Activate their respective national guards and make it happen.
Yes, that means defying federal law. Yes that means exactly the consequences you want to draw from those actions.
There is no other option at this point. The law is dead in the U.S.
If Wisteguens Charles had been deported in 2022, some of his future crimes wouldn't have happened. Instead we have people falling over themselves to have sympathy for the worst elements of society and ignoring the oath they made to uphold the law. That doesn't justify twisting the law into a tool for cruelty but is no better to arbitrarily ignore it either.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” - H.L. Mencken
"...against all enemies, foreign and domestic." (I'm quite aware, having taken -- and signed -- that oath many times.) That includes a federal executive that is repeatedly and consistently violating due process, engaging in the slave trade, exceeding Constitutional powers by bad-faith invocation of war powers with no actual war, and violating the first amendment by retaliating against unwelcome political speech in the context of and under the pretext of immigration enforcement.
For people _alleged_ to be among the worst elements of society. If they're that bad, try them, get your slam-dunk conviction, and jail them here.
Deportation does not annihilate a person, or shift them to another astral plane, it moves them a few dozen or hundred or thousand miles away. The counterfactual for 'if so-and-so was deported' is unknowable. They might have just walked back in the following week.
The rule of law does not prohibit bad arrests nor can it. The rule of law provides the opportunity for remedy after the fact.
> The rule of law does not prohibit bad arrests nor can it. The rule of law provides the opportunity for remedy after the fact.
In a world where you and I could be renditioned to a foreign country and thrown into slave labor by the government simply acting fast enough as to maneuver around the court then there is no rule of law and there is no remedy.
I think a better remedy is to work within the laws of the country and to elect different federal representatives (president, senator, house representatives).
Secession would definitely be worse for any state attempting it.
Absolutely yes. This needs to stop right here, and the consequences for violating the rule of law, for violating due process, for violating human rights, must be real.
There is no hypothetical here.
The "Cash for Children" judges got summons for Christ's sake.
Pam Bondi mere hours ago stated they would go after more judges like this. This isn't normal or right.
You're clearly not interested in good-faith discussion, good bye.
Though having said that, I'm not sure if qualified immunity would apply in the same way to ICE officers. If that hasn't been legally determined yet (remember - ICE didn't exist before 9/11, and legal determinations take time), and looking at how ICE is currently operating with impunity in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles... Things will get much worse than Kent State before they get better.
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/20/nx-s1-4966725/a-decade-after-...
> Ten years after staging an armed standoff with federal agents on his Nevada ranch, Cliven Bundy remains free. As does his son Ammon, despite an active warrant for Ammon from Idaho related to a harassment lawsuit.
The law is dead if states defy it by refusing to allow federal agents to enforce immigration law.
This whole stance is absolute madness.
Something very wrong with sending deportation notices or trying to sic immigration enforcement on American citizens.
I must have missed that, when did that happen?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/17/us/lopez-gomez-citizen-detain...
It sounds like there was a language barrier and he misidentified himself as being in the country illegally. That’s very unfortunate that he was detained for that misunderstanding.
You want to shed some light on how that's possible, especially in the context of you commenting on this thread?
Even illegal immigrants need to be deported through due process. That’s the entire part where the government is supposed to demonstrate that they are here illegally. We are currently skipping that part and essentially granting the executive branch unilateral authority to deport anyone to foreign labor camps as long as the press secretary says the words “illegal immigrant” or “MS-13”.
To make things even worse, these deportations are being overtly politically targeted. If you’re here on a legal visa and speak against this administration, they are making it clear that they will strip you of your visa and disappear you without a second thought and without an opportunity to defend yourself.
You are correct that the law is dead. You are embarrassingly mistaken about who killed it.
The problem(s) are... - lack of due process (Constitution doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal residents) - leading to deportation of legal residents (Garcia case from MD) - sending illegal immigrants to a jail that's hosted abroad is NOT deportation in the normal sense of the word - it closer to our holding of detainees at Gitmo post-9/11.
If all the government has to do is say “they’re here illegally” to get a free pass to do whatever they want to someone, then even legal residents don’t have rights. Due process is the entire mechanism behind which the government can establish something like illegal residency. As soon as you say Group A has the right to a trial and Group B doesn’t, calling someone a member of Group B is all it takes to subvert the entire legal process.
Couple that with their attempted demonization of the judicial branch and it's a recipe for a "first they came for the socialists..." situation.
I just hear the argument that the constitution gives both illegal and legal residents that right and conservatives simply respond that illegals shouldn’t have rights and that’s that.
It needs to be hammered in that due process is necessary even to establish the legality of their residency in the first place, otherwise the government can disappear whoever they want as long as they invoke the illegal immigrant boogeyman.
I'll include a quote from the (9-0!) April 10th Supreme Court ruling[1] concerning the removal of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador.
> The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.
Without a chance to demonstrate that someone is in the US legally (i.e., Due Process), the defense of this action can be that it's necessary to prevent the rendition of US citizens to El Salvador or elsewhere. That might sound crazy, but we already have an example of a US citizen being held in custody per an ICE request, despite having proof of being born in the US[2]. If both practices continue, we'll ultimately see the intersection at some point.
--- [1] -- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
[2] -- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a-u-s-citizen-was-held...