anti_dan

anti_dan 19hr ago

Complaining about burdens is just asking for money, which is right in the Democrat wheelhouse. No deviation from party line really needed. If they demanded a tax cut or repeal of gun control because illegals...then we have something.

Context

anti_dan 19hr ago

In any case, I suspect the de facto equilibrium is 'when there's a democrat in the white house the borders are open, even to serial killers claiming asylum from bigfoot, but the Texas governor shuts it down and the border patrol just lets him, regardless of actual orders'.

Is that what happened under Biden? Because I don't remember anything close to that happening under Biden. I remember Texas getting sued a lot and ICE agents removing barriers put up by Texans.

Context

anti_dan 19hr ago

Better immigration laws are needed because the US system is fundamentally broken in ways that only Congress can fix. Executive orders can help (or hurt), but they're just bandaids on a bullethole. You can try mangling interpretations of laws created decades ago and hope the courts don't notice, but they have the annoying habit of saying "hey bro, you can't just ignore Congress" and striking things down. In the status quo, the best conservatives can hope for is Obama-era levels of immigration. At worst, they can expect open borders with next to no recourse. Changing the laws on the books could significantly help that.

I say "citation needed here." Even Trump isn't enforcing the laws on the books to their fullest extent. The idea we need more laws to fix the problem doesn't pass the smell test. If anytime a Democrat gets elected they stop enforcing the law, no law is going to fix that. As much as I think it would be brilliant design to make welfare contingent on border enforcement, that's never passing. And certainly nothing like that was in the 2024 law that fizzled out. There was nothing in that bill that could have prevented what Biden did in the first three years of his presidency, which was, essentially, tell ICE agents to do a different job. Because law enforcement and prosecution is the job of the executive. If he wants to dismiss cases against Ethyl Rosenberg because he loves commies, he can. The only recourse is impeachment + removal. And it simply will never happen for the border no matter how flagrant the violations because Democrats are not going to get onboard.

Context

anti_dan 20hr ago

Given that Trump single-handedly mitigated the vast majority of the border problem in about a month, we now have definitive proof that the entire border issue was a deliberate intentional undertaking by Joe Biden. So we're left with two possibilities:

Agreed. This is an utterly bizarre time to take a "victory lap" for that border bill. From my recollection, even before Trump got involved there were large elements in the Republican party agitating against it, including the prominent hawks like Cruz and Cotton. The fact that it was initially "bipartisan" was simply because there were/are some open borders Republicans still left, and also because the negotiation team thought they had a mandate that said "any deal is better than no deal" which was absurd.

The fact is, our immigration laws are STRICTER than even Trump's enforcement. He is particularly lax on things that could really rustle the ire of the business community. He's abstained from any raids on meat packing plants, construction sites, and similar venues. The idea we need new laws to satisfy border hawks is pretty much a myth. Unfortunately, because of how courts cannot compel the executive to execute the actual law, the only way Republicans could ensure a future Democratic administration actually enforces border laws is with some sort of draconian contingency law that gores a Democratic ox if border crossings exceed a number. It would have to be something like "all snap payments are suspended for 6 months if border crossings exceed XXXX IN ANY MONTH, and cannot resume unless 6 consecutive months of compliance are certified". ANNNND there would have to be a reliable way to do such certification that cant be gamed by Democrats, which seems unlikely.

Context

anti_dan 21hr ago

Adams defended John Hancock in court after the latter's smuggling business was caught out. The big deal in smuggling back then was just getting wine and tea without paying taxes on them, but that was enough that it helped fund and train colonists for and prompt the American Revolution.

So an arm of the revolutionary government and its precursors. State.

Jefferson fought the first of the Barbary Wars, against foes who were nominally Ottoman protectorates but really independent warlords funded by human trafficking, extortion, and piracy.

Yes. And we took basically zero POWs. We just sank pirates until their state sponsor agreed to some terms.

I'm not sure that works as a metaphor here, though. That "avoid becoming a legible government" trick in the modern case is a sneaky one. If we can't stop Tren de Aragua from operating here in the US under our noses, why be surprised or angry with Venezuela about the fact that they also can't stop it there? But if we can, then from our point of view the problem is solved here, no need to go nation-building to try to solve it elsewhere.

Yes its a problem of will here, not means. While its more of a question of means/will (aka intentional by Venezuela). I think there is a lot of intentional burying the head in the sand on this question. 3rd party groups is how modern war by inferior powers is conducted. People acting like Venezuela should be treated like a real nation state that is going to conduct proper military operations are delusional.

