zlacker

>>nh4321+(OP)
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ice can say what they want. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land here.

Oh yeah, and facial recognition does not work to anything like this degree of accuracy, and probably never can. Nice try.

>>AvAn12+DQ
The supreme court interprets the laws, including the constitution, and they've decided that being brown is sufficient reasonability.

>>fragme+gS
Frankly it's a miracle it took this long to be a problem IMO.

The supreme court over the years has watered down constitutional protections against government enforcement upon individuals massively because doing so was necessary to empower the government to enforce speeding tickets, financial regulation, environmental regulation, chase bootleggers, etc, etc, with it's power only constrained in practice by political optics.

So now here we are, in a situation where the government is doing what it always does, levying what's essentially a criminal punishment (incarceration in this case, typically fines historically) in a case where allegedly no crime has been committed, and then give the accused only kangaroo court administrative process because it's not a crime, but now it's doing it at scale, flagrantly, loudly and against the political will of some of the locations it's doing it in.

There are a lot of bricks in this road to hell and someone somewhere was issuing a warning as each one was laid. Should have listened.

>>potato+Jg1
What are you talking about?

This was a problem in 2012 and SCOTUS ruled unambiguously in Arizona vs United States that we cannot stop people based solely on their outward "apparent" immigration status. In SCOTUS's own words, "the usual predicate for an arrest is absent" and being merely "suspected of being removable... does not authorize an arrest."

"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal official issues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012).

The form does not authorize an arrest."

This is a MAGA and Heritage Foundation-driven reversal of VERY recently settled law. Absolutely not business as usual.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/#tab-opi...