All of this could be defeated if the mainstream media would full-throatedly report it with the gusto they bestow on the Diddy trial, the Bezos wedding, or some other tabloid garbage. Blame them.
I'm not American. Maybe I don't understand. But I find it fascinating how BLM blew up and took over the world - even in places where it wasn't really relevant. Corporates rushed to rewrite their mission statements and 'about us' sections on their websites. Celebrities 'took the knee', statues and historical monuments were vandalised, there were protests and even riots. Now, just a few months later, unmarked vans can pull up and abduct people off the streets in scenes reminiscent of authoritarian Syria, Argentina, or Columbia. And somehow Americans are OK with it? Where are the celebrities and corporates now? Is everyone scared of Trump? Has America reached THAT point, where people are too afraid to speak out for fear of being dragged off themselves?
The trouble is, until the evil empire collapses, many many people will suffer, and the environment will suffer. So I am still very concerned. But it helps to know we are on the right side of history.
This is so important, and there is such a powerful message here - again, so well written Mike. But it needs a wider audience. We need younger generations to see what's going on, to understand its implications. They're staring down the barrel of 1984 and the opportunity to do anything about it is slipping away. My guess is, most have never read the book, don't know what authoritarianism is, and care only for the next video in their doomscroll. Big tech has distracted them, flooded discourse with false news and inconsequential nonsense. Someone needs to get this into a format social media addicts understand. Someone has to condense it, make it palatable, and get it out to the masses. Actually not just someone, everyone.
Frustrating that they are getting away with all this shit,Supreme Court and taking people off the streets.Thanks for acknowledging our feelings.We are on our way north to the Wisc woods for a break
I'm going to sound like a broken record: when a government can casually mandate a eugenics commission and everyone forgets about it within a week, that is a sign of a sick society that has become inured to needless, pointless cruelty. Eugenics is evil. We know where that road leads.
Other than that, I can't really say anything better than what others have said, so I'll just cite them.
“We also have a lot of bad people who have been here a long time,” Trump said.
“Many of them were born in our country,” he added. “I think we ought to get them the hell out of here, too, if you want to know the truth. So maybe that'll be the next job that we’ll work on together.”
This article rings true, scary and depressing all at once. Keep on keeping on.
America and our democracy is under a coordinated attack on a number of different fronts, so many fronts that it is hard to keep track. As an example, I occasionally come across reporting of attempts by Republican lawmakers to privatize our Federal Lands and Parks. Where ever they might have success, it will likely be a done deal; there will likely be no coming back from any successful sales.
Every word of this is true and I agree 100%, but here’s the problem. This problem has been present for a very long time. It’s the references to “constitutional rights”. They are non existent because the document contains no enforcement mechanism. What happens to the political parasites who violate it? Nothing. Nothing ever happens and nothing ever will. As a former conservative who voted for Trump in 2016, I’ll take my part of the blame for the current tyranny unfolding right before our eyes. That was my last vote. I’ll never vote again as it is putting my stamp of approval on this hopelessly evil and corrupt government. I’m now a voluntaryist. This philosophy is based on self ownership and non aggression, and the realization that nobody has a legitimate right to rule anyone, regardless of words on parchment. When enough people adopt this philosophy, we will have freedom. As long as 160 million people run to the polls every four years to consent to rule, nothing will change. I hope this message is taken in the spirit in which it was intended, which is to get people to consider another option. For some reason, most people get mad at me for criticizing the constitution and advocating for real freedom. You don’t strike me as that type of person. The evidence is clear. We’re told that the constitution limits government and protects individual rights. It has failed spectacularly to do either.
Sorry, you do need to vote again (work on that all-or-nothing thinking.) There may even be opportunities to support sensible Republican candidates who have the courage to use the word "evil ". (LOL maybe Musk will donate to their campaigns.)
Sorry. There’s no such thing. There have been 60 presidential elections in this country and look where we are. People run for office because they want power, and you know the old saying that happens to be very true. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this ridiculous system, they can do whatever they want and get away with it. That’s why it’s called Washington DC(District of Criminals). Voting is the definition of insanity at this point. It simply doesn’t work so I’m not going to waste any more of my time and effort to put psychopaths in power over you or me. Not only is voting a waste of time, it’s immoral. I have a right to choose a leader for myself if I want to but I have no moral right to use the power of government to impose my will on anyone else, and I can proudly say I had nothing to do with the tyranny that has been imposed on the people since my last vote in 2016. People have to stop giving their power away to evil people. We vastly outnumber them and could take them down without firing a shot if enough people simply learned to say no to them. They can’t arrest us all, and the ones they do arrest can be freed by the use of jury nullification. The clock is ticking. Once the Orange Fuhrer completes his digital gulag with his evil tech bros, it’s too late. You own yourself. They don’t own you. Start acting like it.
