Comment by _DeadFred_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _DeadFred_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Edit 2: Before reading on don't bother, this person isn't American so has no understanding of what the words they are typing mean in the American system, that immigration judges aren't Article III criminal judges, that immigration violations are civil violations not criminal, etc.

Being honest/truthful really doesn't matter to you folks, does it? You made a claim that was bullshit to try and sway people. And are willing to sacrifice the unimportant 'due process' that we have in the USA. You all really believe in nothing, and especially don't believe in America.

Edit: You are trying to confuse/blend 'deporting criminals' to be something other than the American understanding of criminal, and you know it. I'm not wasting further time on your bad faith word spinning. You don't understand/care about the American system, you just want to abuse words to paint a false picture. Sad that we have so many people like you in our country that don't' understand it/believe in it, and would give up the security we tried to build into it at the cost of blood for your personal short term political reasons.

Isn't "due process" for an illegal immigrant already happened in the sense that they are determined to be an illegal?

Trump had deporting illegals in his campaign and got mandate from the people. You don't seem to believe in democracy instead.

Edit: The note about pending charges is just a note. Trump's platform was to deport all illegal immigrants, not only who have been convicted of other crimes as well (they did start with the convicted though). You don't need to waste time, but you need to be able to point to where the bad faith arguments and word spinning are. To me it looks like the democrats are mobilizing those who don't quite understand what losing an election means in a democratic country. If your view is that American system is something else, e.g, "only what the Democratic wants to do should be done", then you would need to push this through your system.

You talk about America yet don't understand our most basic concept of law. "These people just haven't been convicted - yet." is so fucking anti-American it's crazy to see someone just drop it as a rebuttal here.

You added that after your claim: "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals"

You then try to wordsmith criminal into to 'illegal immigrants'. These people are being deported on Civil law violations. Not criminal. If it was criminal ICE wouldn't be able to use immigration courts and their special carvouts for not following the constitution. You don't seem to understand any American basic civics in addition to your not understanding your own statement 'ICE is also deporting mostly criminals'

You're further expanding makes your original statement obvious bad faith spin that wasn't true and that you didn't actually care about.

I have never been registered as a Democrat in my life, and was libertarian for the majority of it. Again you ignorantly make statements you have zero idea are true or not. Democracy isn't 'I won, I get to throw away the system of laws and violate the constitution'.

Edit: Got it, by saying "ICE is also deporting mostly criminals" what you meant was everyone they deport they have determined (in Immigration court and by immigration judges not real Article III judges on civil violations and not in Criminal court under criminal law violations sentenced by real Article III Judges) 'are criminals'. You don't understand American civics. You don't understand the definition of the word 'criminal'. You don't understand Democracy doesn't mean 'free to do whatever you want when elected' mob rule.

Right. The original poster who was saying that only ("only"!) 29% of January deportees have been convicted, that is correct. To this I added that that percentage doesn't account for ongoing charges (also true, right?). No disagreement in the percentage arguments.

The rest of the immigrants are still illegally in the country, no? Wasn't deporting them on the campaign platform that got the mandate? What is "the system" if not this?

If your interpretation of the constitution is that as long as you are "protesting" then you can do anything, be anywhere, including whistle along an ongoing police operation then I can tell you that that interpretation is not correct. If it were, any criminal (not need be immigrant) would say that they were "protesting", while robbing a store or doing any other random actually criminal thing.

Edit: I get what you are saying, too, but the practical solution isn't to keep current illegal immigrants in, as in that case anyone attempting to enter legally should just switch to enter illegally as that is more efficient. (I.e, if there is some country-wide entry rate, then the currently illegally entered have succeeded by jumping the line.)

The above is also the platform that was voted into office not long ago. This does look like democracy to me.

W̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶ ̶b̶u̶d̶d̶y̶.̶ We were founded on the fucking Boston Tea Party. Yeah, we trade off conveniences in policing for freedom of the people. I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶v̶e̶. There are plenty of non-freedom loving countries out there.

I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶r̶n̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶i̶v̶i̶c̶s̶. You seem kind of ignorant to like the basic premise of our nation or how/why we arrived at it.

Edit: My bad for being hard on you. I assumed you were American and we were talking from a common framework of understanding. American democracy was created to prevent mob rule, not enable it. You can run on whatever you want, it doesn't mean that what you run on is allowed under our system of laws, even if popular with the mob. Most of our families were forced to flee to the USA because 'the mob' wanted us dead, or to criminalize our existence, or force us to change religions. WE FUCKING HATE MOB RULE, AND WE FUCKING HATE KINGS WITH UNCHECKED POWER. Immigration law is not criminal law in the USA (it's a loophole to apply lower standards than the Constitution requires). Immigration courts aren't finding someone as being a criminal, they are finding a civil law violation. Immigration judges aren't real judges. Article III Judges are real judges as empowered by the Constitution.

I don't live in the US. Also I edited my parent answer (but no need to edit yours. Continue below at will.)

I maintain that what was voted in the office a year ago was to deport the illegals, not only those who have committed other crimes as well. I might just as well say that you are ignorant of the democratic process instead. And if you think that the US will be a "free entry" country as it was after the discovery of the continent then I guess you live at a part of the country where the newly arrived immigrants aren't disturbing your life yet.

What mandate? Trump did not secure a large enough victory for anyone to reasonably claim he was handed a mandate. Did the Republicans ever respect Biden's "mandate" on his issues, with a similar EV victory and a huge popular vote victory? Hell, Trump didn't even get half the popular vote.

Nor do single issues get mandates even when a president does have an overwhelming victory. Voters do not select specific issues to vote on, they vote for a person based on their overall platform.

Trump also talked about how he was going to focus on deporting violent criminals. And now that that is no longer the case, the goalpost is being moved to... any crimes. And now again to anyone that has outstanding charges, but no conviction. And now it's hey, they're here illegally, so that's a crime, right! We'll have to ignore the fact that a good chunk of those being deported also entered using a legal process that puts them in limbo - ICE has been grabbing people showing up at their immigration court cases.

I'd call it the presidential victory mandate. I guess he shouldn't actually do what he promised as the victory wasn't large enough? "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

He’s not a king to do whatever he promised as is, he’s bound by laws and constitution (which are passed by congress).

Also as you were corrected there is constant goalpost moving in terms of whom exactly should be deported and how.

If you’re really interested in public opinion people don’t support ICE and especially how do they do what they do.

This country isn't one that respects mandates over the laws, and even within the laws there are a lot of mechanisms that are meant to force the building of consensus between both parties (or rather, across congress as a whole, since they didn't assume a two party system). These have fallen apart to a significant degree with the rise of unitary executive power over the past half century, but that obviously was outside of the framers' intent.

What people call a mandate has been when a position actually has been popular enough that it could be acted on quickly without opposition. The very fact that there is so much opposition to this, that the polling is so bad, that the protests are so widespread, that the negative feedback is so frequent even within the Republican party quite explicitly shows that there is no mandate here.

But again: If Trump's victory was enough to secure a mandate, why didn't a similar EV victory and significantly larger popular vote victory secure one for Biden? Why would a mandate based on deporting violent criminals apply to people without convictions? To people showing up at their court cases as they go through a legal process where they did follow all the rules?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com