—> ICE / Immigration Catch-All

[TangledUpInBlue06]

I tend to agree with this take about district judges and foreign policy.

I don't know if impeaching him is the answer, but why would he have any say in US foreign policy matters?

If a party thinks the judge has overstepped his/her bounds, they should:

[ ] Appeal the judge's decision; or

[ ] Ignore the judge's decision, try to impeach him/her, and declare democracy dead

 

[superrific]

I'm saying that the basis for the deportation is a foreign policy provision. By using that provision, the current deportation actions are a foreign policy matters.

It may end up that they are misusing the provision but, for now, is this not a foreign policy issue until determined to be otherwise, One that a district court has no jurisdiction over.

Have you noticed how often I can cite cases to support my contentions? Do you think I just googled for a minute and came up with Hartford Fire? I can cite these cases and statutes because I know what I'm talking about and I understand the relevant laws and doctrine.

I've explained to you that just because something is a "foreign policy" issue does not deprive a court of jurisdiction. Read the Hartford Fire case if you don't believe me, though you will probably not understand it without a background in antitrust law.

As early as 1804, in the case called The Charming Betsy, the Court held that the judiciary should interpret statutes in a way that does not violate international law, if at all possible. Again, that's the court inserting itself into foreign affairs -- if, for instance, the executive wants to interpret a statute in a way that does violate international law for whatever reason.

You seem to think that a district court's jurisdiction differs from that of the Supreme Court. It does not, with the exception of the minor categories of cases over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Read Article III if you don't believe me.

Your last paragraph is a comical loophole leading to authoritarianism. How exactly can it be determined that the action is or isn't foreign policy if the court has no jurisdiction? You write things that just don't make sense.

 

[hedge]

Antarctic scientists plead for help after colleague ‘threatens to kill’ team members

The South African scientists are in the Sanae IV research centre in Vesleskarvet, Queen Maud Land

www.independent.co.uk

A group of scientists trapped in an Antarctic research base have pleaded to be rescued after claiming a team member threatened to kill another colleague.

The South African scientists are in the Sanae IV research centre in Vesleskarvet, Queen Maud Land. The South African National Antarctic Program runs the base and the South African National Antarctic Expedition operates it.

The team is completely blocked off on a base where the typical winter temperature is -23C and wind speeds can reach nearly 150mph. It is 2,500 miles from South Africa’s closest point, meaning there is minimal human contact apart from themselves.


One of the researchers reportedly sent a pleading email last week claiming a member of the team had attacked them and was issuing further threats.

The email, seen by The Sunday Times, said: “Regrettably, [his] behaviour has escalated to a point that is deeply disturbing. Specifically, he physically assaulted [X].”

“Furthermore, he threatened to kill [X], creating an environment of fear and intimidation. I remain deeply concerned about my own safety, constantly wondering if I might become the next victim,” the unnamed researcher added.


The researcher also accused the team member of sexually assaulting another.

 

[Calheel]

I'm saying that the basis for the deportation is a foreign policy provision. By using that provision, the current deportation actions are a foreign policy matters.

It may end up that they are misusing the provision but, for now, is this not a foreign policy issue until determined to be otherwise, One that a district court has no jurisdiction over.

So if Trump decides to deport you to an El Salvadorian jail with no due process, would you say that courts have no say in that? Trump has the right to unilaterally, and with no process, disappear whoever he wants? Is that really what you are saying?

Because I would call that a despot, not a president.

 

[mpaer]

So if Trump decides to deport you to an El Salvadorian jail with no due process, would you say that courts have no say in that? Trump has the right to unilaterally, and with no process, disappear whoever he wants? Is that really what you are saying?

Because I would call that a despot, not a president.

No
It's Foreign policy


lololol

 

[ZenMode]

So if Trump decides to deport you to an El Salvadorian jail with no due process, would you say that courts have no say in that? Trump has the right to unilaterally, and with no process, disappear whoever he wants? Is that really what you are saying?

Because I would call that a despot, not a president.

I'm a US citizen, so there wouldn't be a scenario where my deportation would be a foreign policy matter.

 

[StrangePackage]

We really need to stop referring to the extraordinary rendition of people as deportation.

Deportation is when you return someone to their home country. When you kidnap someone without due process and send them somewhere that isn't their home country to be held in a prison, that's extraordinary rendition. It used to be agreed that it was bad.

 

[Calheel]

I'm a US citizen, so there wouldn't be a scenario where my deportation would be a foreign policy matter.

So you claim. What if Trump claims that you aren't actually a US citizen.

Maybe some of those people sitting in El Salvadorian jails are US citizens.

That is one of the reasons for due process. That is one of the reasons that courts have a say in the matter and aren't bound by some Trumpian/Zen abracadabra incantation of "foreign policy". We don't allow people to be kidnapped off the streets and sent away based solely on the say-so of the president. We have procedures in place to make sure the law is being followed. Courts are absolutely essential in that process.

 

[superrific]

I'm a US citizen, so there wouldn't be a scenario where my deportation would be a foreign policy matter.

Why not? You failed to address the hypothetical presented to you twice.

If Russia says, "If you execute Kamala Harris, we will withdraw from Ukraine." That's clearly a foreign policy matter. So are you saying the courts have no role in preventing that?

If El Salvador says, "we'll be willing to sign a trade agreement with you if you promise to send us 10K prisoners per year and pay us accordingly," that's a foreign policy matter. So Trump directs the agencies to arrest anyone, and you get swept up. Are you entitled to due process, or not? They made it about foreign policy.

 

[ZenMode]

Why not? You failed to address the hypothetical presented to you twice.

If Russia says, "If you execute Kamala Harris, we will withdraw from Ukraine." That's clearly a foreign policy matter. So are you saying the courts have no role in preventing that?

