Did Obama use ICE to arrest and deport?

@SatanBurger
Did Obama do all that on a drastic level? Do you know what makes it DRASTIC?
Hundreds of people getting in the way and hindering Law Enforcement.

ICE is doing it the same way as they did under Obama. Tom Homan also was in charge under Obama.

The only thing that has changed is the violent protestors threatening Law Enforcement.

@DogMan says
Hundreds of people exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.

Fixed that for ya!!

@ElwoodBlues Why didn't they exercise that right under Obama? Never mind. we all know.

FYI obstruction is a crime.

@DogMan asks
Almost all of Obama's deportations were of people apprehended right at the border; many of them at checkpoints requesting asylum and then having their requests denied.

Here's what's different about tRump's wave of ICE "arrests" and deportations.

tRump is re-classifying people who were legally granted admission, and declaring them suddenly illegal. Yes, they had legal protected status, and tRump stripped that from them. They only became "illegal" after a stroke of tRump's p̶e̶n̶ sharpie.

Their only "crime" was incurring tRump's displeasure. SAD!!

And gosh, there seems to be a high correlation between melanin content of skin and tRump's displeasure!!!

@DogMan you're the one who brought up Obama and specfically stated that no one had an issue I'm just explaining why people take up issue. Ice has been lawless and are now attacking black and brown cops as well.

Don't ask questions if you want to hear your own answers.

@BizSuitStacy Girl, I'm sorry you're not for the constitution, but I am.

@SatanBurger And sadly, little devil worshiper, you still don't understand. Deportation is a civil procedure, not criminal. Hence, due process does not come into play. SCOTUS ruled on that over 100 years ago. But don't let facts stop you from pushing a good lie. I mean, it never stopped JSul3 from repeating it.

Ever wonder why you don't hear law makers using it?

@SatanBurger The Biz-suited one blocked me after I teased them (it?) about their prediction of "vaccine AIDS" for me back in 2020. Anyway they (it?) are DEAD WRONG about civil procedure and due process. Google quickly turns up a laundry list of cases where SCOTUS said due process applies to civil cases. You might want to quote them in a reply to me so that the Biz-suited one sees them.

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950): the bank violated due process in it's weak notification of settlement beneficiaries.

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970): Required an evidentiary hearing (due process) before terminating welfare benefits, highlighting the need for fairness when significant property interests are at stake.

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976): Introduced the balancing test to assess procedural fairness, balancing private interests, error risk, and government interests.

Daniels v. Williams (1986): Clarified that simple negligence isn't enough for a constitutional due process violation; a higher mental state (like intent or recklessness) is usually needed for deprivation of liberty/property.

In short, SCOTUS has ruled that due process is required in civil cases, focusing on preventing unfair government action by ensuring individuals get notice and a chance to contest deprivations of their rights or property.

It took less than ten minutes to prove the Biz-suited one DEAD WRONG!!!

@ElwoodBlues

Agreed, well no due process towards civil cases don't make sense anyways, it's not logical to just have the law do what they want to people on the grounds of civil and not criminal cases. It's just bizarre.

@SatanBurger if due process was being violated in the case of deportations, civil rights attorneys would be crawling over one another to take the cases. They are simply being told to leave the country and the tax payer foots the bill for their transportation.

Now...if the illegal alien commits a crime and is facing prosecution, then due process applies.

@BizSuitStacy You're wrong period.

Due Process Clauses protect “persons,” not just citizens, and they apply in civil as well as criminal contexts, including immigration proceedings

Key legal points

The Fifth Amendment says “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Fourteenth Amendment similarly protects all “persons,” not just citizens.

Courts and major legal organizations are explicit that this includes non‑citizens, even undocumented immigrants, so they are entitled to fair treatment and a chance to defend themselves.

Due process is not limited to criminal law; it’s about any government action that can deprive someone of liberty or property, including civil actions like terminating benefits, child custody, and deportation.

Immigration removal and most deportation matters are formally “civil,” but that does not erase due process protections; noncitizens generally must be given notice, a hearing before an immigration judge, and a chance to present evidence and challenge the government’s case.

Legal sources explain that due process in civil immigration proceedings may be more limited than in criminal prosecutions, but it still exists and cannot be eliminated simply by labeling a proceeding “civil.”

The Supreme Court and constitutional commentary note that noncitizens physically present in the U.S. “come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause” and are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law.

Concrete ways rights are being violated:

Expedited removal:

The expanded fast‑track deportation system lets immigration officers deport people with little or no hearing before a judge, which legal experts describe as creating “tension” with and undermining due process protections.

Courts have already found specific uses of expedited removal against certain parolees unlawful, noting that people who “played by the rules” are being summarily removed contrary to statutory protections.

Courthouse arrests and case dismissals:

DHS and ICE have been dismissing immigrants’ active court cases and then arresting them at or outside courthouses, shunting them into fast‑track removal in a way advocates say violates statutory rights to a full removal hearing and basic fairness.

