My wife was just naturalized as a US Citizen a year ago. You can bet she doesn't want to be anywhere near that mess. Her legal status provides her basically no protection from any ICE rookie with a chip on his shoulder.
This is not an example of the scenario esseph described. Foreign students are by definition not US citizens and thus don't have any inherent right to be in the country.
Now Google for keywords Trump + denaturalization, filtering for results in the last 2 weeks. Or what he said about "deporting" citizens by birth since before then.
Aside: limiting the conversation to things that have already happened is uninteresting to me; you skate where the puck is going. One can easily do this by applying the administrations internal logic, i.e. what they said/did in the past, and what the ultimate goal/result was, and mapping that to what they are doing now to extrapolate future outcomes.
The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either “illegally procured” naturalization or procured naturalization by “concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a).
They're just going to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades, that's all they're stating. TPM is a far-left propaganda outlet, not surprising to find some histrionic takes on made up scenarios there to rile up the base.
This is not a valid argument because there is no way to disprove it. If you was so easy to find an example that actually holds up under scrutiny you would be able to present one yourself.
>just a response to someone saying something "sounds like" something.
It was a response asking for sources, sources you still don't have. You're projecting about being triggered and still don't have sources to bring. Sad.
>Sounds like you and they are equally competent at finding sources.
Sounds like you're failing at basic reading comprehension, which isn't surprising. I am not the one who made the claim, I do not have to supply sources.
>It's not hard if you try.
Trying doesn't make a difference: the sources don't exist.
>I don't need to enable anyone's laziness.
You have too much laziness of your own, I get it. You're also insanely triggered by my basic asks (since they are heretical apparently) which similarly doesn't surprise me. Any reply from you is an admission that you're triggered and don't have any sources.
>It's pretty sad that you decided to come back to this a week later
Not at all, I have a real life and don't log in every day and furiously click refresh and go through all the comment threads unlike you because you're so triggered.
>and it's also telling that the majority of your comment is just things I wrote.
Modern day Sherlock you are.
>Guess we're done now that you've decided you win though. "I'm bleeding, making me the victor!"
No, some of us just have apps that let us know when someone replies.
Whether you were logged in or not, the decision to reply to this thread after a week was the sad bit. But I'm here for you to let off whatever steam you need.
I can admit defeat more if that will help you? Or should I try to give you an opportunity to say "triggering intensifies"? Or something else? Just let me know what will let you feel better.
I'm glad you're getting so much out of this. Would you like me to use a "can I" again as a rhetorical device so you can reply "No you may not" again? I promise I'll be devastated.
Her legal status is that she's a US citizen, she has the same "protection from any ICE rookie" as anyone else who is a US citizen naturalized or natural-born.
The president of the United States is literally fighting in court to get the authority to treat natural born newborns as aliens even though the plain letter of the United States Constitution says these babies are citizens.
In an environment like that, legal status doesn't mean shit.
Well, it does say that explicitly. Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green. If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
>Them arguing the sky is green doesn't make the sky actually green.
They're arguing that the sky is blue, which the sky actually is.
>If they win a court case by arguing the sky is green, that says something about the court, not about the reality.
If they win a court case by arguing the sky is blue, and half of the political establishment rejects that, that says something about that half of the political establishment, not about the reality.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The argument is that certain overseas territories, foreign dignitaries, and illegal immigrants are "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The first two are not offered birthright citizenship, the latter is. If consistency is to be considered, illegal aliens should similarly not be offered birthright citizenship.
What people care about is reality. Currently the reality is you can be subject to arbitrary detention and deportation with no due process, regardless of you rights.
This is a very disingenuous question for a number of reasons.
- Whether unlawful presence is a civil or criminal law, countries should control who enters the country.
- Masked police seem like a reasonable response to doxxing of police officers? It’s not like the identity of these police aren’t know to the legal system and lawyers of the accused.
- Calling immigration detention “concentration camps” makes no sense. It’s just meaningless rhetoric as detention bears no resemblance to actual concentration camps.
