He’s a citizen with a Real ID. ICE detained him anyway. Twice.

[rjs330]

Nah I don’t believe that someone can be detained for days without being charged and arranged.

In my state they can be held up to 48 hours or until court is in session again. Like if you were arrested on Friday night and Monday is a holiday the court has to have probable cause for the charge by Tuesday morning or the person will be released.

For most places people can be held 48-72 hours before arraignment.

 

[rjs330]

Currently, yes. Blevins was supposed to correct that but SCOTUS has neutered it to the point of uselessness. We really need something like 1983 for the federal side of things.

I absolutely would agree with this.

 

[rjs330]

American deported:

Man deported to Laos despite US court order blocking his removal, attorneys say

District judge told Ice to keep Alabama man in US while he showed what judge called ‘substantial claim’ to citizenship

www.theguardian.com

​

Immigration officials have deported a father living in Alabama to Laos despite a federal court order blocking his removal from the US on the grounds he has a claim to citizenship, the man’s attorneys said on Tuesday.​

​

US district judge Shelly Dick last week ordered US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to keep Chanthila “Shawn” Souvannarath, 44, in the United States while he presented what the judge called his “substantial claim of US citizenship”, court records show. He was born in a refugee camp in Thailand but was granted lawful permanent residence in the US before his first birthday, according to court filings.​

​

But Souvannarath on Sunday messaged his wife on WhatsApp and told her he was in Dongmakkhai, Laos, according to a screenshot she shared with the Associated Press. The message ends with “love y’all”.​

​

He's not legally a citizen. He was not born here and was never naturalized. His legal argument goes against immigration law. There is nothing in the law that says you are a citizen just becauae your parent becomes one. How do I know? I'm from an immigrant family. My dad became naturalized before me. We were told that I and my sister had to be naturalized too before we were citizens. I did it before I was 18 because it was harder and more costly afterward.

 

[wing2000]

Not at all. If you were in a place where known mobsters were and there was a raid I would expect you would be picked up too and detained until it was determi ed you were not part of the mob.

....sure, tell us about the many Americans who were detained when the mob was robbing banks back in the day.

I'll leave you with this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...except, apparently, if you are hispanic looking and shop at hispanic grocery stores.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll leave you with this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How would that jive with what I mentioned before regarding actions by other executive agencies like the IRS, EPA, or FDA?

For instance, when the EPA or FDA decides to do a "surprise pop-in" and start searching a private production facility for potential violations (not based on any existing evidence, but purely based on trying to find evidence), or the IRS requesting non-specific account information from banks about wide swaths of customers in one swoop so they can go fishing for reasons to audit?

Is it a case where people are willing to play a little fast and loose withe definition of "unreasonable" for the particular types of crimes they personally see as more egregious based on a "punching up vs. punching down" perspective?

By that I mean, a perspective of:
"going after an undocumented migrant who's just trying to make a couple of bucks" = "punching down...so, bad"
"going after a greedy corp like Pfizer or Dow Chemical, or some rich fat cat who may be cheating on his taxes" = "punching up...so, okay"

 

[wing2000]

How would that jive with what I mentioned before regarding actions by other executive agencies like the IRS, EPA, or FDA?

For instance, when the EPA or FDA decides to do a "surprise pop-in" and start searching a private production facility for potential violations (not based on any existing evidence, but purely based on trying to find evidence), or the IRS requesting non-specific account information from banks about wide swaths of customers in one swoop so they can go fishing for reasons to audit?

Is it a case where people are willing to play a little fast and loose withe definition of "unreasonable" for the particular types of crimes they personally see as more egregious based on a "punching up vs. punching down" perspective?

By that I mean, a perspective of:
"going after an undocumented migrant who's just trying to make a couple of bucks" = "punching down...so, bad"
"going after a greedy corp like Pfizer or Dow Chemical, or some rich fat cat who may be cheating on his taxes" = "punching up...so, okay"

We're discussing the rights of citizens, not corporations.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We're discussing the rights of citizens, not corporations.

So then the IRS aspect would still apply then, would it not?

As it currently stands, they go to my bank, demand all transactions and account balances for every bank customer, and then start sifting through looking for things to use against people without a warrant and with consent, and then only time I'd even have to be notified is if the IRS were asking for my info in particular instead of pulling everyone's info.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So then the IRS aspect would still apply then, would it not?

As it currently stands, they go to my bank, demand all transactions and account balances for every bank customer, and then start sifting through looking for things to use against people without a warrant and with consent, and then only time I'd even have to be notified is if the IRS were asking for my info in particular instead of pulling everyone's info.

I'm reasonably certain that you are incorrect about this. What do you base your claims on?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm reasonably certain that you are incorrect about this. What do you base your claims on?

Can the IRS Access Your Bank Records Without Your Knowledge?