Well written article. Busy, so it’s taken a few days to work through it while the MAGA Congressional Cults and SCOTUS Inquisitionists have paid fealty to depravity personified.
While reading I kept thinking about other times in history where such wealth gathering and human indifference occurred. It’s my understanding that one of those nations collected more wealth than the value of all of the tech companies combined in relative value terms and was one of the major human traffickers of that era. They were eventually surpassed by larger nations, but still hold a major position in world governance to today.
I remain hopeful we’re not witnessing a radical transformation where “tech” owns and controls everything and comports itself as a “civilized barbarian” with America as the first domino to fall.
The idea that we might eventually be brought to our knees by a concerted international effort, and our leaders charged and convicted by an international tribunal entertains me at times. All that on the basis of principles we helped make universal.
Are these illegals getting due process? Are ‘legals’ even citizens being properly distinguished from ‘illegals’? Mike has his thumbs on the scales? No, he has his finger on YOU !
Remember, if noncitizens do not get due process, then neither do citizens, because then all the government has to do is claim you are not a citizen, and without procedural due process you have no opportunity to rebut the assertion.
Immigration enforcement is a fit and proper function of government, but as with all functions of government it must operate within the rule of law and (to use a term from my legal tradition) in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
A person not in a country legally may be deported by that country, but such deportation properly occurs only after a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated the facts, heard the arguments from all parties concerned, and applied the relevant law, as enacted by the legislature, to those facts. Then the court issues an order on the matter, which the executive proceeds to enforce faithfully and only after such an order issues. The deportation order may, for instance, carry with it certain conditions, which the executive must respect (Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation order, for instance, bound the United States not to deport him to El Salvador, which the United States then defied).
That is due process. The end result in many cases would still be deportation, but "deport them all and let Bukele sort them out" is not due process.
"confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal"
Probably none, in many cases. It too likely was a violation of due process rights and an abrogation of the rule of law. But the fact that earlier generations didn't get it right doesn't justify continuing not to get it right.
"Seems the only due process they're entitled to is getting deported."
What you are advocating for here is decidedly not due process. They are entitled to a day in court, to having their case heard, to having the facts adjudicated and the law applied. Then, if the result of that adjudication is a deportation order, they may be deported. But they are entitled to due process before being deported.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Great movie, an all-time classic. Probably first saw it not long after it was released -- 1968 or thereabouts.
And a great quote therefrom -- one I've had occasion to use myself. 🙂
Still, 11 million days in court -- at best -- seems rather unworkable at best. Seems the only workable solution is something in the way of a class action suit -- anyone without papers, without a registration or application to immigrate can be summarily deported.
Then the legislature can create new, expedited judicial procedures, provided that they are consistent with the fundamental law of the land, and expand the courts as necessary to handle the backlog. The US did it during the Carter administration, as I recall.
Also, there's probably a lot of people in the United States who are legal citizens but for administrative or bureaucratic reasons don't have a paper trail (one example that still sometimes crops up is home births not being issued birth certificates in certain cases).
As for a class-action-like procedure, there's a reason class-actions are for plaintiffs, not respondents. Every respondent deserves her day in court. That is the essence of due process. The claims made by the plaintiff will be unique to each respondent and each respondent has a right to answer those claims. Fundamental justice demands no less. Due process demands no less. When you advocate for not giving someone their day in court, for any reason, you are advocating "cut[ting] a great road through the law". You are advocating a position that is not in essence any different from "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
In English law, from which the law of all Anglosphere polities derives, there are six prerogative writs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prerogative_writ. Some of those have been abolished or restricted over the years (my province, for instance, abolished the writ of quo warranto some decades ago) but the one writ that has been consistently considered such a fundamental legal protection as to require Constitutional entrenchment is that of habeas corpus, the right to have a court adjudicate whether your detention is lawful. The US Constitution bars its suspension except in certain extraordinary circumstances in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2; the Constitution of Canada provides it as a remedy in the Constitution Act, 1982, Section 10(c) (which may be suspended by a legislature but only temporarily requiring renewal pursuant to Section 33).
The right to have one's day in court is one of the fundamental rights of any democratic society. I would go so far as to claim it as a fundamental human right, the right not to be detained except in accordance with just law. Weakening that right undermines human dignity itself--and you are advocating doing exactly that.
