ICE attempts to deport American born citizen

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I've gone from 'build a wall,' to 'let's get rid of ICE' in an extremely short period of time.

What happened?

My political views have changed a lot over the past 2 years, I went from ukip to labour in the uk.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

What happened?

My political views have changed a lot over the past 2 years, I went from ukip to labour in the uk.

Still the same AuthSocDem gang I always was and always will be.

[Page]

They've done things like this before. One of my friends was born in the US, her parents were born in the US, and her grandparents became citizens and they tried to deport her anyway because of a mistake with her name. ICE shouldn't even exist.

ICE absolutely should exist. It does not deal only with immigration either, it also deals with many other criminal matters, particularly trafficking and smuggling.
And we do need someone to enforce our immigration laws (as well as customs laws).

It does need to exist, but it does need some improvement obviously.

Trafficking, human trafficking is what the feds are doing when they separate families and lock children in cages. That IS human trafficking, on the orders of Trump and Sessions.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to say we need ICE to prevent human trafficking when they contribute to it. Our government are human traffickers and our tax dollars pay for it.

[Novus America]

ICE absolutely should exist. It does not deal only with immigration either, it also deals with many other criminal matters, particularly trafficking and smuggling.
And we do need someone to enforce our immigration laws (as well as customs laws).

It does need to exist, but it does need some improvement obviously.

Trafficking, human trafficking is what the feds are doing when they separate families and lock children in cages. That IS human trafficking, on the orders of Trump and Sessions.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to say we need ICE to prevent human trafficking when they contribute to it. Our government are human traffickers and our tax dollars pay for it.

Detention is different than human trafficking. You might disagree with the exact procedures, but this is false equivalency. And Disagreement with how the law may be enforced is not grounds to not enforce laws at all.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

My political views have changed a lot over the past 2 years, I went from ukip to labour in the uk.

Still the same AuthSocDem gang I always was and always will be.

And of course we must always stay loyal too teh hue tyl teh enddd.

[Purgatio]

ICE absolutely should exist. It does not deal only with immigration either, it also deals with many other criminal matters, particularly trafficking and smuggling.
And we do need someone to enforce our immigration laws (as well as customs laws).

It does need to exist, but it does need some improvement obviously.

Trafficking, human trafficking is what the feds are doing when they separate families and lock children in cages. That IS human trafficking, on the orders of Trump and Sessions.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to say we need ICE to prevent human trafficking when they contribute to it. Our government are human traffickers and our tax dollars pay for it.

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

[Vassenor]

Trafficking, human trafficking is what the feds are doing when they separate families and lock children in cages. That IS human trafficking, on the orders of Trump and Sessions.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to say we need ICE to prevent human trafficking when they contribute to it. Our government are human traffickers and our tax dollars pay for it.

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

So what about all the people being put in the concentration camps after crossing the border legally? What about all the cases of kids being tricked into signing waivers they neither understand nor can legally actually sign?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

So what about all the people being put in the concentration camps after crossing the border legally? What about all the cases of kids being tricked into signing waivers they neither understand nor can legally actually sign?

"Calm down and use reasonable language please.."

"But what about the American Concentration Camps!!1!"

Wew Lad...

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

So what about all the people being put in the concentration camps after crossing the border legally? What about all the cases of kids being tricked into signing waivers they neither understand nor can legally actually sign?

The validity of the latter statement is unfortunately overshadowed by the complete wrongness of the former statement.

[Vassenor]

So what about all the people being put in the concentration camps after crossing the border legally? What about all the cases of kids being tricked into signing waivers they neither understand nor can legally actually sign?

The validity of the latter statement is unfortunately overshadowed by the complete wrongness of the former statement.

Last time I checked seeking asylum was legally crossing the border.

[Ors Might]

The validity of the latter statement is unfortunately overshadowed by the complete wrongness of the former statement.

Last time I checked seeking asylum was legally crossing the border.

Doesn’t one normally detain asylum seekers somewhere until they can be processed? To make sure they actually are legally crossing the border and aren’t using deception?

[Purgatio]

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

So what about all the people being put in the concentration camps after crossing the border legally? What about all the cases of kids being tricked into signing waivers they neither understand nor can legally actually sign?

Again with the unbelievably-misleading and inflammatory language.