Learn when the IRS can access your bank records and how can you protect your finances from audits, levies, and tax investigations

www.precisiontax.com

Supreme Court: Yes, the IRS Can Secretly Obtain Your Bank Records

The Supreme Court has sided with the IRS in a case that involves owing the IRS money, bank records, taxpayer privacy, and notice.

www.kiplinger.com

Supreme Court Rules That IRS Can Request Bank Account Info Without Notice To Third Parties

The IRS does not need to notify third parties when requesting a summons for banking records in collection matters.

www.forbes.com

And the mechanism by which they pull information for multiple customers at once (without even having any specific names in mind) is what's known as a "John Doe Summons"

So it's to the effect of "I want to see information from all customers that have used this particular credit card processor" or "everyone who wired money to accounts in one of these off-shore banks"

What is a John Doe Summons? | Los Angeles John Doe Summons Attorney Brager Tax Law Group

Call (800) 380-8295 - Brager Tax Law Group is dedicated to serving our clients with a range of legal services including John Doe Summons and IRS Summon cases. What is a John Doe Summons? - Los Angeles John Doe Summons Lawyer

www.bragertaxlaw.com

John Doe Summons and the Fourth Amendment: The IRS’s Power vs. Digital Privacy

In this article, Porter Richards examines the IRS’s use of the John Doe Summons and its implications for Fourth Amendment privacy rights. He argues that while courts have upheld these summonses und…

ucipclj.org

I would suggest that in some ways, the way the IRS power is wielded is even worse.

As in some high profile cases, they're used as a Plan B to "bust someone" who other agencies haven't had any luck busting on the thing they actually want to get them on. (that used to be a common tactic to bust mobsters and drug lords when they didn't have success getting the charges they actually wanted, to stick)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Can the IRS Access Your Bank Records Without Your Knowledge?

Learn when the IRS can access your bank records and how can you protect your finances from audits, levies, and tax investigations

www.precisiontax.com

Supreme Court: Yes, the IRS Can Secretly Obtain Your Bank Records

The Supreme Court has sided with the IRS in a case that involves owing the IRS money, bank records, taxpayer privacy, and notice.

www.kiplinger.com

Supreme Court Rules That IRS Can Request Bank Account Info Without Notice To Third Parties

The IRS does not need to notify third parties when requesting a summons for banking records in collection matters.

www.forbes.com

+

These are about whether the IRS has to tell you when they subpoena your records (in relation to an ongoing investigation), not anything to do with fishing expeditions or pulling bulk records from a bank.

And the mechanism by which they pull information for multiple customers at once (without even having any specific names in mind) is what's known as a "John Doe Summons"

So it's to the effect of "I want to see information from all customers that have used this particular credit card processor" or "everyone who wired money to accounts in one of these off-shore banks"

What is a John Doe Summons? | Los Angeles John Doe Summons Attorney Brager Tax Law Group

Call (800) 380-8295 - Brager Tax Law Group is dedicated to serving our clients with a range of legal services including John Doe Summons and IRS Summon cases. What is a John Doe Summons? - Los Angeles John Doe Summons Lawyer

www.bragertaxlaw.com

John Doe Summons and the Fourth Amendment: The IRS’s Power vs. Digital Privacy

In this article, Porter Richards examines the IRS’s use of the John Doe Summons and its implications for Fourth Amendment privacy rights. He argues that while courts have upheld these summonses und…

ucipclj.org

Per those articles, it's not nearly as broad a power as you're making it out to be:

However, to safeguard taxpayer privacy and prevent abuse, the IRS must obtain court approval before issuing a John Doe Summons.[9] Under IRC § 7609(f), a federal court will approve only if the IRS meets three key criteria: (1) The summons relates to an identifiable tax compliance issue where the IRS must show that the group targeted (e.g., crypto traders) is suspected of tax noncompliance, (2) the IRS lacks other means to obtain the information so if taxpayers aren’t voluntarily reporting and the IRS doesn’t know who they are, a John Doe Summons is the only way to identify them, and (3) the summons is narrowly tailored, meaning courts will reject overly broad requests that sweep in unnecessary data.[10]

In other words, they can't go to, say, Bank of America, and demand all of their customer bank records to sift through for potential tax fraud.

 

[DaisyDay]

Thats not what I read. Everything I read actually had no numbers of each that were picked up. I read Reuters, NPR, and a bunch of others. They had total numbers, but no one said how many were illegals, nor now many had expir3d visas nor how many haf visas, but were not allowed to work nor how many had visas that were not expired and allowed them to work.

So you didn't bother to read the link I provided you in post #69 that you quoted and replied to in post #72? Horse/water.

But according to the things I read the government stated that they had taken illegals, those that had expired visas and those who had valid visas but were not supposed to be working.

It's unclear how/if those with "business visas" were violating those visas. Unfortunately, the government often issues statements that don't comport with reality as shown by videos, subsequent statements, etc.