Due process is based on the idea that all humans have basic rights. Underlying the evil discussed here is the denial of that principle.
(As for labeling people "illegals" for improper entry, have you never driven above the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign? And we break these laws to save time; as opposed to breaking laws to save your life and those of your family. )
Rather doubt that "basic human rights" includes moving into another country without authorization. You, perchance, have a UN statute that says otherwise?
Though I can sympathize with your "breaking laws to save your life".
Legal systems derived from English law are built on the principle of presuming that individual private actions are legal unless proven otherwise to some set standard. It is incumbent on the enforcer of the law to prove to that standard before an impartial tribunal that the laws have in fact been broken and that an appropriate remedy (such as deportation) should be ordered, not on the person accused of breaking the law to prove that they haven't done so.
Undermining the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a very, very dangerous road down which nobody should want to walk.
Seems one might reasonably argue that absence of some evidence of citizenship is "prima facie" evidence of guilt.
Though ICE might reasonably be accused of going overboard on that score, But absent some efforts on the part of Democrats to implement alternative methods of dealing with the problem, I don't see they have much of a leg to stand on in their criticisms of them. Eggs and omelets ...
"Seems one might reasonably argue that absence of some evidence of citizenship is "prima facie" evidence of guilt."
It is not. As I explained before, there are still to this day cases of people being legal citizens without documentary evidence thereof, such as home births not necessarily being issued birth certificates. Lack of documentary evidence in this matter is not dispositive.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." -- William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
"At the border, migrants without papers may face expedited removal, a process that allows for swift deportation without a full hearing unless they express fear of persecution."
Then maybe those under the "home births" heading need to get some other proof of citizenship.
And I rather doubt Blackstone's "principle" has much relevance or bearing in war. Which may bear some relevance to illegal immigration. Methinks you -- and Brock and many others -- are trying to grant legal rights of citizenship to illegal immigrants that one might reasonably argue they're not entitled to.
Innocent, as in, no criminal record. Innocent, as in, applied for asylum, checked in to immigration court as required, then abducted by masked, warrantless, ID-less thugs while only 2 weeks away from getting a green card or permanent legal residency. Innocent.
Are you asking what percentage of the 11 million have not been convicted of violent crimes or serious felonies? My guess is along the same levels as the overall population. However, I read it is even below that of the overall population. Nevertheless, due process and treating human beings with respect is paramount, don't you agree?
So what if they haven't been convicted of "serious crimes"? They're there in the US illegally.
Though I agree with you about "due procees", and might suggest the optimal solution would be for those illegals to register themselves -- any that don't do so within a grace period might be considered "fair game".
Being here illegally is a misdemeanor. Many are here legally pending their court hearings to determine if they will be granted asylum. They are arrested when they appear for their court hearing. As for people here illegally for decades, or for however long, your idea of registering is a great idea. But, that is not an option with this Administration.
Either from articles I read or videos I've watched (mainly here), it was stated or said to be a 'misdemeanor'. But, if you are telling me it is a civil violation that is below a misdemeanor, I have no reason to look it up. You are extremely well-versed and in tune; otherwise, I wouldn't be a subscriber to your articles and videos. So that is good to know. Thanks.
My point was, however, that the vast majority of immigrants here are neither convicted violent felons nor non violent felons, for that matter.
All of this could be defeated if the mainstream media would full-throatedly report it with the gusto they bestow on the Diddy trial, the Bezos wedding, or some other tabloid garbage. Blame them.
I'm not American. Maybe I don't understand. But I find it fascinating how BLM blew up and took over the world - even in places where it wasn't really relevant. Corporates rushed to rewrite their mission statements and 'about us' sections on their websites. Celebrities 'took the knee', statues and historical monuments were vandalised, there were protests and even riots. Now, just a few months later, unmarked vans can pull up and abduct people off the streets in scenes reminiscent of authoritarian Syria, Argentina, or Columbia. And somehow Americans are OK with it? Where are the celebrities and corporates now? Is everyone scared of Trump? Has America reached THAT point, where people are too afraid to speak out for fear of being dragged off themselves?
Absolutely correct. It’s all happening right in front of us.
Evil. Corruption. Cruelty. Lawlessness. Lying.
Nobody is even trying to hide it. Just minimizing and re-directing and gaslighting.
We are living in dark times. But no evil empires last. Never.
I hope you’re right. We’re headed down a very dark tunnel at present.
