20 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Feds are governed by their own policies, not those of CA, while making arrests.

That is correct, and the name of those policies is habeas corpus. Using my example of the landscape crews, the Feds under the provisions of habeus corpus have to show the landscape workers the legal basis why they personally are being detained. It's a crucial safeguard against unlawful or arbitrary detention, ensuring individuals are not held without due process.

27 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Feds are governed by their own policies, not those of CA, while making arrests.

No, they are "governed” by the fing constitution. JFC you can’t be this gd dense.

26 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

No, they are "governed” by the fing constitution. JFC you can’t be this gd dense.

Lol it doesnt say cams are required.

46 minutes ago, mattwill said:

That is correct, and the name of those policies is habeas corpus. Using my example of the landscape crews, the Feds under the provisions of habeus corpus have to show the landscape workers the legal basis why they personally are being detained. It's a crucial safeguard against unlawful or arbitrary detention, ensuring individuals are not held without due

None of which requires feds to have cams on.

21 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Lol it doesnt say cams are required.

lol, what fing straw man are you building now? Due process, due process, due process. If the masked thugs are following the law, what are they hiding?

7 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

lol, what fing straw man are you building now? Due process, due process, due process. If the masked thugs are following the law, what are they hiding?

Lol dude read what I quoted and what he said about CA law requiring cams. Feds don't need them.

2 hours ago, mattwill said:

That is correct, and the name of those policies is habeas corpus. Using my example of the landscape crews, the Feds under the provisions of habeus corpus have to show the landscape workers the legal basis why they personally are being detained. It's a crucial safeguard against unlawful or arbitrary detention, ensuring individuals are not held without due process.

Sounds like some liberal nonsense

3 hours ago, mattwill said:

That is correct, and the name of those policies is habeas corpus. Using my example of the landscape crews, the Feds under the provisions of habeus corpus have to show the landscape workers the legal basis why they personally are being detained. It's a crucial safeguard against unlawful or arbitrary detention, ensuring individuals are not held without due process.

Actually no, they can challenge the legality of their detention once detained in federal court. Probable cause (currently being interpreted as they look Latino) allows for detention.

An unfortunate consequence of immigration law being only covered in part by Article III courts. It is this legal gap that is currently being exploited by Miller and ICE.

3 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

None of which requires feds to have cams on.

The fact that you think that cameras do not need to be on speaks volumes. Your relationship with your mirror must be interesting.

4 minutes ago, mattwill said:

The fact that you think that cameras do not need to be on speaks volumes. Your relationship with your mirror must be interesting.

Legally speaking, they do not for feds. That's how it is.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Sounds like some liberal nonsense

Sounds like a core principle of our law that has been in place for over 800 years.

The foundations for habeas corpus predate the Magna Carta of 1215. This charter declared that:

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

1 hour ago, BBE said:

Actually no, they can challenge the legality of their detention once detained in federal court. Probable cause (currently being interpreted as they look Latino) allows for detention.

An unfortunate consequence of immigration law being only covered in part by Article III courts. It is this legal gap that is currently being exploited by Miller and ICE.

Very reasonable response, especially the parenthetical comment "currently being interpreted as they look Latino.” Why shouldn’t I be equally suspect for looking WASP?

1 minute ago, mattwill said:

Very reasonable response, especially the parenthetical comment "currently being interpreted as they look Latino.” Why shouldn’t I be equally suspect for looking WASP?

Don't think for a second I am defending what is happening. Quite simply it is a matter of probability.

11 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Legally speaking, they do not for feds. That's how it is.

Do you think that is morally right?

2 minutes ago, BBE said:

Don't think for a second I am defending what is happening. Quite simply it is a matter of probability.

Actually, it is quite simply a matter of racial profiling.

5 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Do you think that is morally right?

Absolutely, and if you have a problem with it, pass a law.

8 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Actually, it is quite simply a matter of racial profiling.

Not exactly, but you do you.

This has entertainment value

Biden Judge DEFIES Supreme Court, Says His Order Barring Deportation of Illegal Aliens to South Sudan Remains in Effect

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

Absolutely, and if you have a problem with it, pass a law.

So, are you saying that the body camera laws passed by states are morally wrong?

1 hour ago, mattwill said:

So, are you saying that the body camera laws passed by states are morally wrong?

Face palm. If you want to require feds to then change the law or make new policies. States can do what they want.

55 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Face palm. If you want to require feds to then change the law or make new policies. States can do what they want.

I wasn’t asking you about the legal landscape. I was asking you about your morality.

3 hours ago, mattwill said:

I wasn’t asking you about the legal landscape. I was asking you about your morality.

He thinks it’s ok if a few legal citizens get caught up in the brown scare. He thinks racial profiling is ok. He has no morals whatsoever.

8 hours ago, mattwill said:

Sounds like a core principle of our law that has been in place for over 800 years.

The foundations for habeas corpus predate the Magna Carta of 1215. This charter declared that:

Once again, habeus does not apply in this way for immigration matters.

5 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Face palm. If you want to require feds to then change the law or make new policies. States can do what they want.

No reasonable person can be ok with how the enforcement of immigration laws is being executed currently. At the same time, a reasonable person cannot say enforcement of immigration laws in a controlled manner within the legally established processes is a matter of "racial profiling" either.

The problem is that this matter is being executed and protested against by the fringes. The only winner right now is Stephen Fing Miller, a damn pox on all of humanity. And now we have masked agents (probably masked to prevent doxxing but at the same time granting the worst of the agents to exceed the necessary force and/or take the liberties we are seeing in some of these cases because they know Miller wants this kind of ish).

So where does the country land with this. Laws should be enforced in a legal way and in strict accordance with the established processes. Miller and the administration want to take every shortcut that Miller can dream up. The AEA and shipping illegals to countries that are not their origin????

We are solidly Fed until Miller is gone.