US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Per]

I don't think anyone has a problem with criminals being arrested and deported.

But I do think most people like rule of law.

When ICE raids homes and work places without a warrant from a judge, when they harass people in the street based on their looks or an accent, when they kidnap children on their way home from school, when they detain people without stating a reason for their arrest, when they deny their prisoners access to a lawyer or to inform their family of where they are, and when they kill people for seemingly no reason and then aren't tried in a court - that's not law enforcement, that's domestic terrorism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comm ... es_korean/

Do you really think all these Minnesotans are taking to the streets to protect violent criminals?
They are taking to the streets to protect their neighbours and coworkers.

As one should when a government revokes constitutional rights and resorts to tyrannical measures.

It is not the deportations per se that are the problem, it is the lack of due process.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I kept quiet; I wasn't a communist.
When they came for the trade unionists, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a trade unionist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a social democrat.
When they locked up the Jews, I kept quiet;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest.

Martin Niemöller, 1892-1984

(You often see various versions starting "First they came for..." but I think this is the English translation closest to the German original)

[JelloPuddingPop]

Do you really think all these Minnesotans are taking to the streets to protect violent criminals?
They are taking to the streets to protect their neighbours and coworkers.

Per nailed it right there.

And I'll add protecting their constitutional rights.

[Topper]

Just another old fashioned populist protectionist in a long history of old fashioned populist protectionists (why did Johnny come lately?)

https://x.com/SatireSquadHQ/status/2019 ... 23925?s=20

[5thhorseman]

If it's normal now for ICE to grab citizens and legal residents off the street and out of their cars, throwing them in to detention centres even if they have id, what's going to happen during the midterms? Is it unthinkable that ICE will be at polling stations where there are supposedly lots of illegals voting (ie blue districts) to grab them from the polling lines?

[dbr]

It's not only not unthinkable, people are talking about it now because the Trump admin are making overtures about doing it.

[5thhorseman]

Trump knows he's going to lose the midterms and be impeached again so he's not going to hold back. We are looking at a police state within 9 months, at least in the swing states.

Remember when the main issue was Trump not disclosing his tax returns? Good times.

[5thhorseman]

And it's not just the potential of having ICE patrol the polling stations, but the recent action in Georgia to seize ballots and other election materials may be a precursor to inserting the federal government into election processes. Trump may not be able to nationalize the elections but he won't have to if he can influence or control the vote counting.

[2Fingers]

Curious, if the Dems win both the House and Senate does this mean things will come to a standstill? Trump will never sign anything coming from them and they won’t approve his bills (which I assume they need to approve).

I see 2 years of even more chaos.

[Cornuck]

He'll veto anything they pass, and just keep pushing things through like has been.

More lawyers will make more money.

[5thhorseman]

Bills can be passed without presidential approval through a supermajority vote in both houses (2/3 majority). So only the most bipartisan of bills will pass.

[2Fingers]

He'll veto anything they pass, and just keep pushing things through like has been.

More lawyers will make more money.

So the President can basically do what ever they want without any checks and balances? Let’s say Dems win House and Senate they can’t stop him unless they go through the courts?

Who would government organizations listen to?

[Cornuck]

In the past, there's always been 'checks and balances' - inspector generals, for example - or a congress that holds the president in check. The past year or so has seen the congress lay down and let the president / administration have full rein over their jobs - setting tariffs, withholding funds (that they themselves approved), etc etc.

SO - if the dems get in and swing the house and senate (unlikely), they can take back control of those tasks that congress has recently abdicated. They will also likely try impeaching trump and other members of his cabinet - but will likely not have the majority needed in the senate to pull that off.

The president will veto anything the dems pass without a supermajority. The dems will challenge any of his policies and most of this will likely end up in the courts.

It will likely be a very 'lame duck' presidency - but will be full of ridiculous battles.

What will be interesting to see is how much the dems can pull back on existing policy - like the mass detention centres, the free speech issues (collecting data on anti-ice posts, etc) It will likely be a confusing mess of messaging and accusations coming from both sides. It will be ugly.

[UWSaint]

And it's not just the potential of having ICE patrol the polling stations, but the recent action in Georgia to seize ballots and other election materials may be a precursor to inserting the federal government into election processes. Trump may not be able to nationalize the elections but he won't have to if he can influence or control the vote counting.

There are lots of federal laws regulating elections, right? Voting rights act. Help America vote act. Military and oversees voter act.

And that the power for congress to regulate elections involving reps and senators is express in the constitution.

ICE will patrol where they have reason to believe there are illegal immigrants. If this means a polling station, this suggests a far greater subversion of citizen-democracy than the presence of ICE.

[UWSaint]

If it's normal now for ICE to grab citizens and legal residents off the street and out of their cars, throwing them in to detention centres even if they have id, what's going to happen during the midterms? Is it unthinkable that ICE will be at polling stations where there are supposedly lots of illegals voting (ie blue districts) to grab them from the polling lines?

Good thing it isn’t normal.

And good thing there is still process.

Much of the complaints leveled against ICE can be leveled against any law enforcement arresting someone that someone else (perhaps correctly) thinks shouldn’t be arrested or temporarily detaining someone someone else thinks shouldn’t be detained. I’m all for a conversation about these things, but my general sense is that people generally have no idea about how law enforcement operates day to day responding to a domestic violence situation, a kerfluffle at the pub, executing a drug search warrant, looking for bail jumpers or other absconders, etc.

[UWSaint]

In the past, there's always been 'checks and balances' - inspector generals, for example - or a congress that holds the president in check. The past year or so has seen the congress lay down and let the president / administration have full rein over their jobs - setting tariffs, withholding funds (that they themselves approved), etc etc.

The US has courts, they are independent, and they mostly still work. But their work is generally through a process. It isn’t immediate, it isn’t based on a single allegation or one person’s Reddit thread, it isn’t knee jerk (except when issuing sweeping emergency injunctions). Point is, to evaluate whether checks and balances are in place requires time, because one checks only operate legitimately with that time, and some consequences when a department of government goes too far take time to be proven and applied, and those consequences only have legitimacy because they arose through the judicial process.

Congress, both houses Republican, is largely sympathetic to the president, but this doesn’t mean they don’t sometimes act as a balance (consider amendments to proposals, influence of filibuster or keeping factional narrow majorities together) or sometimes in opposition to what the president wants (Epstein bill).