Thanks for your reply to my comment. I realize that I allowed my general support for the President's strong law enforcement effort on illegal immigration to influence my initial response to your post and I simply misread your observation on the Court and due process. Clearly you have done your homework and I was too sloppy in my response. We are both concerned that the concept of due process be understood as meaning that individuals are entitled to certain protections provided by the legal system under the Constitution. The real issue is what they are thus due. I am more inclined that you to think that those who have brokern the law by entering the country illegally are due a lot less than they are demanding and that the courts are finding,
I read your post again and I wonder if you see any limits to non-violent protest other than the requirement not to be violent. What about not to be disruptive of normal life in a city? Personally I get some pleasure out of watching the you tube video of citizens not allowing protestors to block their access to highways. Here we have people refusing to let a few dictate use of public roads. Perhaps I would tolerate a brief blockade but that is my limit of tolerance.
The limits of non-violent protest are a very interesting question. I don’t know that I have any really good, principled answers. What I can tell you is two things.
First, what we see as allowable protest tactics depends on, naturally enough, which side we support. So a good question for everyone to ask is, would I support this action if I thought the protesters were on the side of truth and justice?
"In the last week, protesters in Los Angeles, and subsequently across the country, took to the streets to decry Trump’s immigration crackdown. While raw deportation numbers under Trump remain lower so far than under Biden (due to fewer encounters near the border), the approach has become more aggressive and less legal. People are being arrested at work and at immigration hearings, and the Supreme Court has ruled that many have been deported without due process."
You need to be a lot more careful in your use of language, especially in your opening paragraph that I just quoted. First of all there is no such thing as "Trump's immigration crackdown" Whateverit is it is not a crackdown on immigration -it is an enforcement action against illegal immigrants. It is not a crackdown unless you want to argue that every law enforcement action is a crackdown and thereby raise doubts about their legitimacy. Finally I should note that it is simply not correct to say that the Supreme Court has ruled that people may be deported without due process.In fact the SC ruled that the legal process followed in specific cases was all that the illegal immigrants were due. If you want to attract serious readers please try to avoid mistakes like the ones in this paragraph.
I think greatly stepping up law enforcement does count as a "crackdown," and I don't think crackdowns are necessarily illegitimate -- but I do take your meaning that this is an inflammatory description. I agree that choosing language carefully is important. How would you describe what has been happening?
I do think the supreme court ruled -- several times in fact -- that people were deported in violation of due process rights. Here are some relevant citations:
A.A.R.P. v. Trump — p. 3 lines 15-16:
“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due-process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”
“The Government has made clear … that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The episodes of noncompliance in this very case illustrate the risks”
Thanks for your reply to my comment. I realize that I allowed my general support for the President's strong law enforcement effort on illegal immigration to influence my initial response to your post and I simply misread your observation on the Court and due process. Clearly you have done your homework and I was too sloppy in my response. We are both concerned that the concept of due process be understood as meaning that individuals are entitled to certain protections provided by the legal system under the Constitution. The real issue is what they are thus due. I am more inclined that you to think that those who have brokern the law by entering the country illegally are due a lot less than they are demanding and that the courts are finding,
I read your post again and I wonder if you see any limits to non-violent protest other than the requirement not to be violent. What about not to be disruptive of normal life in a city? Personally I get some pleasure out of watching the you tube video of citizens not allowing protestors to block their access to highways. Here we have people refusing to let a few dictate use of public roads. Perhaps I would tolerate a brief blockade but that is my limit of tolerance.
The limits of non-violent protest are a very interesting question. I don’t know that I have any really good, principled answers. What I can tell you is two things.
First, what we see as allowable protest tactics depends on, naturally enough, which side we support. So a good question for everyone to ask is, would I support this action if I thought the protesters were on the side of truth and justice?
https://www.betterconflictbulletin.org/p/you-may-protest-if-i-agree-with-you
Second, some protest tactics are reliably seen as much more disruptive than others. So at least everyone agrees on that.
https://georgeberry.substack.com/p/against-the-labor-theory-of-protest
"In the last week, protesters in Los Angeles, and subsequently across the country, took to the streets to decry Trump’s immigration crackdown. While raw deportation numbers under Trump remain lower so far than under Biden (due to fewer encounters near the border), the approach has become more aggressive and less legal. People are being arrested at work and at immigration hearings, and the Supreme Court has ruled that many have been deported without due process."
You need to be a lot more careful in your use of language, especially in your opening paragraph that I just quoted. First of all there is no such thing as "Trump's immigration crackdown" Whateverit is it is not a crackdown on immigration -it is an enforcement action against illegal immigrants. It is not a crackdown unless you want to argue that every law enforcement action is a crackdown and thereby raise doubts about their legitimacy. Finally I should note that it is simply not correct to say that the Supreme Court has ruled that people may be deported without due process.In fact the SC ruled that the legal process followed in specific cases was all that the illegal immigrants were due. If you want to attract serious readers please try to avoid mistakes like the ones in this paragraph.
Thanks for your feedback!
I think greatly stepping up law enforcement does count as a "crackdown," and I don't think crackdowns are necessarily illegitimate -- but I do take your meaning that this is an inflammatory description. I agree that choosing language carefully is important. How would you describe what has been happening?
I do think the supreme court ruled -- several times in fact -- that people were deported in violation of due process rights. Here are some relevant citations:
A.A.R.P. v. Trump — p. 3 lines 15-16:
“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due-process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf
DHS v. D.V.D. — p. 11 lines 52-53:
“The Government has made clear … that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The episodes of noncompliance in this very case illustrate the risks”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf
If I'm wrong please let me know. Thanks for reading!