Will “mass deportation” actually happen (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

It’s so repulsive to see people cheering for what is basically 80% the same thing as the Holocaust - different end result but otherwise very similar.

Economists have said it would tank the economy and cause inflation - notwithstanding the cost.

Is it going to actually happen or is this Build The Wall 2.0?

 

[brandon]

Incidentally, here in the Yucatan peninsula, there have been issues with Canadian and U.S. citizens remaining in Mexico after their visas have expired.. and that's one way the INM pinpoints them, white with accents or no Spanish. Same idea with other Spanish accents like Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, etc...

Cool. Detaining someone for having an accent is not legal in the United States.

 

[Dragon]

I was never very good at math, so someone please correct me if I am wrong, but you said the population of Denmark is 6.5 million, and the population of immigrants is 720,000. 720,000/6,500,000 = .1107, or just a tad over 11%, whereas 46.1M/334M=.138, or just about 14%.
Where's the 15% coming from?

Of note, the census estimates the number of illegal immigrants.

BTW, how are you defining immigrant? Not born in the country they reside?



Sounds like the laws in Mexico, and yet....

So, yeah, you live in a different world.

6.0 or (Denmark 2024 population is estimated at 5,977,412 people at mid year.) hit the wrong number on the keybord. So yes my numbers are correct.

 

[MT15]

Or simply produce a driver's license, resident alien card, or visa?
What's so hard about that? Don't you have a form of ID?

When do you envision people being stopped and asked for ID that it wouldn’t be any sort of inconvenience? I wouldn’t like to be stopped going somewhere randomly - and have it happen repeatedly. I can see it feeling like harassment.

Also - consider citizens by birth like me - I wouldn’t have proof of citizenship on me. I don’t carry my birth certificate everywhere I go.

Natural born citizens don’t have an easy card to carry that proves they are citizens.

 

[DaveXA]

About the only sane thing I've ever heard from Rand Paul.

 

[Optimus Prime]

About the only sane thing I've ever heard from Rand Paul.

So much so I’m wondering why he’s saying it

 

[DaveXA]

So much so I’m wondering why he’s saying it

Oh no question.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes. a heavy foreign accent or inability to speak English is a reasonable cause to ask for ID.

Why are people so against producing proper ID? I guess we have a bunch of sovereign citizens on this board.

No, it isn't. Hearing someone speaking with an accent is not probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, of a crime. A police officer can't ask you for your ID without detaining you, and they can't legally detain you without meeting a level of reasonable suspicion of a crime per the 4th amendment. Having an accent does not meet the standard for reasonable suspicion of a crime (and holy fork, if it did).

There's caselaw on this. Stopping someone and asking for their ID is a search under the 4th Amendment, which means that probable cause to do so requires reasonable suspicion. Whether a search is legal is highly contextual/situational. For example, traffic stops have a very low probable cause - officers can stop a driver for just about any reason relating to driving, but the reason has to be real/factual to the incident. But thereafter, asking the driver for a license is reasonable because the driver is operating the vehicle.

But the officer cannot ask other occupants in the vehicle for ID without their own reasonable suspicion. With respect to ID checks for immigration, the case law strikes a distinction between "border searches" where at or even near the border, immigration checks are presumptively valid under all circumstances, and the "interior". Away from the border, the officer must articulate a reasonable nexus between the observed conduct and the need to conduct the check. And to check for immigration status, the officer must have a factual basis to support a reasonable suspicion that the person(s) involved is an illegal.

In US v. Brignoni-Ponce (below), the SCOTUS held that the officer's reliance on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of the vehicle was insufficient - there must be other factors that provide a factual basis for suspicion of actual illegal status (not mere Latino ancestry). I don't think there's a Supreme Court case about "accented speech" but a quick search shows that the 9th Circuit (the West coast where many of these cases arise) has applied that rationale from Brignoni-Ponce to accented speech: an accent alone is not sufficient to meet the reasonable basis for a search. An accent can be combined with other factors or observations to support reasonable suspicion but it's just not enough on its own. In fact, given the growing degree to which citizens and legal immigrants are ESL speakers, it's likely even less persuasive these days.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

supreme.justia.com

U.S. v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read U.S. v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Ramirez v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1207 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Ramirez v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1207, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[MT15]

There's caselaw on this. Stopping someone and asking for their ID is a search under the 4th Amendment, which means that probable cause to do so requires reasonable suspicion. Whether a search is legal is highly contextual/situational. For example, traffic stops have a very low probable cause - officers can stop a driver for just about any reason relating to driving, but the reason has to be real/factual to the incident. But thereafter, asking the driver for a license is reasonable because the driver is operating the vehicle.