If El Salvador says, "we'll be willing to sign a trade agreement with you if you promise to send us 10K prisoners per year and pay us accordingly," that's a foreign policy matter. So Trump directs the agencies to arrest anyone, and you get swept up. Are you entitled to due process, or not? They made it about foreign policy.

In the matter of Kamala, murder is, in itself, illegal.

With El Salvador, if we're talking about US citizens, that is clearly unconstitutional....because they are US citizens.

There doesn't appear to be anything "domestic", which would be in the jurisdiction of a district court, related to deporting non-citizens from El Salvador back to El Salvador using a foreign policy provision.

 

[superrific]

In the matter of Kamala, murder is, in itself, illegal.

With El Salvador, if we're talking about US citizens, that is clearly unconstitutional....because they are US citizens.

There doesn't appear to be anything "domestic", which would be in the jurisdiction of a district court, related to deporting non-citizens from El Salvador back to El Salvador using a foreign policy provision.

But you said that the courts can't get involved if the executive branch cites foreign policy as the justification. Which is it? And do you really not understand that due process is required to prevent the extraordinary rendition of Americans? Duterte got rid of all due process for drug dealers. Then his police went on a rampage and killed tens of thousands (IIRC) of people who were in no way connected to drugs.

Why are you talking about jurisdiction when you don't understand what it means? I've already shown you that the jurisdiction of American courts can reach as far as foreign companies operating in foreign countries, so long as they have some ties to the US and their price-fixing conspiracies raise prices for Americans. Jurisdiction is not divided into "domestic" and "non-domestic" (or not in the way you think -- we do talk about domestic corporations in terms of being incorporated in the state where the lawsuit occurs, but that's an antiquated usage and not relevant here).

Again, not engaging any more. I've given you an expert analysis, and other lawyers have also chimed in. You can accept the analysis or you can continue to argue it from a perspective of ignorance. I don't care. I'm not going to argue endlessly. I gave you my analysis, clarified it, and explained how it relates to your contentions.

 

[ZenMode]

But you said that the courts can't get involved if the executive branch cites foreign policy as the justification. Which is it? And do you really not understand that due process is required to prevent the extraordinary rendition of Americans? Duterte got rid of all due process for drug dealers. Then his police went on a rampage and killed tens of thousands (IIRC) of people who were in no way connected to drugs.

Why are you talking about jurisdiction when you don't understand what it means? I've already shown you that the jurisdiction of American courts can reach as far as foreign companies operating in foreign countries, so long as they have some ties to the US and their price-fixing conspiracies raise prices for Americans. Jurisdiction is not divided into "domestic" and "non-domestic" (or not in the way you think -- we do talk about domestic corporations in terms of being incorporated in the state where the lawsuit occurs, but that's an antiquated usage and not relevant here).

Again, not engaging any more. I've given you an expert analysis, and other lawyers have also chimed in. You can accept the analysis or you can continue to argue it from a perspective of ignorance. I don't care. I'm not going to argue endlessly. I gave you my analysis, clarified it, and explained how it relates to your contentions.

Each time I referenced courts, I said district. SCOTUS would seem to be the correct court to rule on this.

 

[superrific]

Each time I referenced courts, I said district. SCOTUS would seem to be the correct court to rule on this.

Right. Except there is no distinction between the jurisdiction of a district court and SCOTUS. It's Article III power all the way down. Indeed, there's no way for a case to get to the Supreme Court unless a district court judge decides it first (and then it goes to the appeals courts).

This statement right here is absurd and risible, and it's example #1000 of why you should stop opening your trap when it comes to matters related to law. You appear to have no idea at all how little you know.

 

[Silence Dogood]

Do we all agree that members of tren de aragua whom have done bad things should be removed from this country?

 

[superrific]

Do we all agree that members of tren de aragua whom have done bad things should be removed from this country?

Gang membership has nothing to do with it. Foreigners can be deported if they do 'bad things', regardless of gang affiliation, assuming that the 'bad things' are criminal in nature. I don't remember if there's a minimum severity specified in the immigration statutes, but we shouldn't be deporting people for shoplifting a pack of condoms. But if they are killing or drug dealing, why does it matter whether they are in a gang?

Personally, I'd rather they be convicted and serve their time in a US prison than deported. It's not necessarily an either/or but it would be effectively for a life sentence.

 

[Calheel]

Each time I referenced courts, I said district. SCOTUS would seem to be the correct court to rule on this.

So you are OK with the Court's exercising power over foreign policy, but just at the Supreme Court level? Why? If the district court gets it wrong, you just appeal (and if necessary, ask an appellate court for a stay). I think you believe that the Supreme Court is smarter or something. But it is not. We generally develop the factual record in the district courts and then handle legal disputes at the appellate level. The Supreme Court is not set up for fact-finding in the first instance.

There are a few type of cases that go directly to the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that cases between states and cases involving ambassadors can go directly to the Supreme Court. Obviously, the case of Donald Trump v. ZenMode concerning his alleged claim of US citizenship is not part of that language. So, either you need to get going on a constitutional amendment or perhaps you should accept the fact that district courts can protect your ass from getting thrown in an El Salvadorian jail.

 

[Silence Dogood]

When the President is exercising his Article 2 powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he’s exercising his core Article 2 powers as Commander-in-Chief.

 

[mpaer]

When the President is exercising his Article 2 powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he’s exercising his core Article 2 powers as Commander-in-Chief.

Are we under invasion ?
Terrorists-under your reasoning all the Jan 06 folks could be sent to Honduras I guess

 

[Silence Dogood]

Tren de Aragua is an alien enemy force that has come here, as detailed at length in the proclamation, at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a President has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign government.

 

[farce©]

LOL