picard102
Senior Member
Guess we'll find out when the first citizen shoots an ICE agent illegally entering their home.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Monarch Butterfly
- Start date
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
afransen
Senior Member
If enough GOP congress members think they are going to lose re-election this fall anyway, there might be some incentive to buck the whip and vote against Trump's agenda.
afransen
Senior Member
The slide into totalitarianism is proceeding apace...
Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge's warrant, memo says
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press reveals that the agency allows immigration officers to forcibly enter homes to make arrests without a judicial warrant.apnews.com
Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.
The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.
The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis.
For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration’s immigration crackdown.
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
I do not believe what I was asking for is unreasonable or a fantasy by any stretch assuming the political elements here are doing the right thing here. This is what a lot people including Americans would like it to be. However, with bad actors and sell outs calling the shots that system has now broken down with all the checks and balances...therefore, it is the US system as is currently and in actuality. That I least get. But that does not stop me from or others saying that's wrong and needs to change. Because as soon as we stop saying it, then they would of won. And we might as well be voting for it, IMO.
Thank you for clarifying that you are not indeed defending Trump or his awfulness in anyway by pointing this out. I should of guessed as much, but I needed to be sure. So my apologies here for thinking otherwise. /bows
EBT
Active Member
A blithering idiot Donald Trump touting a deal that does not exist. "It will be fair everybody" "we have a concept of a deal". Here we see the emperor has no clothes.
BACKGROUND: There were claims on Wednesday that the US and Denmark have agreed to a "framework of a deal" on Greenland. This is based on discussions that Trump had with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte during which no representatives of Denmark or Greenland were present. It goes without saying that a NATO secretary general does not have the authority to negotiate on behalf of Denmark and Greenland. The alleged deal supposedly encompasses all "arctic security". Of course, Canada owns a big chunk of the arctic and again it goes without saying Mark Rutte has no authority to negotiate on the behalf of Canada.
More...
BACKGROUND: There were claims on Wednesday that the US and Denmark have agreed to a "framework of a deal" on Greenland. This is based on discussions that Trump had with NATO secretary general Mark Rutte during which no representatives of Denmark or Greenland were present. It goes without saying that a NATO secretary general does not have the authority to negotiate on behalf of Denmark and Greenland. The alleged deal supposedly encompasses all "arctic security". Of course, Canada owns a big chunk of the arctic and again it goes without saying Mark Rutte has no authority to negotiate on the behalf of Canada.
More...
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
The US political system has had vulnerabilities that they could not envision in the 18th century. It just needed the right (wrong) players to fully exploit them.
I will hold fire because I don't know the extent of their authority under a 'final removal order'. Up here, an arrest warrant now requires an endorsement to enter a dwelling to execute it (it was always not so until the SCOC said so). It may be that the order always carried that authority but agency policy said 'no' and now that has changed.eirImmigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge's warrant, memo says
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press reveals that the agency allows immigration officers to forcibly enter homes to make arrests without a judicial warrant.
Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.
The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.
The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers under a mass deportation campaign that is already reshaping enforcement tactics in cities such as Minneapolis.
For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration’s immigration crackdown.
I'm not defending ICE; I just don't know their legislation. Grabbing people off the street on mere suspicion seems wrong given my limited understanding, but I don't really know. You can still be a goon while doing what is legally allowed.
lenaitch
Senior Member
zang
Senior Member
The resistance to adding/changing amendments to the constitution also doesn't help. Considering the last (27th) was in 1992 (and first proposed in 1789) and that the 25th (1967) is considered one of the more recent is frustrating. "A living document" that remains stagnant for decades was probably not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
afransen
Senior Member
I think this 'framework' is just a face-saving exercise for Trump.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Interpreting the Constitution as a living document is much less settled an issue down there than it is up here. Originalism is very much alive in the US.
Foundational documents are supposed to be difficult to change but, having said that, you are right that in an age when bipartisanism is pretty much dead and with the significant influence of 'background' agendas and funding, there is little hope of seeing any change in the foreseeable future.
evandyk
Senior Member
Originalism isn’t just “alive” in the US. With the current Supreme Court, it’s the predominant approach, which any lower court departs from at their peril.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Agreed, but funny thing that.........
For decades, the 2nd amendment was understood to reflect the right to bare arms, similar to, or equivalent to the shotguns/rifles of the period in which it was written, and not to enshrine a right to handguns or open carry.
For decades, 'Freedom of Expression' was ruled by the court to apply to words spoken, not to donating money to politicians or PACs (Political Action Committees).
In both cases the Supreme Court reversed past precedent and brought the constitution to life by inferring rights which are nowhere to be found in the original documents, yet, those decisions were written and supported, mostly, by so-called 'originalists'
Mihairokov
Senior Member
Trump released a book forty years ago where he repeatedly outlined how he made deals: Ask for the moon upon initial discussions and then negotiate down to your original want. Nothing he does of this nature should surprise us at this stage.
Full Metal Junkie
Active Member
From reporting out of European sources, it seems like the "deal" has nothing to do with Denmark's sovereignty. It's to give US military unlimited access to build whatever military bases they want on Greenland. I.e. something they could have done since the 50's. Something that they could have continued to do without any new "deal".
Except in this case, it seems he asked for the moon and got told to go look at a picture of the moon he has hanging in his office already. Mark Rutte must have called Trump "daddy" once again and that fed so well into Trump's narcissism, that he thought the nothing-burger Rutte sold him as the great-new-framework-deal was everything Trump ever wanted.
Last edited: