nation of laws. — Hanover

What law was it that said Abrego Garcia should be sent to CECOT?

Not the first time for me. Though I'd pay heed to:



It makes sense to not jump to a conclusion based on a story we hear, especially if we have expertise in judging said circumstances.

I know Hanover and I disagree on things, but I'd take his word on Oossian law as worth considering.

Really. That's what it means to be a nation of laws. — Hanover

In a nation of laws, court rulings or judges opinions would be respected and followed until overruled on appeal or by a higher court, not really what is happening here.
The executive is following their own interpretation of the law despite legal rulings.

What law was it that said Abrego Garcia should be sent to CECOT? — RogueAI

If there weren't one, then I'm opposed to it. Like I said, you're asking me for an opinion on the validity of the court analysis, and I just haven't looked into it.

If you want to make the case that an opinion was rendered in error, you could well be right. It sounds like you're just asking me to be outraged though. I don't know. Maybe the US has outrageous laws. That's not a basis for ignoring them.

, He is back by the way but now being prosecuted for a criminal offense. At least he can get a lawyer and a day in court, that's all I ask.
His removal did get a lot more coverage than his return, but there are so many other things to talk about.

The executive is following their own interpretation of the law despite legal rulings. — prothero

Assuming as the antecedent, "if Trump violated the law," the consequent is "Hanover disagree with Trump's actions."

If there weren't one, then I'm opposed to it. Like I said, you're asking me for an opinion on the validity of the court analysis, and I just haven't looked into it.

If you want to make the case that an opinion was rendered in error, you could well be right. It sounds like you're just asking me to be outraged though. I don't know. Maybe the US has outrageous laws. That's not a basis for ignoring them. — Hanover

Hanover, are you an American citizen? The Abrego Garcia case has been in the public eye for months here. It's like the Dreyfus Affair. These kinds of individual cases often come to symbolize different political factions. Are you trying to tell me that when people voted for Trump they voted for immigrants to be mistakenly sent to third world prisons?

Assuming as the antecedent, "if Trump violated the law," the consequent is "Hanover disagree with Trump's actions." — Hanover

The question has become, who gets to decide what the law is?
The president? The attorney general? Steven Miller?
Traditionally courts interpret the law and the executive follows and or enforces it?

My understanding is that the South African immigrants were brought here legally, whether or not you agree with the government's reasoning for doing so.

My understanding is that the South African immigrants were brought here legally, whether or not you agree with the government's reasoning for doing so. — MrLiminal

It would be legal to double foreign aid to all countries with majority white populations and eliminate foreign aid to all countries with majority black populations. But what would you conclude about an administration that did that? You wouldn't spare a second thought about that? That wouldn't seem just a tiny bit racist to you?

If the deportations are racially motivated, why is that not already happening?