- Most importantly, the US enforcing its own immigrations laws does not make it an outlier - it was an outlier when it ignored its own immigration laws. Every other country I’ve visited rather strictly enforces its immigration laws including speedy deportation of any encountered who doesn’t have permission to be in the country. If anything the headlines should be “US joins rest of world in enforcing its own immigration laws”
> Calling immigration detention “concentration camps” makes no sense.
I don’t think you are paying attention to the abject cruelty in the administration’s own discourse about these facilities. The U.S. president describing with barely restrained delight his anticipation that escapees from the new facility in Florida would be eaten by alligators. I suppose if called out on it, he’d claim it’s a joke. I’m sure many regimes in history had their own euphemistic terms for facilities such as this; but purposeful cruelty is a cardinal feature of concentration camps in my view.
> The U.S. president describing with barely restrained delight his anticipation that escapees from the new facility in Florida would be eaten by alligators
Do you have a specific quote you can share? I haven't seen what you're referring to.
And I guess I think back to facilities like Alcatraz. It was created such that anyone trying to escape would likely drown. Is that the same thing you're talking about?
I don’t see “barely contained glee at immigrants being eaten by alligators”, I see an attempt at making a funny comment about escaping alligators by not running in a straight line.
> - Whether unlawful presence is a civil or criminal law, countries should control who enters the country.
Yes. And it's disingenuous to call for brutal police tactics with enormous collateral damage for something the letter of the law regards as the equivalent of a parking ticket.
> - Masked police seem like a reasonable response to doxxing of police officers?
Fuck. No.
> Calling immigration detention “concentration camps” makes no sense.
When they are meant for detaining people who are literally not guilty of any crime, and they are deliberately designed to feature inhumane conditions, it makes every sense.
> - - Most importantly, the US enforcing its own immigrations laws does not make it an outlier
I'll ask the same question again: which civil offenses do you think should also be addressed with secret police and concentration camps?
The EU is stricter with immigration than the US. But it does not use secret police and concentration camps.
You're not really arguing in good faith when your response is "Fuck. No."
> The EU is stricter with immigration than the US. But it does not use secret police and concentration camps.
You don't think the police in Europe sometimes hide the identity of their police from onlookers when required? I'm pretty sure they do.
Do you also think Europe doesn't detain people who are in their country illegally? I'm pretty sure they do. They are even creating "return hubs", which are basically detention centers outside their own country which hold immigrants until they can be returned to their home or a third country.
> You're not really arguing in good faith when your response is "Fuck. No."
If you don't already know that keeping the name & badge number visible is the most important part of proper policing, and established as such by the world's first police force and its founder, Robert Peel, there's no point arguing much of anything with you.
It's literally the difference between a police force and a Geheime Staat Polizei.
"In particular, criminal police officers also work in "civilian" clothing and therefore are visually unrecognisable as the police force. They often have to hide their identity, for example, to observe people or to enforce arrest warrants."
RIght, because a detective going undercover to gather evidence means it's perfectly okay for masked thugs to pop out of unmarked vehicles and grab people off the streets.
Detectives are "masked thugs to pop out of unmarked vehicles and grab people off the streets".
You've never seen a takedown of street level drug dealers? Unmarked cars, plainclothes police, grab everyone off the street?
I'm really trying to understand what specifically you find objectionable. Is it the fact that ICE isn't in uniform? Or that they wear masks? Or that they arrest people?
> Detectives are "masked thugs to pop out of unmarked vehicles and grab people off the streets".
The moment they make an actual arrest (which is rare, since they prefer to maintain their cover), they identify and are held accountable for how they do it.
Yes. Jumping the border is a misdemeanor if you don't immediately self report to request asylum.
But the majority of people getting rounded up right now are for unlawful presence.
And a lot of them have no idea that their presence was marked unlawful until ICE gets them. There's a reason civil offenses are supposed to be handled with proper notification and court summonses instead of this shit.
You can campaign for an amendment to give up American's right to self-determination if you want that but you don't get to just decide to do that on your own.
The "right of self determination" does not exist in the US constitution or law. It's a rhetorical slogan coined by Woodrow Wilson, and his idea of "self determination" came from growing up as a racist southerner who felt the South should have been allowed to self-determine a continuation of chattel slavery.
How this has anything to do with the immigrants in my city trying to live normal lives, perhaps you can explain.