Lawsuits describe this as “weaponizing” immigration courts and turning hearings into traps that chill people from exercising their legal rights.

Blocking access to lawyers:

An ACLU report documents systemic barriers in ICE detention—no scheduled attorney calls, expensive monitored phone calls, delayed legal mail, and denial of confidential visits—making it nearly impossible for many detained immigrants to communicate with counsel.

Because representation hugely affects outcomes (detained immigrants with lawyers are about 10 times more likely to win their cases), blocking access to counsel “renders” their due process rights “meaningless” in practice.

@BizSuitStacy
Your argument that "if rights were violated, civil rights lawyers would have won everything" is just not how law works.

There are due‑process wins and findings:

Federal courts have already held that deporting people without notice and a chance to be heard violates the Fifth Amendment’s core protections, and judges have ordered DHS to stop certain removals done with no adequate notice or opportunity to seek protection.

On top of that, there are multiple ongoing class actions that exist because lawyers are challenging fast‑track deportations and secret detentions as unconstitutional denials of due process, they literally allege Fifth Amendment violations and unlawful deportations.


The Constitution protects “persons,” not just citizens. The Supreme Court and constitutional commentators are explicit that people already inside the U.S. — even if here unlawfully — are covered by the Due Process Clause, which applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.

You’re right that immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal but that actually undercuts your point.

Civil vs. criminal changes which rights apply (no jury, different standards), it does not erase due process. In formal removal proceedings, non‑citizens have due process rights to a hearing and a “meaningful opportunity to be heard” before being deprived of liberty.

Claiming “no due process in civil cases” is just legally false.

@BizSuitStacy

There are multiple class actions and impact cases right now arguing that deportation practices violate immigrants’ due process rights, including suits over fast‑track deportations, denial of hearings, and courthouse‑trap arrests and federal judges have already recognized that non‑citizens are ‘persons’ entitled to Fifth Amendment due process when the government tries to deport or detain them.

@SatanBurger In another discussion, I came across a goldmine of due process citations for deportation cases:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/immigration/immig_west/E.%20Due%20Process%20in%20Immigration%20Proceedings.htm

Here are some lovely quotes:


The only exclusions from the above are for those who have never technically “entered” the United States. Shaughnessy v. United States 1953

@ElwoodBlues Wow I'll save that link, thank you. I'd like for Stacy to come back and say it's all made up, they're right in their own head and all the authorities on the matter, such as your govt link are purely wrong. This will be interesting. It would be nicer if MAGA was just honest and say they don't support the constitution and due process. They need to face who they are rather than trying to make excuses for it.

@ElwoodBlues They need to just say they're traitors who are trying to change our constitution as it protects people they don't like. Honestly a stance of mine that has changed recently is that I never believed one could even be a traitor as I realize the definition is a bit loose.

But even though I think certain things like freedom of expression should be protected even for MAGA, what they are doing is burning our constitution and to me, that's prison time either/or giving up your rights as a citizen.

I'm being serious and I would have never said that before until now.

@SatanBurger Ok Whatever you say Satan. 🙄

You do know that our immigration laws were made by both Democrats and Republicans, right?

ICE is following those laws, Democrats are starting an insurrection over it.

@DogMan
The rules haven't changed, the constitution remains the same with the same language. It doesn't change just because Trump is president, doggie.

@SatanBurger
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@DogMan
Ok Whatever you say Satan. 🙄

You do know that our immigration laws were made by both Democrats and Republicans, right

The rules haven't changed, the constitution remains the same with the same language. It doesn't change just because Trump is president, doggie.


You missed the entire point🙄 The point IS, ICE is following the immigration laws set
forth by both Democrat and Republican Law Makers. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, CHANGE THE
LAW.

Maybe you will have luck by saying ALL people on planet earth can flood into America
without exceptions or limits.

@DogMan ICE is violating Constitutional legal bounds. People in Minn are within their rights to observe, record, and report what happens on their public streets. ICE aggressively pepper sprays people who do that; thus violating their 1st Amendment rights. ICE has broken down citizens' doors without a judicial search warrant, thus violating 4th Amendment rights. And we know what ICE did to Alex Pretti's 2nd A rights. ICE must stay within the law to uphold the law, and they are NOT doing so.

AND, as I detailed elsewhere under this question, Bondi promised to have ICE back off in exchange for personal info on all of Minnesota's voters.

So the ICE "surge" in Minnesota is not about murderers and rapists. It's not about fraud. it's not about illegal immigrants. It's just a pressure tactic, or perhaps extortion tactic would be a better phrase.

So let's be clear about what ICE is doing. Give Bondi all the personal info on all of Minnesota's voters, and she will "bring an end to the chaos." The "chaos" is intentional and can be turned off at any time. Remember that, @DogMan.

@ElwoodBlues People in Minn are within their rights to observe, record, and report what happens on their public streets.

Are you serious? You believe that is ALL they are doing? Good Lord Elwood, if that was all they
were doing, there would be no problems.