Are you now agreeing there is no statutory law prohibiting the separation of a child from a parent who enters our country illegally and is legally placed in federal detention?
JWK
If only that was even remotely close to what actually happened. If only their legal status had been determined prior to enacting a policy that was blatantly unconstitutional, they might not have enacted said policy to begin with and we wouldnât be where weâre at now. Oh well.
In this country, we donât arrest people and then determine if theyâve committed an offense worth being arrested for. Well, unless we think youâre a foreigner, then itâs perfectly a-ok.
1 Like
They violated the constitution.
Not unlawful, not indefinite, not imprisonment
Which article?
Not a clue. We got it. Thanks.
Emotions and law are two different things. I realize you are upset. Itâs ugly. Youâre a good person. You want to save the world
Unfortunately you just canât. The best you can hope for is they donât drown you when they drag you down. And they will.
Yeah. Maybe instead of taking pictures of protestors, DHS could have been using those drones to cover areas of the border agents couldnât cover. Because priorities.
Speaking of which, why was DHS sending the border patrol to Portland to play riot police? Almost like the border wasnât really a huge issue for the administration or something. Go figure.
Wrong. Separating a child from a parent illegally entering our country who is placed in detention, and the child put into child care custody, is not violating our Constitution.
JWK
Why? Cover it for what?
Read back in the thread. I donât feel like repeating myself.
There was like this whole judgement or something that determined that the US government did indeed violate the Constitution and the Trump administration agreed by shutting down the programâŚ. But I know that that will be ignored because even though it is 100% true it doesnât fit in with the idea that The Trump administration â â â â â â up royally.
1 Like
What do you think DHS is going to do?
Well letâs be honest, when â â â â â â â things up royally is the status quo, it becomes less and less noteworthy.
1 Like
From the Judges order denying motion to dismiss. Apparently, he thought there was a violation of constitutional rights.
At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government
conduct at issue âshocks the conscienceâ and violates Plaintiffsâ constitutional right to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendantsâ motion to dismiss Plaintiffsâ due process claim is denied.
Where do I find this âright to family integrityâ in the Constitution?
1 Like
In the Google section. If you get special privileges, you can access the PACER section to give you the case law supporting it.
You knew that already though, didnât you? I mean itâs right there in the order:
The constitutional right to family integrity âis entirely judge-made: it does not appear in the text of the Constitution itself.â
Again, what law?
Can you cite the law that was supposed to have been violated?
Technically not illegal doesnât work as a defense at this point. The courts have already ruled.
1 Like
So here YOU are asking for a law citation yet when you are asked, all you say is âdue processâ. Again, cite the law the government broke please.
Thanks
