Why do people flee from ICE?

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

I don't really know. Part of me feels it's because The federal government has been allowed to grow much larger and stronger than intended over the years. 

 

The federal government (unconstitutionally IMHO) is in a position of being able to control and withhold funding given to the states. States are scared to lose funding or to otherwise alienate the feds.

 

I don't believe the framers ever intended for the federal government to be funding the states, I think they fear this very thing. 

 

Constitution wasn't quite strong enough in its limitation of power to the executive but that's a different story altogether. 


I think the Founders were well aware that the federal government might be "funding the states" if some project that spanned,/benefited multiple states was undertaken. The Erie Canal comes to mind as an early example. There was also a federally funded (partially or fully) road that crossed the Cumberland Pass and went to the Ohio Valley. And of course later, the Transcontinental Railroad. That couldn't possibly have been funded by the individual states. Like: what if Nevada had refused to fund its portion?

 

I think that any federal government setup where the feds can tax the states would naturally result in federally funded projects and support of all kinds. And there's no way in hell we could have had the Westward Expansion without that.

Originally posted by: tom

These aren't steps but several differnent reasons to be deported.

 

In #1 that is a convicted criminal.  Felonies and misdeamonors are deportable offenses.  They get a hearing with their attorney in immigration court.  If the judge finds grounds that person is deportable.

 

The next are people being deported after a final order of deportation has been given.  The illegal getes a hearing with an attorney with an immigration judge.  If the judge determines there are grounds for deportation they get deported.  If the illegal doesn't show up for the hearing they forfeit their hearing rights.

 

In spite of what some people claim; nobody gets deported without a hearing. So they get due process.  And immigration courts are legal.

 


What about the "expediated" process where they go before a border agent instead of a judge? Do you feel that should be legal? 

 

Just to be clear. I am not against deportations per se. I would just prefer it be handled by the same style of judicial courts we use for every other crime. Deportation should be part of the sentencing process in a federal judicial court. 

 

 

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

I think the Founders were well aware that the federal government might be "funding the states" if some project that spanned,/benefited multiple states was undertaken. The Erie Canal comes to mind as an early example. There was also a federally funded (partially or fully) road that crossed the Cumberland Pass and went to the Ohio Valley. And of course later, the Transcontinental Railroad. That couldn't possibly have been funded by the individual states. Like: what if Nevada had refused to fund its portion?

 

I think that any federal government setup where the feds can tax the states would naturally result in federally funded projects and support of all kinds. And there's no way in hell we could have had the Westward Expansion without that.


The Federal government certainly can make interstate roads.  It is required to build and maintain roads for the post office. Granting the public access to said roads and collecting use fees via gasoline taxes or something is quite reasonable. They can also arguably do so as a means to "regulate commerce among the states". Similar argument could be made for the other examples you gave. 

 

The federal government  can and should do things that benefit the several states. 

 

But that doesn't mean the states should become dependent on the federal government to function. They should be able to function, for the most part without federal money. 

 

If the states get their funding from the federal government then they are beholden to the federal government. If they get their funding from the people they are beholden to the people. 

 

 

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

The Federal government certainly can make interstate roads.  It is required to build and maintain roads for the post office. Granting the public access to said roads and collecting use fees via gasoline taxes or something is quite reasonable. They can also arguably do so as a means to "regulate commerce among the states". Similar argument could be made for the other examples you gave. 

 

The federal government  can and should do things that benefit the several states. 

 

But that doesn't mean the states should become dependent on the federal government to function. They should be able to function, for the most part without federal money. 

 

If the states get their funding from the federal government then they are beholden to the federal government. If they get their funding from the people they are beholden to the people. 

 

 


I don't see the distinction between "the federal government" and "the people." The people elect representatives who perform the functions of government. Therefore, what the government does is in execution of the will of the people.

 

Obviously, it isn't direct execution, but that's the way it's supposed to ultimately go. And if the government isn't doing the people's will, the people have the means to fix that. Slowly, admittedly.

 

I disagree that the states should be able to function independently. There's a huge wealth disparity among the states. Federal money and other resources level the playing field. Fifty financially independent states would lead to mass migration from the poorer to the wealthier states. Dust Bowl Ii.

