It is critical to understand that as a general rule, what they are doing is completely legal. We created the conditions for this to happen and are empowered to change it.
Missing a court date once multiple years ago, failing to navigate a complex process, and even intentionally over staying a tourist visa does not warrant the loss of humanity, due process, basic rights, dignity, and humanity
This means they can’t prove if they are here legally or not.
Furthermore, the administration wants to end birthright citizenship, which they will no doubt aim to make retroactive. Not being able to prove citizenship or status means (according to you) that you have no rights. anybody born here or otherwise will subject to this process and unable to prove their citizenship.
And again, the treatment these people are receiving is absolutely heinous, especially considering that they’ve not been charged with or found guilty of a violent crime.
I’m not sure about specific rules around who can appeal to the Supreme Court, nor am I sure why such an appeal has been mentioned… but once people on American soil lose basic rights we all do. All it takes is being ACCUSED of the right non-violent crime and then you have absolutely zero rights and are treated like an animal.
We should be better than this even if the law doesn’t say we have to be (which it does). If folks are here illegally and subject to deportation, prove it. Don’t hide them in the system and deprive them of representation.
I’m not sure what an undocumented (or documented but missing some arbitrary checkbox) person did to you but I can assure you it doesn’t mean that person or others should be subjected to this treatment in a civilized society.
The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.
Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.
More relevant to ICE, is the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from doing that.
Deportation is not a punishment and is entirely avoidable in 99% of cases: don't overstay or enter illegally.
That’s such a great point. Deportation is supposed to be incredibly violent because it’s a punishment. I’m jotting that one down since it’s certainly not written in any laws. I don’t wanna forget.
Oops a citizen, don’t look so brown next time. Catch and release.
Follow the law. I'm not asking for more process than the law specifies, but ICE has to actually follow the law. If they won't, then they no longer have legal authority to do what they're doing, and they're just another gang.
Questions of due process, as due process is a federal Constitutional guarantee, are controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and, as such, are within the judicial power defined in Article III of the Constitution.
To the parent poster's point, the obligation of the citizen in a democracy (at least in theory) is to try to align those.
Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue.
I think you're misreading the OP and/or ignoring recent news. OP's contention is that the way it's being executed deserves an emotional response -- everything from ignoring judges to send people to El Salvadoran mega-prisons, to roaming streets in masks with creditable allegations about racial profiling. [0]
I'd like to know more about your claim about feeding, housing, and providing care to the whole world.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
Okay, but dragging citizens out of their homes without a warrant (https://www.commondreams.org/news/ice-raid-chicago-apartment) sure is.
Obama’s deportations were mostly border patrol apprehending and pushing people back across the border, not ICE being super efficient at rounding up people in the interior of the country.
A good primer on immigration enforcement before and during the Obama admin:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deporta...
Obama prioritized deportation of people convicted of serious crimes and recent arrivals after they got their day in court. He did not call Mexicans rapists. The admin did not arrest US citizens. Being arrested by the feds even if you did not break the law is a much worse ordeal.
> Most Americans support the idea of deporting people who break our immigration laws, thusly cutting in line while millions of others patiently wait.
The line for legal citizenship does not move faster if you deport more people.
> This really doesn't have to be an emotional issue. Very few Americans support actual open borders. We can't feed, house or provide medical care to the entire world. That is why there is a process.
When masked men come out of a van and kidnap you off the streets in broad daylight, tell me if it's an emotional issue or not.
> Were you this vocal when Obama deported millions, or is this just more "I hate Trump" hot air?
Were you always a fascist sympathizer or did Trump stoke those feelings in you?
In general, particularly in the past, yes. Currently, a statistically significant number of ICE agents are acting outside the colour of law, in some cases with possibly treasonous intent.
What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.
How about detaining US citizens without warrants for days at a time and then releasing with no charges? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-...
I'd love to be wrong because it means the judciary has a chance to shut this down but I fear outside of a few civil rights suits this will have to be remedied at the ballot box.
The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law).
[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...
Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.
My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing.
> Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law
I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.
By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.
The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution.
Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.
Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however
The Constitution vests "the judicial Power of the United States" in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" [1].
That isn't the same as "ultimate authority to interpret the law." In practice, SCOTUS does usually have this power, due to Marbury and other precedent. In practice, too, it can be bullied, e.g. by FDR and potentially right now.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.
https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...
If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces.
You won't always get your way. That's Democracy.
Who are you responding to? I don't see that anywhere in this thread.
To rudely open a dictionary:
"As a general rule" - phrase of general - in most cases.
Agents of the state are supposed to be acting within the law IN ALL CASES.
The SS & SA were operating entirely within the law, if you ignore the times where they weren't.
The rhetorical trick of my reply being that it forces you to either address to the meat of the subject, or leave the statement uncontested.
But congratulations, conceding the argument rather than ousting yourself as a fascist was the better choice.
A lot of things are legal and still wrong based on our core principles as a country. Its our duty to oppose them.
But a lot of this won't change without "active, provocative, non-violent" resistance as Gandhi would say.
If I'm in a crowd in the presence of a number of other law breakers, why would I think that I couldn't ever be temporarily detained? I mean, yes, it shouldn't be indefinite and there shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence, but we have process for this. I can be arrested without much provocation at all. I then have to be charged, I have the opportunity to enter a plea, get bail, and then I get a trial. All of that can (and does) happen to people who are legitimately innocent.
Without probable cause? The Fourth Amendment.
> shouldn't be a high bar to clear to prove actual innocence
I see that you are comfortable with a presumption of guilt so long as the burden of proof of actual innocence isn’t too rigorous, but that’s exactly backwards.