The trouble is, until the evil empire collapses, many many people will suffer, and the environment will suffer. So I am still very concerned. But it helps to know we are on the right side of history.
This is so important, and there is such a powerful message here - again, so well written Mike. But it needs a wider audience. We need younger generations to see what's going on, to understand its implications. They're staring down the barrel of 1984 and the opportunity to do anything about it is slipping away. My guess is, most have never read the book, don't know what authoritarianism is, and care only for the next video in their doomscroll. Big tech has distracted them, flooded discourse with false news and inconsequential nonsense. Someone needs to get this into a format social media addicts understand. Someone has to condense it, make it palatable, and get it out to the masses. Actually not just someone, everyone.
I ‘ll be taking a break from social media starting now for a while , too stressful .we are doing what we can
The article got to you. Me too. And I feel the same way. It's overwhelming.
Take a break. But, do come back. We are not defeated. We have to keep on keeping on.
Frustrating that they are getting away with all this shit,Supreme Court and taking people off the streets.Thanks for acknowledging our feelings.We are on our way north to the Wisc woods for a break
Sounds wonderful ! Enjoy !
I'm going to sound like a broken record: when a government can casually mandate a eugenics commission and everyone forgets about it within a week, that is a sign of a sick society that has become inured to needless, pointless cruelty. Eugenics is evil. We know where that road leads.
Other than that, I can't really say anything better than what others have said, so I'll just cite them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7SOc_8IhSY
"The homegrowns are next."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-citizenship-denaturalization-process-b2780591.html
“We also have a lot of bad people who have been here a long time,” Trump said.
“Many of them were born in our country,” he added. “I think we ought to get them the hell out of here, too, if you want to know the truth. So maybe that'll be the next job that we’ll work on together.”
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
"The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone."
Calling this outright racism somehow falls short: maybe we were too free with our accusations of racism in the past.:
Well said. Thank you.
This article rings true, scary and depressing all at once. Keep on keeping on.
America and our democracy is under a coordinated attack on a number of different fronts, so many fronts that it is hard to keep track. As an example, I occasionally come across reporting of attempts by Republican lawmakers to privatize our Federal Lands and Parks. Where ever they might have success, it will likely be a done deal; there will likely be no coming back from any successful sales.
That said...
Happy 4th of July Everyone!
What are we to do , wait for them to take us away?????
Every word of this is true and I agree 100%, but here’s the problem. This problem has been present for a very long time. It’s the references to “constitutional rights”. They are non existent because the document contains no enforcement mechanism. What happens to the political parasites who violate it? Nothing. Nothing ever happens and nothing ever will. As a former conservative who voted for Trump in 2016, I’ll take my part of the blame for the current tyranny unfolding right before our eyes. That was my last vote. I’ll never vote again as it is putting my stamp of approval on this hopelessly evil and corrupt government. I’m now a voluntaryist. This philosophy is based on self ownership and non aggression, and the realization that nobody has a legitimate right to rule anyone, regardless of words on parchment. When enough people adopt this philosophy, we will have freedom. As long as 160 million people run to the polls every four years to consent to rule, nothing will change. I hope this message is taken in the spirit in which it was intended, which is to get people to consider another option. For some reason, most people get mad at me for criticizing the constitution and advocating for real freedom. You don’t strike me as that type of person. The evidence is clear. We’re told that the constitution limits government and protects individual rights. It has failed spectacularly to do either.
Sorry, you do need to vote again (work on that all-or-nothing thinking.) There may even be opportunities to support sensible Republican candidates who have the courage to use the word "evil ". (LOL maybe Musk will donate to their campaigns.)
Sorry. There’s no such thing. There have been 60 presidential elections in this country and look where we are. People run for office because they want power, and you know the old saying that happens to be very true. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this ridiculous system, they can do whatever they want and get away with it. That’s why it’s called Washington DC(District of Criminals). Voting is the definition of insanity at this point. It simply doesn’t work so I’m not going to waste any more of my time and effort to put psychopaths in power over you or me. Not only is voting a waste of time, it’s immoral. I have a right to choose a leader for myself if I want to but I have no moral right to use the power of government to impose my will on anyone else, and I can proudly say I had nothing to do with the tyranny that has been imposed on the people since my last vote in 2016. People have to stop giving their power away to evil people. We vastly outnumber them and could take them down without firing a shot if enough people simply learned to say no to them. They can’t arrest us all, and the ones they do arrest can be freed by the use of jury nullification. The clock is ticking. Once the Orange Fuhrer completes his digital gulag with his evil tech bros, it’s too late. You own yourself. They don’t own you. Start acting like it.
