ICE Thug Murders Person In Minnesota

I agree. However it is worth remembering that some laws Congress make are a unconstitutional. It is also worth remembering that sometimes the way laws get enforced are unconstitutional. 

Legislatures on both sides of the aisle have made unconstitutional laws. Presidents on both sides of the aisle have enforced laws unconstitutionally. 

Because you appear to lean strongly on the right side of the aisle I will give a few examples that might be more relatable to you.

1994 "assault weapon" restrictions.

Most of the Gun Control Act. 

ATF attacking FRT triggers. 

ATF attempting to classify certain pistols has "short barrel rifles.".

The attempts to ban modern sporting rifles. 

The Obama administration weaponizing the IRS against political opponents. 

The federal government's attack on the Weaver family. 

Several (not all) undeclared wars were from Democrat presidents. 

Note: The listing of examples from the "left" are not meant to dismiss or compare to those on the "right". 

It is not about Democrat or Republican for me. It is about constitutional or unconstitutional. 

Administrative hearings are not constitutional. The judicial branch conducts trials not the executive branch.

 Any laws passed to take that roll away from the judiciary are  unconstitutional because they effectively amend the constitutional while bypassing the proper amendment process.

Several people have been deported despite court orders to not deport them. 

I have no way to prove this to you so I just have to hope you believe me but during the Biden and Obama administrations I was just as vocal about the things they did that I thought were unconstitutional. 

Final orders of deportation are legal & have been used for years.  

Published Jul 11, 2025

A final order of removal is a legally binding decision from an immigration judge or authorized official requiring a non-citizen to leave the United States. This order confirms that the legal process to determine an individual’s right to stay has concluded unfavorably. It is the final administrative step in removal proceedings and sets in motion a process that can lead to physical deportation by immigration authorities

The most common path to a final order of removal begins when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) files a Notice to Appear (NTA) with the immigration court. This document acts as a charging instrument, outlining the specific reasons the government believes a non-citizen should be removed. It contains allegations about the person’s entry into the U.S. and any conduct that may have violated immigration laws.

An order can also become final if an individual fails to attend a scheduled court hearing, resulting in an “in absentia” order of removal.

Several people have been deported despite court orders to not deport them

There is no proof of this 

Currently immigration courts are not run by the judicial branch. They are run by the executive branch. I feel this is unconstitutional. Admittedly it's been like that for a very long time. 

Those accused of  immigration crimes or infractions should be tried in the judicial branch.

The current system is akin to one being charged with trespassing and The police department running the court. This would rightfully be seen as a violation of the separation of powers. 

As to there not being proof of my assertion that people have been removed despite court orders. I can't offer proof per se, but I can offer some evidence. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/18/trump-admin-deportation-order-00657401

https://www.kltv.com/2026/01/15/us-apologizes-mistake-deporting-college-student-visiting-family-defends-her-removal/

https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immigration-dd4f61999f85c4dd8bcaba7d4fc7c9af

Immigration courts are administrative courts within the U.S. Department of Justice.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/immigration-court-system-explained

So 2 out 300,000+ have been returned; statistically insignificant.

boasberg is a democrat hack nominated by obama; many of his decisions have been overturned

Maybe his decision will be overturned. But until it is it should be followed.

Yes they are within the department of Justice. Which is part of the executive branch. Trials should be held by the judicial branch. 

I agree with you that Congress has passed laws that set up these administrative courts. I feel those laws are unconstitutional. 

Legislative branch - writes the laws. 

Executive branch - enforces the laws. 

Judicial branch - conducts trials to determine whether or not the accused are guilty. 

The people - keep the other branches in check with the jury system. 

The framers would find administrative courts run by the executive branch to be repugnanted to the Constitution. 

The Constitution is pretty clear. Those accused of crimes should be tried in a judicial court. With the right to a jury trial. 

Those accused of civil infractions should also receive a judicial trial. If the fines involved exceed $20 then they have the right to a jury. 

Another note: I would rather 10,000 illegal immigrants remain than have one legal immigrant deported. 

Since all court cases are by the DOJ, then all cases are unconstitutional?

You are ok if within those 10,000 illegals there are 2,000 murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals.  Would you like these criminals to live on your block?

The DOJ prosecutes people in court. That is perfectly constitutional. The DOJ doesn't usually run and operate the court. In a regular court the judge does not work for the DOJ. 

Am I "okay" with it? No. I would expect those 2,000 to be tried and convicted. However, I would still prefer that 2,000 murderers go free than one innocent person go to prison for murder. 

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

That's a ridiculous and stupid Tom-hypothetical using a Tom-stat and Tom-logic.

But to answer his question: I'd call the local Republican party office and tell them that some new potential recruits are in town.

After all, Tom my boy, it's a bit confusing that you appear upset by murderers, rapists, and criminals, yet, you vote for, worship, endorse and defend one of the worst criminals, multiple rapists, and mass murderers in American history.