Context

anti_dan 1d ago

She had a removal order and was removed. She requested her child accompany her. That was granted.

ICE was as nice as is realistically possible to he aside from not deporting her. The "mean" part is to the child who is 2 years old and doesn't even know what being a citizen is. Also said child can come back to the US when they want to. Obviously that will be in the distant future because she probably can't articulate anything on that level at the moment.

Regarding these immigration stories that keep coming out, I feel like we are at, "Just let the terrorists win" levels at this point. That is the argument coming out of the media.

I dont want the terrorists to win. How do you propose to do so?

Context

anti_dan 1d ago

But presumably the Federal government can expedite that custody process

Please elaborate how you think the federal government can expedite state court judicial proceedings.

I have never seen this happen. I mean, I've only practiced law for 12 years so maybe I will see this in the future. But we live in a world of dual sovereignty, particularly with the courts.

Context

anti_dan 1d ago

Frustration.

Of course. This is the intended effect of those who failed to enforce immigration law for long periods of time. Generating sob stories to prevent immigration enforcement from being effective has long been an implicit and obvious goal. Its also a problem, in this case, with the dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment we currently live under the rule of (which, I admit, despite its weakness, we will likely have for the foreseeable future).

Context

anti_dan 1d ago

But Trend de Aragua are a criminal gang

That is the word we use to describe them now. But the question at hand is what are the words John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would have used to describe them in the early 1800s. To those people in that time "gang" would have strong implications that a matter is local of origin and scope. Thus, I think in our hypothetical using the word "gang" to describe TDA can only serve to mislead.

A "transnational criminal organization" which controls diverse economic activities including gold mining and sex trafficking, and engages in political assassination as well as more commonplace "murder and torture."

This just sounds like a rogue government. Or some rogue offshoot of a chartered international corporation like the Dutch East India corporation. Adams and Jefferson would PRESUME any org engaging in all that sort of commerce must be sponsored by some government, otherwise the other governments would crush them. Or they would ask you something like, "this Venezuela is a lawless land of pirates then?" We hang pirates, or sink them, of course. "

The question is whether their activities in the US are in coordination with the Venezuelan dictatorship, as asserted by the administration. Coordination or permission is how I understand the idea to be being presented.

Context

anti_dan 3d ago

Yes, I am aware of the meme. You are using it wrong. The overly wordy "High IQ" answer in your depiction is exactly the sort of thing that is classically put as a midwit answer. Plus, journalists themselves are probably the most commonly depicted class of persons as exemplifying the midwit in both this specific meme and internet culture as a whole.

Context

anti_dan 3d ago

Alternative, IMO more accurate frame:

Left: Thats a stupid question.

Mid: Why not answer the question.

Right: Obviously no one would respond to a hostile question.

Context

anti_dan 3d ago · Edited 3d ago

The judge wanted the case off his call permanently. That is the most likely reason for this attitude.

*Edit

Here is how I imagine the thought process of a tougher on crime in my jurisdiction going:

Damn it, another dumbass not coming to court.
Oh counsel with another lame ass excuse is it? OOO WAIT a decent excuse this time. ICE CUSTODY! I havent had one for years!
Crap. The state is right, this is actually the defendant's fault. I might have to issue a warrant.
AHA! I can just order them to ask ICE to release him to me! Then I can be rid of this and go to my luncheon on time for once!
Oh crap, no one actually has power over ICE to make that happen.
Now I have to make the hard decision between issuing the warrant and risking he comes back and NOT issuing the warrant and he commits some crimes without a warrant issued! GAHHHH. I didn't become a judge to make choices, this is my paid retirement!

Context

anti_dan 3d ago

State and Federal power are concurrent. No one gets to tell the other's LE what to do.

Would it be boneheaded to deport a murderer pre-trial? In most scenarios, yes. Almost every jurisdiction would detain the murderer ONE THEIR OWN DIME IN THEIR OWN FACILITIES, then when the murderer is finally released, they'd notify ICE.

But this is not even closely analogous. This illegal has a pending misdemeanor DV charge. The girlfriend is probably going to ask the prosecution to dismiss the charges soon enough (>50% of these end up this way). Even if she's committed they are in front of this hyper liberal judge who wouldn't imprison a "dreamer" or whatever this fellow is classified is in her mind if she knew ICE was anywhere near his trail. In other words, if ICE doesn't detain him, the most likely outcome is the case is dismissed and he waits out ICE for a while then goes about his illegal immigrant activities until he hits this, or another girlfriend again, repeat ad nauseam.