They aren't 'concentration camps', this isn't Nazi Germany. They were put into detention facilities, where convicted criminals and criminals being prosecuted and awaiting trial generally go. If you're using 'concentration camps' to mean any camp where arrested individuals are concentrated, then I guess every single jail in the US is a 'concentration camp'. Moreover, many of the people who 'crossed legally' who were put into these camps were asylum-seekers who, prima facie, crossed the border illegally, with their behaviour being legally-justified if they can prove their asylum claim. In other words, they are criminal suspects who might be innocent. This is nothing new. We arrest people against whom prosecution is pending and who have not yet been convicted. I don't see you crying about the fact that the police regularly detain criminal suspects knowing some of them might be innocent, it's kind of inevitable unless you are saying we should never detain anyone in remand during the subsistence of a prosecution and prior to them being convicted of a crime (I'd love to see how that criminal justice system works out).

As for the waivers, its also not unusual for the prosecution to strike deals with the people they are bringing prosecution against, and in the case of illegal immigrants, children who are separated from their parents owing to the unfortunate results of said prosecution. If these children failed to get adequate legal representation, that is deeply-unfortunate and must be changed, but calling that "human trafficking" is absurd and beyond-ridiculous.

[Valrifell]

Last time I checked seeking asylum was legally crossing the border.

Doesn’t one normally detain asylum seekers somewhere until they can be processed? To make sure they actually are legally crossing the border and aren’t using deception?

You can apply for asylum anywhere as long as you're on the right side of the border to do so and it's the first thing you do. They don't get deported for illegal crossing, they get deported for having their claim denied.

[Vassenor]

So what about all the people being put in the concentration camps after crossing the border legally? What about all the cases of kids being tricked into signing waivers they neither understand nor can legally actually sign?

Again with the unbelievably-misleading and inflammatory language.

They aren't 'concentration camps', this isn't Nazi Germany. They were put into detention facilities, where convicted criminals and criminals being prosecuted and awaiting trial generally go. If you're using 'concentration camps' to mean any camp where arrested individuals are concentrated, then I guess every single jail in the US is a 'concentration camp'. Moreover, many of the people who 'crossed legally' who were put into these camps were asylum-seekers who, prima facie, crossed the border illegally, with their behaviour being legally-justified if they can prove their asylum claim. In other words, they are criminal suspects who might be innocent. This is nothing new. We arrest people against whom prosecution is pending and who have not yet been convicted. I don't see you crying about the fact that the police regularly detain criminal suspects knowing some of them might be innocent, it's kind of inevitable unless you are saying we should never detain anyone in remand during the subsistence of a prosecution and prior to them being convicted of a crime (I'd love to see how that criminal justice system works out).

As for the waivers, its also not unusual for the prosecution to strike deals with the people they are bringing prosecution against, and in the case of illegal immigrants, children who are separated from their parents owing to the unfortunate results of said prosecution. If these children failed to get adequate legal representation, that is deeply-unfortunate and must be changed, but calling that "human trafficking" is absurd and beyond-ridiculous.

Is it still "failed to get" if you are actively denied the ability to receive?

[Ors Might]

Doesn’t one normally detain asylum seekers somewhere until they can be processed? To make sure they actually are legally crossing the border and aren’t using deception?

You can apply for asylum anywhere as long as you're on the right side of the border to do so and it's the first thing you do. They don't get deported for illegal crossing, they get deported for having their claim denied.

Yeah I get that. What I’m wondering is if asylum seekers typically get detained while their clains are processed or if they’re allowed to just wander.

[Purgatio]

Again with the unbelievably-misleading and inflammatory language.

They aren't 'concentration camps', this isn't Nazi Germany. They were put into detention facilities, where convicted criminals and criminals being prosecuted and awaiting trial generally go. If you're using 'concentration camps' to mean any camp where arrested individuals are concentrated, then I guess every single jail in the US is a 'concentration camp'. Moreover, many of the people who 'crossed legally' who were put into these camps were asylum-seekers who, prima facie, crossed the border illegally, with their behaviour being legally-justified if they can prove their asylum claim. In other words, they are criminal suspects who might be innocent. This is nothing new. We arrest people against whom prosecution is pending and who have not yet been convicted. I don't see you crying about the fact that the police regularly detain criminal suspects knowing some of them might be innocent, it's kind of inevitable unless you are saying we should never detain anyone in remand during the subsistence of a prosecution and prior to them being convicted of a crime (I'd love to see how that criminal justice system works out).

