“Trump’s second-term raids are not merely designed to sweep up immigrants for deportation; they are designed to act as shows of force, a dangerous and occasionally deadly form of political theater. And while Trump bears ultimate responsibility for the immigration sweeps and their consequences, it is Miller who has most clearly shaped their operational character. The masks, the menace, the militarism—these are all direct manifestations of a cruel and apocalyptic worldview, in which force is the only real governing power, illegal immigration represents a form of “invasion,” legal immigration mechanisms like birthright citizenship are “destructive and ruinous policies aimed at the heart of the Republic,” and public protest of deportation raids that turn violent is tantamount to “insurrection.”
…
Some of this can be understood as an outgrowth of Trump’s own worldview. The president notoriously launched his first campaign by declaring that “when Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best…They’re bringing crime. They’re bringing drugs. They’re rapists.” But Trump’s personal ability to implement policy and execute on his impulses is limited without competent staff to follow through. Miller is the White House aide who turns Trump’s immigration ideas into reality. As the Atlantic profile put it, he’s “the man who turns President Trump’s most incendiary impulses into policy.””
“It’s highly unusual for federal judges to issue such direct accusations and contempt threats against the government. However, an increasing number of judges have become exasperated by the Trump administration’s noncompliance with their orders in immigration cases.
…
The Trump administration insists that it can arrest anyone present in the country unlawfully without a warrant and hold them in mandatory detention without a bond hearing. This interpretation of the law abandons a precedent that has been in place for nearly 30 years.
…
judges find themselves batting down the same specious arguments from the Justice Department over and over.”
“”Imagine if we had to go through the process of getting a judicial warrant.”
Those are the complaining words of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.), who was voicing his support for the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which now claims that its agents have the right to forcibly enter private homes without first obtaining a warrant signed by a judge. According to ICE, its agents may forcibly enter homes in certain immigration enforcement contexts based merely on a so-called “administrative warrant,” which is not actually a warrant at all, but is rather just a piece of paper signed by someone in the executive branch.”
“Thanks to a lack of hiring standards, purposeful federal policy, poor training, and a lack of accountability for bad behavior, ICE is eroding safety and liberty for all Americans.”
“Another judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to follow federal law, even as the Trump administration argues it has broad authority to conduct warrantless immigration arrests.”
The administration’s mass deportation efforts are repeatedly unlawful.
ICE has been capturing people here legally and detaining them far away from where they were picked up. When courts find out about this and order ICE to release individuals, ICE sometimes doesn’t follow the orders. ICE Lawyers have been overwhelmed defending ICE’s lawlessness. One of ICE’s own lawyers admitted that when she tells them they have to release people held illegally, they don’t follow through because they don’t respect the courts.
Trump has pulled lots of ICE out of Maine to help a Republican win her senate race there. If this is about the deep need to get illegals out and protect Americans from illegals, then politics shouldn’t get in the way of rational law enforcement.
“Even small changes such as moving into an apartment building, moving down the block, or changing party affiliation are considered voter registration updates. Under the SAVE Act, Americans would have to go in person to their election office and present original or certified documentation to make any voter registration change.
This would make civic participation much more difficult for tens of millions of citizens every election cycle and would outright disenfranchise millions more. The policies of the SAVE Act would also be in addition to state voter ID laws that require voters to show identification at the polls
…
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would require all American citizens registering to vote or updating their registration information to present documentary proof of citizenship in person. For the vast majority of Americans, this would be a passport or birth certificate.”
“In effect, the SAVE Act introduces a documentation requirement for a law that has existed for decades: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.
To do so, the SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 by introducing a requirement for individuals to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
Registration and voting attempts by noncitizens are routinely investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate authorities, and there is no evidence that attempts at voting by noncitizens have ever been significant enough to impact any election’s outcome. In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that registration and voting by noncitizens is few and far between.
…
According to the U.S. Department of State, examples of primary citizenship evidence include a birth certificate, a U.S. passport, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, a Certificate of Citizenship, or a Naturalization Certificate. (While Real IDs are often assumed to be a reliable proxy for citizenship, they do not definitively establish citizenship.)
Although at least one of these documents are in theory available to most citizens, not all voters have them readily available.
…
9% of all eligible voters do not have, or do not have easy access to, documentary proof of citizenship.
52% of registered voters do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name.
11% of registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate.
…
Additionally, birth certificates often lack information that matches a person’s current identity. For instance, someone who has changed their name through marriage or court order may need to present a third document (such as a marriage certificate) to join their proof of citizenship (e.g., birth certificate) with their proof of identity (e.g., driver’s license), further decreasing the likelihood that a voter will have the appropriate documentation on hand to successfully register.
Even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task, one that election officials and motor vehicle departments often do not have the resources or training to perform.
…
Front-end verification risks burdening eligible voters who lack ready access to proof of citizenship, while back-end verification hinges on the accuracy, completeness, and interoperability of government databases. Between the two approaches, we encourage policymakers to prioritize back-end verification over front-end verification because it places the responsibility on government officials rather than voters to prove citizenship.
Under a back-end approach, it’s essential that states give voters identified as potential noncitizens ample opportunity to prove their citizenship, given that many government databases are outdated or otherwise incorrect. Instead of automatic cancellation after a short notice period, BPC recommends election officials place voters flagged as potential noncitizens into a “challenged” or “pending verification” status. Under this approach, a voter would remain registered but be required to affirm their citizenship before they can vote again.”