No he didn't....why do you all lie? I tell you what link us to this court opinion...
'We will do it in Charlie's name': Stephen Miller vows vengeance for Kirk's murder
- Thread starter Zincwarrior
- Start date
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
That has got to be the biggest jump ever. Were you not also a Democrat in 2008? So you must believe exactly has Rahm did.
And you and other democrats all believe the same way according to your logic. lol! That is just funny.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,744
- 92,369
- 2,605
As I've been saying, Stephen Miller is the Nazi behind the throne. He's the Trump whisperer and the author of some of the most heinous EOs.
Most of Miller's EOs have big words Trump doesn't understand. Trump is just told where to sign.
Like which ones did he write? Link?
Vhere are your papers!?! The Trump Gestapo has arrived!
Where's the lie? The only lies are the ones you continue to tell yourself that stuff like this isn't happening.
He actually had such influence on a national scale that he played a big role in getting Trump elected.
His “crime” was that he was exposing college students to the fact they’ve been brainwashed with leftist propaganda - and that’s why Democrats had to dehumanize him and delegitimize him by screeching about Fasict! Hitler!
um yeah, the law requires aliens to carry their documents. That's not a Trump rule, that's the law.Vhere are your papers!?! The Trump Gestapo has arrived!
Where's the lie? The only lies are the ones you continue to tell yourself that stuff like this isn't happening.
Yes, the SCOTUS stepped in an overruled a District Court judge for their silly opinion.
Second, even if plaintiffs had standing, the Government has a fair prospect of succeeding on the Fourth Amendment issue. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873; Arvizu, 534 U. S. 266; Application 22–30; Reply 9–14. To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 880–882; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273; United States v. Sokolow, 490 U. S. 1, 7 (1989). Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274. Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. BrignoniPonce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence). To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a 6 NOEM v. VASQUEZ PERDOMO KAVANAUGH, J., concurring “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors. Id., at 887. Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings
There's no law that says, I must carry ID and be detained even if I do, if I should be brown, some other foreigner or speak with an accent. There's no law that requires illegal immigrants to carry ID at all, much less any citizen. An articulable and reasonable suspicion of a crime must be committed or about to be commited in order for a police officer to detain you and ask for ID. This is a gross violation of the 4th amendment.
Under Nazi rule, citizens, especially the Jews were expected to carry their IDs at all times. Totalitarian government is what right wingers and conservatives have been screaming about for decades, but it was actually "tyrannical government" run by democrats they most feared, "tyrannical government" by republicans is perfectly fine! You've gotten your wish!
You are right illegal immigrants are just illegal l…there skin color isn’t relevant
Legal aliens are required to carry documents. There skin color isn’t relevant
This has been the law for decades
Oh but in Trump's new world order skin color is relevant, so is their accent or where they work, or which home depots they be standing outside of, etc. All of this was spelled out in the SCOTUS ruling. All of this becomes relevant in order to be detained, have their ids checked and very possibly taken to an ICE facility. This is all a violation of the 4th amendment and against the core principles of the Constitution, something that conservatives pretended mattered to them but never did.
No, no it’s not. It’s always been relevant. If the police have been told a black 30 year old male broke into a store. They are going to be looking for black males in that age range. That’s not new.
Nowhere in the scotus ruling does it say skin color is relevant, it does discuss ethnicity though. Read it sometime
Last edited:
Has the federal government directed federal agencies to hunt down everyone that's black, as a result?
Yeah, and how do you think ICE will determine whether to detain you or not? They're going to do it based on what you look like, duh!
The ruling was literally a response to a lower court decision that barred ICE from using race, language, and occupation to profile people for detainment. SCOTUS overruled that decision so ICE can continue illegally profiling. Perhaps you should read, Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem. This is authoritarianism in plain sight.
Nope.
The lower court barred them from going to Home Depot, using ethnicity (which isn’t race)
It was a ridiculous ruling that undermined legal poliicing and common sense
No they barred ICE from profiling based on ethnicity, language, whether anyone spoke with accent. AND place of occupation, like waiting out a home depot.
I'd be curious how many white people ICE has harassed, as opposed to minorities. They are indeed racial profiling. If they weren't they'd never meet their 3,000 quota per day.
So the 4th amendment is ridiculous to you? This is very telling.
MayorQuimby
Gold Member
- Feb 4, 2024
- 3,397
- 1,446
- 208
What pretext? Someone did get murdered for his political beliefs.
More than 80% of illegal aliens are Hispanic, and it is well known that the Home Depot parking lot attracts them for day jobs. You want instead for ICE to go to the parking lot at the Hyatt and detain white people wheeling their suitcases toward the lobby?
Yes, it was complete insanity for the District Court judge to do that, and ignored precedent and common sense. Hence, why it was quickly overturned.
Not sure the race of the individual matters, as much as their legal status in the country. I am curious, where do you think the majority of illegal aliens come from that are living in Southern Cali?
You don't see how wrong and illegal it is to detain someone at a home depot or anyone else just because they look Hispanic or speak with an accent? LOL.
ICE wouldn't go around randomly harassing white people and detaining them, and that's my point. This is legalized racial discrimination sponsored by the federal government.
Which legal precedent do you think we're ignoring in this country where we've legally rounded people up based on race, language, accent or occupation, etc?
The Supreme Court overturned it because they are the arm of the current fascist regime.
g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 138,744
- 92,369
- 2,605
Of course you do. He's a Nazi white supremacist.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
Feminists ask a Female CEO why she doesn't hire all women at her company- Started by LibertyWeeps
- Replies: 2
-
Would Americans support US troops seizing and occupying Kharg Island ?
- Started by yidnar
- Replies: 38
-
Roberts on personal attacks against judges: 'It's got to stop'- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 2
-
I give Al Jazeera credit for publishing this opinion piece: 'The US-Israeli Strategy Against Iran is Working. Here is Why'- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 10