As for the waivers, its also not unusual for the prosecution to strike deals with the people they are bringing prosecution against, and in the case of illegal immigrants, children who are separated from their parents owing to the unfortunate results of said prosecution. If these children failed to get adequate legal representation, that is deeply-unfortunate and must be changed, but calling that "human trafficking" is absurd and beyond-ridiculous.

Is it still "failed to get" if you are actively denied the ability to receive?

If that's true (this is honestly the first I've heard of this allegation so I won't pretend to know what you're exactly referring to), then its awful, but again, the original poster described this as "human trafficking". Its not. Comparing to this modern slavery is absurd. Even if I accepted your characterisation as true, this is a flawed criminal justice process which needs fixing, tweaking and improvement, not roaming gangs of criminal syndicates grabbing kids off the streets and selling them into sexual slavery.

[Purgatio]

You can apply for asylum anywhere as long as you're on the right side of the border to do so and it's the first thing you do. They don't get deported for illegal crossing, they get deported for having their claim denied.

Yeah I get that. What I’m wondering is if asylum seekers typically get detained while their clains are processed or if they’re allowed to just wander.

At least after Jeff Sessions ended 'catch and release', the policy was to detain all persons caught for "improper entry of alien' (ie illegal border crossings) and taking it from there. If a person is found thereafter to have had a sound legal justification for that action (namely, a legally-founded asylum claim) the prosecution can drop the charges or, alternatively, bring charges if the DOJ remains unconvinced and the asylum-seeker can bring up the asylum-claim when he is prosecuted. Simple. The US has a federal criminal justice process already in place for such situations, it's not a big deal.

[Ors Might]

Yeah I get that. What I’m wondering is if asylum seekers typically get detained while their clains are processed or if they’re allowed to just wander.

At least after Jeff Sessions ended 'catch and release', the policy was to detain all persons caught for "improper entry of alien' (ie illegal border crossings) and taking it from there. If a person is found thereafter to have had a sound legal justification for that action (namely, a legally-founded asylum claim) the prosecution can drop the charges or, alternatively, bring charges if the DOJ remains unconvinced and the asylum-seeker can bring up the asylum-claim when he is prosecuted. Simple. The US has a federal criminal justice process already in place for such situations, it's not a big deal.

Makes sense. Having an area where those seeking asylum can be kept while they wait to be processed thus seems like a good idea.

[Valrifell]

At least after Jeff Sessions ended 'catch and release', the policy was to detain all persons caught for "improper entry of alien' (ie illegal border crossings) and taking it from there. If a person is found thereafter to have had a sound legal justification for that action (namely, a legally-founded asylum claim) the prosecution can drop the charges or, alternatively, bring charges if the DOJ remains unconvinced and the asylum-seeker can bring up the asylum-claim when he is prosecuted. Simple. The US has a federal criminal justice process already in place for such situations, it's not a big deal.

Makes sense. Having an area where those seeking asylum can be kept while they wait to be processed thus seems like a good idea.

The conditions of these areas leave a lot to be desired for, however, to say the least.

[Ors Might]

Makes sense. Having an area where those seeking asylum can be kept while they wait to be processed thus seems like a good idea.

The conditions of these areas leave a lot to be desired for, however, to say the least.

Oh I don’t doubt that. Trump isn’t a president that inspires me to think the best. But the idea in and of itself isn’t comparable to concentration camps or human trafficking.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Trafficking, human trafficking is what the feds are doing when they separate families and lock children in cages. That IS human trafficking, on the orders of Trump and Sessions.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to say we need ICE to prevent human trafficking when they contribute to it. Our government are human traffickers and our tax dollars pay for it.

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

However the conditions in zed cells are disgusting.

It is horrible how they treat people, especially children.

However, this recent attempt at deporting an american citizen is a horrible attack on his liberty's.

[Page]

Trafficking, human trafficking is what the feds are doing when they separate families and lock children in cages. That IS human trafficking, on the orders of Trump and Sessions.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to say we need ICE to prevent human trafficking when they contribute to it. Our government are human traffickers and our tax dollars pay for it.