But the officer cannot ask other occupants in the vehicle for ID without their own reasonable suspicion. With respect to ID checks for immigration, the case law strikes a distinction between "border searches" where at or even near the border, immigration checks are presumptively valid under all circumstances, and the "interior". Away from the border, the officer must articulate a reasonable nexus between the observed conduct and the need to conduct the check. And to check for immigration status, the officer must have a factual basis to support a reasonable suspicion that the person(s) involved is an illegal.

In US v. Brignoni-Ponce (below), the SCOTUS held that the officer's reliance on "the apparent Mexican ancestry" of the occupants of the vehicle was insufficient - there must be other factors that provide a factual basis for suspicion of actual illegal status (not mere Latino ancestry). I don't think there's a Supreme Court case about "accented speech" but a quick search shows that the 9th Circuit (the West coast where many of these cases arise) has applied that rationale from Brignoni-Ponce to accented speech: an accent alone is not sufficient to meet the reasonable basis for a search. An accent can be combined with other factors or observations to support reasonable suspicion but it's just not enough on its own. In fact, given the growing degree to which citizens and legal immigrants are ESL speakers, it's likely even less persuasive these days.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

supreme.justia.com

U.S. v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read U.S. v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Ramirez v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1207 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Ramirez v. United States, 93 F. Supp. 3d 1207, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Trump officials are saying they will operate in the interior with the border rules. I’m guessing the courts won’t stop them. I know you are correct about precedent, I just don’t think this court cares that much about it.

 

[superchuck500]

Trump officials are saying they will operate in the interior with the border rules. I’m guessing the courts won’t stop them. I know you are correct about precedent, I just don’t think this court cares that much about it.

There are different ways it goes down, but if it is an actual policy or SOP, then it can be enjoined under the APA. That would happen at a district court and then go up, ultimately to the Supreme Court. I think the Court cares about reasonable suspicion under the 4th Amendment, it's a fairly active area of law. And to endorse profiling like this, the Court would have to reverse precedent.

I know it's popular here to say the Trump administration is going to ignore federal court injunctions and orders but I'm not sure that's going to happen - we'll have to see. I suspect some of this mass deportation program will be enjoined in various facets and we'll see what happens. I think with someone like Matt Gaetz at DOJ (I threw up in my mouth just saying that), it's easier to envision blatant disregard as a policy choice than someone more institutional. It also might be fairly easy to alter policy to meet such an order while still basically doing the same thing.

What's sort of interesting in this area is that the United States has waived sovereign immunity for civil claims for damages for wrongful arrest and wrongful seizure, and anyone including non-citizens can bring tort claims for those damages. Probable cause is the defense but only if the officer had probable cause under the legal standard . . . when the ICE people make policy that is contrary to the law on probable cause, that seems to make the plaintiff's case. Fourth Amendment violations are also one area where federal officers can be sued personally for money damages.

So you might have this interesting area where illegals are being identified and detained without probable cause, deported, but then paid civil damages. I dunno, that would be pretty funny - I wonder if any plaintiff lawyers are mobilizing to represent these potential plaintiffs. Hell, I should do that.

 

[SystemShock]

Natural born citizens don’t have an easy card to carry that proves they are citizens.

Real IDs.

I really don't envision much past what's going on right now past the border States... I can see a tighter border... but we'll see. We heard about the wall constantly, and that didn't happen...

 

[superchuck500]

Real IDs.

I really don't envision much past what's going on right now past the border States... I can see a tighter border... but we'll see. We heard about the wall constantly, and that didn't happen...

That’s true - although the wall didn’t happen for two primary reasons. The first was that Congress didn’t fund it, and that’s a huge hurdle to overcome. Trump even shutdown the federal government for 35 days (longest ever) in an effort to get funding that failed. The executive branch has some latitude with funding to move money around, but it’s pretty limited. A major project like that requires direct funding from Congress that just never happened.

The second primary reason was logistical (and legal). The border is very long and moves through a wide range of geographic areas and ecosystems including tribal land, private land, and land protected by a number of various federal resource protection statutes. It’s far more complicated than just hiring a construction contractor to have at it.

Mass Deportation doesn’t seem to be challenged in these same ways. Trump controls the Congress and can probably get funding. And sure it’s a large logistical project but it doesn’t have the same prohibitive limitations that the wall had.

I tend to agree that the scale of it is going to be far less dramatic than Trump and his acolytes like Miller have sold to their voters. But we’ll see

 

[Huntn]

I have now seen multiple videos where Trump supporters - including Latinos - have said simply that they don't believe that Trump will deport "the good ones". In other words, those who are working and not committing crimes. Of course, Stephen Miller and Tom Homan have said that simply being illegal renders them a criminal and justifies deportation, end of story.