Context

anti_dan 3d ago

From a practical perspective, ICE fucked up by attempting to detain the guy before his case was resolved. Typically, when a Mexican national commits a violent crime in the United States and then flees to Mexico, we don't leave it at that; we specifically request that the Mexican government extradite him for prosecution here. If he gets deported this is just the administration facilitating his escape. It may not be what he wants, personally, but even for minor crimes, the normal course of business for a criminal defendant in custody awaiting deportation is for the attorneys to request he be released from ICE custody pending the resolution of the case. This is true even for minor offenses like drunk driving, where the defendant is typically out on bail.

This isn't how this usually works. ICE will go through the rigamarole of bringing someone back for some very serious felonies like murder and other Class X (or A, or 1 depending on what state we are talking about) violent felonies. They aren't bringing someone back for a DV unless someone was at least seriously permanently disfigured. In this specific case the case number is 2025CM000814. Although I am not a Wisconsin criminal attorney, I have >90% confidence that stands for "Criminal Misdemeanor" as it does in dozens of jurisdictions I am more familiar with.

In fact, the bail issue is why ICE probably detained him instead of letting the case go to pendency. If he was a murderer, ICE could be fairly confident Wisconsin's courts and law enforcement would detain him, or put him on EM+home confinement or something similar. Instead, his paltry DV charge means he will be walking around Wisconsin for months, if not years only for the victim to probably recant and/or for him to be sentenced to something like 12 months of court supervision. All that time he will have freedom to flee from ICE. ICE also simply doesn't have the space and manpower to detain him themselves and bring him to all his court appearances. Of course defendant's attorneys request that ICE let the case be resolved prior to detention. 1, that is how they get paid, and 2, its ultimately a lot better for their client, PARTICULARLY with misdemeanors. One of the worst things for an illegal alien is to miss court because you got deported because then the next time you get a traffic ticket (and lets be honest you will, that's probably how you got caught in the first place for whatever case you are in court for) there will be a warrant for your arrest. Then you get sent back to that courtroom and ICE can find you all over again. If you clear up the DUI, then get deported, you can sneak right back in and local law enforcement won't run you through the list of deported persons, while the would have run you through the list of nationwide warrants.

So even if this guy is out on bail on domestic battery charges, deporting him to Mexico makes his case impossible to prosecute, and even if ICE is willing to allow him to return for court appearances, it's impossible for the court to monitor his compliance with bail conditions, and he has little incentive to return to the US for criminal prosecution. The ideal situation, from a criminal justice perspective, is to allow him to stay in Wisconsin until his case is either dismissed or his sentence complete, and then begin deportation proceedings. By deporting him now, you only get half a loaf.

There really is no loaf for criminal justice in these charges. He's certain to get minimal to no punishment. The only purpose not deporting him serves is to enable his escape. And again, his failure to appear is kind of a hidden benefit because a more reasonable judge (obviously this one would not) would put out a warrant for his arrest and if he ever came back he'd be right back in that courtroom.

Context

anti_dan 3d ago

Has the President ALWAYS had the authority to do this under the AEA, and Trump was just the first one to receive an electoral mandate to use this authority...

I find the AEA argument to be quite weak in this case. For the TDA members and their supporters. The AEA was passed when John Adams was President and Thomas Jefferson, his main political rival, was Vice-President. If we transported both to 2025 and had someone neutrally describe TDA, with no conclusion language or question begging (i.e. don't use "invading army", "criminal gang" etc to describe them), describing their place of origin, appearance, and actions both would agree on the outcome. It would go something along the lines of, "Sure I guess we can expel them with the AEA, but why not just hang them like we do with the rest of the Indian warbands that do those things?"

So the dilemma is not real a dilemma about the AEA, its a dilemma about whether expulsion or public execution within 48 hours is the more appropriate punishment. Due process is not something appropriate for foreign savages, both would tell you. In criminal courts it is for co-citizens like the British soldiers Adams defended in court, or for uniformed British soldiers eventual President Andrew Jackson would take prisoner during the war of 1812, who would be held pending the outcome of the war, or immediately expelled under the AEA, depending on what was militarily appropriate. Jefferson, in his later years might note that very few Barbary pirates were ever afforded the opportunity to surrender in that war, mostly ships were left to sink or set ablaze with losses frequently being total.