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

I don't view legal violence as legitimate. Military air strike and a driveby gang shooting are the same to me. Civil forfeiture and armed robbery, the same. And abducting children, whether the abductor is a government or a gangster is the same to me.

If your only argument in defense of something is "this is legal", you have no argument.

[Sicaris]

Yes, the man did do something wrong

No, he didn't. Illegal (not that it should be illegal), sure. But not wrong.

Also, abolish ICE.

No. Keep ICE, reform it a small amount.

[Purgatio]

Jesus, prosecuting people who break federal law is not human trafficking. Seriously. "Improper entry of alien" is a federal crime under Title 8 of the US Code. When you federally-prosecute a criminal for a federal crime, they generally end up in jail. Without their children.

That's not human trafficking. Its prosecution and arrest. So please calm down and stop using inflammatory language.

I don't view legal violence as legitimate. Military air strike and a driveby gang shooting are the same to me. Civil forfeiture and armed robbery, the same. And abducting children, whether the abductor is a government or a gangster is the same to me.

If your only argument in defense of something is "this is legal", you have no argument.

I see, I don't have an argument because the concept of 'the law' isn't normatively meaningful to, interesting...so why aren't you kicking up a fuss about the evil government putting all those murderers and rapists and kidnappers into prison? I mean, clearly according to you their criminal convictions mean nothing, so clearly the evil government is a mass kidnapper who is holding all these murderers and rapists in cages like animals, how inhumane of them.

Oh and don't get me started about how the evil, evil Child Protective Services rips children forcibly from their parents. Now, obviously there are laws giving them the power to do so when the children are being abused, but no, sorry, 'legal violence' is meaningless, so clearly CPS are bunch of evil kidnapping goons going around and ripping children forcibly away from their parents without justification. I mean, I'd say the justification is the law allows them to, but again, according to you, the law is meaningless, therefore CPS is really no different from random child-snatchers.

Oh, and don't get started about that coerced robbery that the government makes you pay up, which I call taxes, but you probably call theft, after all taxation laws which legalise the appropriation are, according to you, meaningless, and therefore taxation is really nothing more than theft in your view, yes?

[Purpelia]

I don't view legal violence as legitimate. Military air strike and a driveby gang shooting are the same to me. Civil forfeiture and armed robbery, the same. And abducting children, whether the abductor is a government or a gangster is the same to me.

If your only argument in defense of something is "this is legal", you have no argument.

I see, I don't have an argument because the concept of 'the law' isn't normatively meaningful to, interesting...so why aren't you kicking up a fuss about the evil government putting all those murderers and rapists and kidnappers into prison? I mean, clearly according to you their criminal convictions mean nothing, so clearly the evil government is a mass kidnapper who is holding all these murderers and rapists in cages like animals, how inhumane of them.

Oh and don't get me started about how the evil, evil Child Protective Services rips children forcibly from their parents. Now, obviously there are laws giving them the power to do so when the children are being abused, but no, sorry, 'legal violence' is meaningless, so clearly CPS are bunch of evil kidnapping goons going around and ripping children forcibly away from their parents without justification. I mean, I'd say the justification is the law allows them to, but again, according to you, the law is meaningless, therefore CPS is really no different from random child-snatchers.

Oh, and don't get started about that coerced robbery that the government makes you pay up, which I call taxes, but you probably call theft, after all taxation laws which legalise the appropriation are, according to you, meaningless, and therefore taxation is really nothing more than theft in your view, yes?

Whilst you are fundamentally right I feel the way you presented your argument really fails to address him in a meaningful way. That is to say, you fail to make the case for why governments have legitimacy to use violence. Furthermore, you even mix examples of proper government behavior with those of gross and disgusting overreach as if they were equivalent and not just a disgusting cultural practice born of modernity. Anyway, I shall endeavor to fill out the blanks.

-----------------------
Fundamentally, the reason why governments have legitimacy to do violence in support of their laws is because we the people empower them to do so. The ruling elite in any political system be that democracy or otherwise can only survive and be in power through the consent of the majority of the population. (revolution being voting by other means) And it is from this consent that they draw the legitimacy to use violence. They do the things they do in our name because we let them and indeed ask them to.

It's that simple.