 

I also disagree that the states are "beholden" to the feds because they receive funding. The states retain their powers. The Trumpian blackmail approach is illegal and unconstitutional.


ICE agents pull guns on police officers 'of color' and demand papers: MN chief

 

 

 

"Bruley said ICE "boxed in" one officer on a roadway.

 

"They demanded her paperwork, of which she's a US citizen and clearly would not have any paperwork," he said. "When she became concerned about the rhetoric and the way she was being treated, she pulled out her phone in an attempt to record the incident, the phone was knocked out of her hands, prevented her from recording it.""

 

 

 

""Recently, as the last two weeks, we as law enforcement community have been receiving endless complaints about civil rights violations in our streets from US citizens," he said. "

Originally posted by: MaxFlavor

ICE agents pull guns on police officers 'of color' and demand papers: MN chief

 

 

 

"Bruley said ICE "boxed in" one officer on a roadway.

 

"They demanded her paperwork, of which she's a US citizen and clearly would not have any paperwork," he said. "When she became concerned about the rhetoric and the way she was being treated, she pulled out her phone in an attempt to record the incident, the phone was knocked out of her hands, prevented her from recording it.""

 

 

 

""Recently, as the last two weeks, we as law enforcement community have been receiving endless complaints about civil rights violations in our streets from US citizens," he said. "


We keep hearing about ICE agents acting as if they don't have to observe proper police procedure or respect people's civil rights. Knocking the phone out of her hands was criminal assault. I'm sure the agent will never even receive a reprimand.

 

It's irrelevant whether or not she was a US citizen. NOBODY has to produce proof of citizenship on demand. Not even a filthy illegal brown person.

 

ICE is going to have to behave and learn about civil rights, or the violence will escalate.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

People who are here perfectly legally also flee from ICE, because they know that they can be assaulted, dragged away, imprisoned, and tossed out of the country, all without due process.

 

Even if they are able to eventually prove their legal residency, they'll still have been beaten up and will have spent several days in jail.

 

I'd run from that, too.


 Untrue. The only ones truly afraid are the illegals. Your incitive statements here make it sound like the treatment you wrongfully describe is widespread and commonplace among all people. There are exceptions - this is not the rule. Mistakes have been made, but do get rectified. Remember this, if Biden and Harris had not of opened up the southern border for 4 years, there would not currently be the need for these actions - which are legally mandated by law - to have to be taken by ICE. DemocRATs knowingly set into motion the current series of events by ignoring the laws concerning legal immigration. All of what is happeniing throughout America is the sole fault of DemocRAT governance from 2020 - 2024.

Nonsense, David. The Biden administration isn't the one conducting illegal roundups and denying people their civil rights. You barfed out a stupid lie when you said that FEELTHY ILLEGULS don't have the right to due process. I know that Trump, MAGA, and ICE believe that, but you don't have to be a parrot.

 

Blaming Biden for everything Trump is fucking up is a weasel tactic and is getting a little old. When Trump slaughtered hundreds of Venezuelans, that wasn't Biden. Trumpiffs, which are destroying our economy, have nothing to do with Biden. Biden is not threatening to make war on Denmark.

 

Why do you keep making excuses for the Turd? What does that get you?

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Nonsense, David. The Biden administration isn't the one conducting illegal roundups and denying people their civil rights. You barfed out a stupid lie when you said that FEELTHY ILLEGULS don't have the right to due process. I know that Trump, MAGA, and ICE believe that, but you don't have to be a parrot.

 

Blaming Biden for everything Trump is fucking up is a weasel tactic and is getting a little old. When Trump slaughtered hundreds of Venezuelans, that wasn't Biden. Trumpiffs, which are destroying our economy, have nothing to do with Biden. Biden is not threatening to make war on Denmark.

 

Why do you keep making excuses for the Turd? What does that get you?


  The Biden administration set into motion the legal removal of the criminals and terrorists that they allowed to enter America. Anything else you say about this fact is redundant.

Originally posted by: David Miller

  The Biden administration set into motion the legal removal of the criminals and terrorists that they allowed to enter America. Anything else you say about this fact is redundant.


Calling it a fact doesn't make it so. Your orange master's barf about THEM ALL TERRORISTS is a lie, and by repeating it, you're lying.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now