Context

anti_dan 4d ago

Mass transit, which is typically ambiguously defined, is only better at moving people where the system operates in a hub and spoke system.

If everyone goes to a place for work and then goes home, mass transit is awesome if the place for work is all the same.

However, if there is slight divergence, mass transit loses spectacularly on time. It often even loses spectacularly on price when public subsidies are factored in.

Context

anti_dan 4d ago

There is this thing called the Constitution that does ban discrimination against citizens of another US state.

Context

anti_dan 10d ago

Jus Soli was never intended to be enshrined for birth tourism of any kind, and 1865 isn't so long ago that those people couldn't have imagined better boats and people coming in from Mexico temporarily. There is a reason Wong Kim Ark is about the child of legal permanent residents and there is a reason the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 had to be passed to grant Indian's citizenship, and that reason is that the 14th Amendment does not contemplate expansive jus soli as currently defined. Instead, it applies to people borne her who have no other foreign allegiances, and those who have taken substantive steps to submit themselves to US Jurisdiction as subjects of the nation.

And, of course, it goes without saying that in 1865 the idea of a dual citizen would have been considered absurd by all the people involved.

Context

anti_dan 10d ago

They can cite the TRO as persuasive authority when arguing their case charges should be dismissed. Not having read it, I don't have any conclusions as to the coherence of the judges ruling on the TRO.

Context

anti_dan 10d ago

I mean, if we were introducing that "confession" as evidence at a trial, you may have a point. What actually was happening when he was being held was he was in custody pending an investigation. This guys statements were basically the jumping off point for the investigation which eventually revealed he was a US citizen by birth. Its not like the police would have had that information available on a street corner when they were probably having trouble getting enough information on him to even run a proper criminal background check.

Context

anti_dan 11d ago

Not at all. Cops don't just learn facts from the air. They run background checks which take time to run, and are, frankly, difficult to read.

A person who not only doesn't speak English, but doesn't speak a language that a police station is likely to have an available translator for is going to have a long interaction just because a lot of that time is going to be finding a translator

Context

anti_dan 11d ago

Yes, I think that would be amazing. The guy came to the country illegally, and he was also deported illegally, by the government's own repeated admission, given the withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador. If the government took steps to only send him to El Salvador after getting the withholding order revoked by due process, that would be a dramatic improvement to the current state of affairs.

Is the number of people who think this way above 100 in the country? The judge who has issued many orders to Trump certainly is not in this camp. That judge intends, once Maryland Man is back in the US, to keep him here forever. As do his lawyers. His wife, maybe, maybe she prefers whatever monetary payment she thinks the judge will order for her. But still she doesn't expect the result you are talking about.

What everyone expects to happen is that, if this person returns to the US, he will never leave the US. Or, if he does, it will be after a decades long legal process where Amy Coney Barret and John Roberts issue multiple rulings where they clearly articulate that they are sick of hearing cases about Mr. Garcia, but also are completely unclear about the remaining portions of their ruling.

Context

anti_dan 11d ago

If you think that prison is cruelty, you are just propagandized. Most people housed in that, or US prisons actually, would historically have already have been executed.

Context

anti_dan 11d ago

Basically every state that I know of has statutory holding periods for crimes that the officer merely has probable cause on, but not enough evidence to charge yet. 48 hrs is very standard for this time period. By way of example, imagine you are drinking in a bar and are hammered, a car driven by another guy who is also drunk off his ass speeds into a red light right in front of you, T-Boning a car and killing all 4 occupants. The driver of this car flees his vehicle and tosses you the keys. You are too drunk to know what is going on and start walking home with them. Police arrest you a few blocks away, you being the drunk guy with the keys.

Of course you are going to be held even though you are innocent. The police dont know you are innocent yet, and you are a very good suspect. This is why most states have a 48 hr charging clock. Some have longer, but few as far as I know. Solving crime takes time. Fleeing the cops when you know you are a suspect does not.

Oddly, in this case, the police UNSOLVED a crime, despite an admission from defendant in 48 hours. That is crazy good police work! Imagine if a pedophile admitted to raping a child in a taped interview and police, on their own accord, went out and grabbed surveillance video from a hospital showing he was not at the rape location. Unheard of.

Context