Narrowly, the fight over the habeas petition to the district court revolves around the Trump regime’s effort to use immigration statutes that limit federal district courts jurisdiction. These statutes make certain determinations by immigration courts reviewable only by either federal courts of appeal or the Secretary of State. 8/
Discussion
Loading...
@heidilifeldman These judges are literally doing G-d's work.
The judge emphasizes and insists on the difference between civil regulation and criminal punishment. 2/
2 media
![…determination or bond hearing. This is not what civil enforcement looks like in a humane system
of government under law.
The Constitution does not permit such cruelty as a condition of civil enforcement. It does
not permit the government to strip people of dignity simply because they lack lawful status. It has
long been settled that noncitizens, "even [those] whose presence in this country is unlawful, have
long been recognized as "persons' guaranteed due process of law."*](https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/116/050/532/457/834/259/original/f2c8a7b3137c8b5c.jpeg)
@heidilifeldman a breath of fresh air, I have always found it difficult to comprehend why Govs enforce laws without distinction between civil and criminal violations. Thanks for sharing this!
“At bottom, this case turns on a simple but fundamental principle. In a government of laws,
words matter. Statutes derive their authority from the language Congress enacted and not from the
government’s improper efforts to expand that language to justify detention without process.” 🔥3/
“The authority the political branches possess over immigration does not include the power to seize liberty first and justify confinement later. Due process is not a courtesy extended at the government’s convenience. Due process is the condition that makes custody lawful in the first place. …When liberty is restrained without a meaningful opportunity to be heard, the Constitution’s promise is not delayed. It is denied.” 4/
Judge’s bottom line: the way ICE is seizing drivers, confining them, and treating them like criminals is unconstitutional because it is a deprivation of liberty without due process. 5/
The petitioners in the case are a couple, who have been going through the asylum process, who have lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. for a few years while complying with all the requirements for asylum seekers. 6/
@heidilifeldman
On page 7 we find that Valenzuela was working for "Aramark, a private contractor providing services for correctional facilities".
If Valenzuela was unlawfully working in the US, did Ice filed a lawsuit against Aramark for hiring illegals? Or should we understand that Aramark had made all appropriate background checks to conclude Valenzuela was respecting the laws?
Petitioners were stopped by W. Va. state police. The record contains no information as to justification for the stop. ICE arrived on the scene, concluded petitioners were subject to removal and arrest. Petitioners were arrested and jailed. 7/
2+ more replies (not shown)