Well written article. Busy, so it’s taken a few days to work through it while the MAGA Congressional Cults and SCOTUS Inquisitionists have paid fealty to depravity personified.
While reading I kept thinking about other times in history where such wealth gathering and human indifference occurred. It’s my understanding that one of those nations collected more wealth than the value of all of the tech companies combined in relative value terms and was one of the major human traffickers of that era. They were eventually surpassed by larger nations, but still hold a major position in world governance to today.
I remain hopeful we’re not witnessing a radical transformation where “tech” owns and controls everything and comports itself as a “civilized barbarian” with America as the first domino to fall.
The idea that we might eventually be brought to our knees by a concerted international effort, and our leaders charged and convicted by an international tribunal entertains me at times. All that on the basis of principles we helped make universal.
Beware of the not-sees.
Depravity Inc.
> "The deliberate infliction of suffering on innocent people in service of political theater ..."
How "innocent" are the 11 million illegals?
You generally make a solid case -- at least for various "excesses" -- but some reason to argue that you have your thumbs on the scales.
Are these illegals getting due process? Are ‘legals’ even citizens being properly distinguished from ‘illegals’? Mike has his thumbs on the scales? No, he has his finger on YOU !
Remember, if noncitizens do not get due process, then neither do citizens, because then all the government has to do is claim you are not a citizen, and without procedural due process you have no opportunity to rebut the assertion.
ER: "Are these illegals getting due process?"
Seems the only due process they're entitled to is getting deported.
ER: "Are ‘legals’ even citizens being properly distinguished from ‘illegals’?"
As I argued or suggested, Mike probably has a point there.
ER: "Mike has his thumbs on the scales? No, he has his finger on YOU !"
🙂 "Feelin' the pressure!" 😉🙂
Immigration enforcement is a fit and proper function of government, but as with all functions of government it must operate within the rule of law and (to use a term from my legal tradition) in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
A person not in a country legally may be deported by that country, but such deportation properly occurs only after a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated the facts, heard the arguments from all parties concerned, and applied the relevant law, as enacted by the legislature, to those facts. Then the court issues an order on the matter, which the executive proceeds to enforce faithfully and only after such an order issues. The deportation order may, for instance, carry with it certain conditions, which the executive must respect (Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation order, for instance, bound the United States not to deport him to El Salvador, which the United States then defied).
That is due process. The end result in many cases would still be deportation, but "deport them all and let Bukele sort them out" is not due process.
Thanks for the info, though I can imagine court hearings for 11 million people might be rather cumbersome at best.
But I wonder what "due process" was followed during the infamous "Operation Wetback" of the 1950s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
"confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal"
Probably none, in many cases. It too likely was a violation of due process rights and an abrogation of the rule of law. But the fact that earlier generations didn't get it right doesn't justify continuing not to get it right.
"Seems the only due process they're entitled to is getting deported."
What you are advocating for here is decidedly not due process. They are entitled to a day in court, to having their case heard, to having the facts adjudicated and the law applied. Then, if the result of that adjudication is a deportation order, they may be deported. But they are entitled to due process before being deported.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
(Robert Bolt, "A Man For All Seasons")
Great movie, an all-time classic. Probably first saw it not long after it was released -- 1968 or thereabouts.
And a great quote therefrom -- one I've had occasion to use myself. 🙂
Still, 11 million days in court -- at best -- seems rather unworkable at best. Seems the only workable solution is something in the way of a class action suit -- anyone without papers, without a registration or application to immigrate can be summarily deported.
Then the legislature can create new, expedited judicial procedures, provided that they are consistent with the fundamental law of the land, and expand the courts as necessary to handle the backlog. The US did it during the Carter administration, as I recall.
Also, there's probably a lot of people in the United States who are legal citizens but for administrative or bureaucratic reasons don't have a paper trail (one example that still sometimes crops up is home births not being issued birth certificates in certain cases).
As for a class-action-like procedure, there's a reason class-actions are for plaintiffs, not respondents. Every respondent deserves her day in court. That is the essence of due process. The claims made by the plaintiff will be unique to each respondent and each respondent has a right to answer those claims. Fundamental justice demands no less. Due process demands no less. When you advocate for not giving someone their day in court, for any reason, you are advocating "cut[ting] a great road through the law". You are advocating a position that is not in essence any different from "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
In English law, from which the law of all Anglosphere polities derives, there are six prerogative writs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prerogative_writ. Some of those have been abolished or restricted over the years (my province, for instance, abolished the writ of quo warranto some decades ago) but the one writ that has been consistently considered such a fundamental legal protection as to require Constitutional entrenchment is that of habeas corpus, the right to have a court adjudicate whether your detention is lawful. The US Constitution bars its suspension except in certain extraordinary circumstances in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2; the Constitution of Canada provides it as a remedy in the Constitution Act, 1982, Section 10(c) (which may be suspended by a legislature but only temporarily requiring renewal pursuant to Section 33).
