will the new NYC mayor stand in the way of Trumps work
Trump and ice agents are removing all the illegal immigrants and i saw the new mayor of new york vows to stop Trumps 'fascist' actions......i support Trump.
46-50, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
No, but the new mayor of NYC will make sure that everyone within NYC is afforded their Constitutional protections of due process. The new mayor may also require that officers' faces be uncovered and badge numbers clearly displayed, and that ICE vehicles carry legitimate traceable license plates.
For Constitutional protections I refer you to Mathews v. Diaz 1976
Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.
Also see current SCOTUS US v J.G.G. April 7, 2025
“TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950).
This will only be a problem for tRump to the extent that tRump's masked national police violate the Constitution. In other words, it's a BIGLY BIG problem for tRump!!
For Constitutional protections I refer you to Mathews v. Diaz 1976
Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.
Also see current SCOTUS US v J.G.G. April 7, 2025
“TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950).
This will only be a problem for tRump to the extent that tRump's masked national police violate the Constitution. In other words, it's a BIGLY BIG problem for tRump!!
quesswhat · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues never stop do you, un fn real
ElwoodBlues · M
@quesswhat Indeed, I never stop providing useful facts!! P.S. I appreciate your latest logical fallacy here🤣😂