I think this goes to a very common issue with Trump: his voters see in him who they want to see and they disregard clear evidence about things they don't want to see. The deep Christian voters see a devout follower of God despite this being contrary to every objective fact there is. Business-owners likely to be hurt by Trump's trade proposals see a successful business leader in Trump who must therefore be good at the economy. And communities likely to be harmed by Trump's 'mass deportation' plan simply presume that he's talking about other immigrants.

And I think another element of this (apart from logistics that I don't think people are ready for) is the destabilization of communities that are going to come from this - they just aren't thinking about what any of this actually means. For example, the plan calls for deputizing state and local authorities to be effectively immigration officers. The plan calls for immigration checks at every interface of a community, starting with public school enrollment, library cards, fishing licenses, etc. - being performed by local yokels suddenly enthusiastic to deport those vile illegals. Does anyone really think this is going to go smoothly? That this won't legalize and institutionalize profiling based on little more than skin color or cultural indicators? If they don't, they simply haven't paid attention to literally all of human history.

That's where I find the Latino support for Trump the most curious. MAGA-Mike suddenly now Immigration Deputy Mike is going to be suspicious of every brown person he sees. I just don't get it.

I know a Latino couple whose vote for Trump was a vote to help their small business. The wife, native, but grew up poor in S.Texas was a strong Democrat in her youth. In other words more than happy to use the assistance that liberals provided, until she got going, now it can be inferred she wants to turn that off? I don’t know them as well as my wife (who is half Latino) does. That just proves as humans, we are flawed as hell. The other wife’s view is a very myopic considering what could easily be lost. I also feel there is some ‘I got mine’ action going on here, “let’s pull up the welcome mat”…

 

[Huntn]

When do you envision people being stopped and asked for ID that it wouldn’t be any sort of inconvenience? I wouldn’t like to be stopped going somewhere randomly - and have it happen repeatedly. I can see it feeling like harassment.

Also - consider citizens by birth like me - I wouldn’t have proof of citizenship on me. I don’t carry my birth certificate everywhere I go.

Natural born citizens don’t have an easy card to carry that proves they are citizens.

There have been moves such as by the State of Texas to insist on birth certificates before issuing a driver’s license, which in essence verifies. Yet, if racial profiling allows police to stop everyone based on skin color for an ID check, this would be racist and unacceptable. Welcome to the New Dark* Orange World.
*Dark used in a non-racist text.

 

[MT15]

Real IDs.

My Driver’s License that has the little star? It says nothing about my citizenship that I’m aware of.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

My Driver’s License that has the little star? It says nothing about my citizenship that I’m aware of.

To get a real id, you need to either provide a birth certificate or passport, or if you are not a citizen proof of legal immigration status.

 

[Dragon]

Many Turks and Syrians are brown, and Romanians are generally darker than Danes too. I bet Danes can pick out the immigrants, so homogeneity is relative.

Precisely. We have people from all ethnic groups. The big difference is that we put a lot of effort into helping people settle in the communities. Integration, education and information makes most of the newcomers valuable members of our society

 

[SystemShock]

hit the wrong number on the keybord. So yes my numbers are correct.

Ok

Do you know how many ethnicities you can find in the U.S. ? Nationalities represented? Whites alone?

You didn't answer, how are you defining immigrant?

Did you know that ~ 1/4th of the U.S. used to be Mexico?

Really, believe me, you live in a different world. And Denmark may be this panacea for immigrants you describe, until you turn into Sweden.

 

[Dragon]

Sweden has often been misrepresented by the US press, particularly by certain right-wing Swedish agitators on social media. Half of my husband’s family is Swedish, and I live just a short 20-minute boat ride from Sweden. I’m therefore quite familiar with the so-called "Swedish situation."

I’ve investigated several of the so-called "Swedish horror stories" circulating on Twitter. In 99% of cases, the stories have been exaggerated, misrepresented, or outright fabricated. When I shared facts and provided links to the actual events behind these claims, many of the influencers spreading this misinformation blocked me. It seems they didn’t appreciate my efforts to challenge their propaganda with truth.

There are significant differences between Swedish and Danish mentalities. Danes tend to be more open and accepting, with a stronger belief in personal freedom. In contrast, Sweden has a more authoritarian approach, often relying on strict legislation for issues like alcohol consumption and marijuana use.

Additionally, Sweden has historically had a higher percentage of ultra-right-wing followers compared to Denmark. This has contributed to the exaggerated and often misleading narrative of the so-called "Swedish problem."