The right to have one's day in court is one of the fundamental rights of any democratic society. I would go so far as to claim it as a fundamental human right, the right not to be detained except in accordance with just law. Weakening that right undermines human dignity itself--and you are advocating doing exactly that.
No.
🙄 "So let it be written, so let it be done."
Due process is based on the idea that all humans have basic rights. Underlying the evil discussed here is the denial of that principle.
(As for labeling people "illegals" for improper entry, have you never driven above the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign? And we break these laws to save time; as opposed to breaking laws to save your life and those of your family. )
Rather doubt that "basic human rights" includes moving into another country without authorization. You, perchance, have a UN statute that says otherwise?
Though I can sympathize with your "breaking laws to save your life".
Legal systems derived from English law are built on the principle of presuming that individual private actions are legal unless proven otherwise to some set standard. It is incumbent on the enforcer of the law to prove to that standard before an impartial tribunal that the laws have in fact been broken and that an appropriate remedy (such as deportation) should be ordered, not on the person accused of breaking the law to prove that they haven't done so.
Undermining the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a very, very dangerous road down which nobody should want to walk.
Seems one might reasonably argue that absence of some evidence of citizenship is "prima facie" evidence of guilt.
Though ICE might reasonably be accused of going overboard on that score, But absent some efforts on the part of Democrats to implement alternative methods of dealing with the problem, I don't see they have much of a leg to stand on in their criticisms of them. Eggs and omelets ...
"Seems one might reasonably argue that absence of some evidence of citizenship is "prima facie" evidence of guilt."
It is not. As I explained before, there are still to this day cases of people being legal citizens without documentary evidence thereof, such as home births not necessarily being issued birth certificates. Lack of documentary evidence in this matter is not dispositive.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." -- William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
Follow-up, a Forbes article:
"At the border, migrants without papers may face expedited removal, a process that allows for swift deportation without a full hearing unless they express fear of persecution."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2025/05/06/constitutional-rights-of--undocumented-immigrants-do-they-have-any/
Then maybe those under the "home births" heading need to get some other proof of citizenship.
And I rather doubt Blackstone's "principle" has much relevance or bearing in war. Which may bear some relevance to illegal immigration. Methinks you -- and Brock and many others -- are trying to grant legal rights of citizenship to illegal immigrants that one might reasonably argue they're not entitled to.
Innocent, as in, no criminal record. Innocent, as in, applied for asylum, checked in to immigration court as required, then abducted by masked, warrantless, ID-less thugs while only 2 weeks away from getting a green card or permanent legal residency. Innocent.
So what if they have no criminal record? Apart from being in the country illegally ...
That ICE is going hog-wild doesn't change that fact.
Are you asking what percentage of the 11 million have not been convicted of violent crimes or serious felonies? My guess is along the same levels as the overall population. However, I read it is even below that of the overall population. Nevertheless, due process and treating human beings with respect is paramount, don't you agree?
So what if they haven't been convicted of "serious crimes"? They're there in the US illegally.
Though I agree with you about "due procees", and might suggest the optimal solution would be for those illegals to register themselves -- any that don't do so within a grace period might be considered "fair game".
Being here illegally is a misdemeanor. Many are here legally pending their court hearings to determine if they will be granted asylum. They are arrested when they appear for their court hearing. As for people here illegally for decades, or for however long, your idea of registering is a great idea. But, that is not an option with this Administration.
False. Unlawful presence is a civil violation. Below misdemeanor. You can go look this up.
Either from articles I read or videos I've watched (mainly here), it was stated or said to be a 'misdemeanor'. But, if you are telling me it is a civil violation that is below a misdemeanor, I have no reason to look it up. You are extremely well-versed and in tune; otherwise, I wouldn't be a subscriber to your articles and videos. So that is good to know. Thanks.
My point was, however, that the vast majority of immigrants here are neither convicted violent felons nor non violent felons, for that matter.
Would be interested in knowing what US law says about being in the country illegally …
Elite degeneratacy and the failure to cultivate a noblesse obliges has damned the Republic.