How long did it take? I do believe that they should put those who claim to be citizens first in line for confirmation. Once placed in detention it shouldn't take any more than a day at the most to confirm that they are citizens either through birth certificates or citizenship papers or a passport. It might take longer on a weekend since most times other government agencies are not open on a week end.

Sometimes minutes, sometimes days, sometimes much longer. Sometimes they ignore the confirmation and judges' orders and just deport them anyway. If a citizen produces ID on the spot, then they should not be detained, let alone jailed, at all (for being here without documentation).

But bottom line is, if you suspect you arw working with illegals you might want to report it and or work somewhere else. I think reporting it would be best.

That sounds like you.

Yes, and Americans do feel that way. A LOT of them. Why don't you want illegals to go home and come legally?

Americans also do NOT feel that way. A LOT of them. Your question is unanswerable as the premise is flawed and not applicable.

No its not because polls showed that Americans were for deportations of illegals and shutting down border. A lot of them. Upward of 60%.

And what do polls say now that it's clear how these deportations are targeting people who are here legally while awaiting their hearings instead of the promised worst of the worst criminals?

Now that has dropped to about 50%. So it has gone down since January.

Ok, so there you go. People didn't realize that it would be friends and neighbors instead of criminals. Now that they do understand, even you have admitted that support has waned, so maybe don't claim that unmodified "Americans" support whatever you believe when unmodified "Americans" also do not. It's a really bad rhetorical device that doesn't help credibility (if you care about credibility; if not, never mind).

But most people at the time were for it. I actually thinknits dropped due to rhe left wings media and social sites being so against it. The media can be effective and we all know what influence social media can have upon people. If more people actually saw what people were doing against ICE I think it would go up again.

So no, its not meaningless.

Okay, then it is a meaningful appeal to emotion.

He's not legally a citizen. He was not born here and was never naturalized. His legal argument goes against immigration law. There is nothing in the law that says you are a citizen just becauae your parent becomes one. How do I know? I'm from an immigrant family. My dad became naturalized before me. We were told that I and my sister had to be naturalized too before we were citizens. I did it before I was 18 because it was harder and more costly afterward.

This is in dispute. There was a judge's order against deportation BEFORE he was deported, pending the case being resolved. He was deported while a stay was in place. We know that DHS has a history of this since these mass deportations began under Trump's orders.

 

[rambot]

Matching a visual description of someone they're looking for has always been "a thing" with regards to detaining and questioning (specifically with regards to law enforcement)

For instance, if officers were looking for a "6 foot 2 Caucasian male, roughly 180-200 pounds, wearing a blue hoodie was in the park dealing drugs and was believed to be armed"...

If I happen to be standing in the park the next day with my blue hoodie on and my hand in my pockets...I'd be getting detained for questioning & searched (possibly even tackled or ordered to get on the ground at gunpoint)

That simply cannot be a rational and reasonable comparison as an excuse for ICE's tactics.

What you are describing is the TARGETED search of ONE SPECIFIC individual and a description of a SPECIFIC individual.

In no WAY is that what ICE is doing.


Normally your "reasoned" approach can be frustrating but understanding; this one is comparison is completely silly.

 

[rjs330]

....sure, tell us about the many Americans who were detained when the mob was robbing banks back in the day.

I'll leave you with this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...except, apparently, if you are hispanic looking and shop at hispanic grocery stores.

The courts have ruled you don't need a warrant to arrest someone for immigration offenses. And the amount of illegals that have been picked up prove ICE is correct in raiding these places and pjckeng people up with a tiny minority of others that were not illegal. To demand warrants for every illegal would be patently ridiculous and quite frankly would do what liberals want. Which is to allow illegals here and allow them to stay.

And ICE obtains warrants when they need to. Like that raid in Claifornia at the weed farm. They also had a warrant for the apartment raid.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

These are about whether the IRS has to tell you when they subpoena your records (in relation to an ongoing investigation), not anything to do with fishing expeditions or pulling bulk records from a bank.

Per those articles, it's not nearly as broad a power as you're making it out to be:

In other words, they can't go to, say, Bank of America, and demand all of their customer bank records to sift through for potential tax fraud.

If you notice in those articles, that power is pretty broad... to use a SQL analogy.

It may not be as broad as
SELECT *
FROM Accounts

But it's as broad as
SELECT *
FROM Accounts a
JOIN TransactionHistory th on a.AccountNumber = th.AccountNumber
WHERE th.TransferTarget = 'Bank XYZ'

--which is still very broad. When they leveraged a John Doe Summons to go after people making coinbase transactions, their criteria was broad enough that it ended up handing over the bank account information for nearly 20,000 people on one fell swoop.

In the late 2010's they leveraged the same types of "broad criteria search" aimed at people who transferred money to Swiss banks, and people who transferred money to financial institutions in the Caribbean.


...which is still in the same realm/mindset of the "patterns based on historical behavior & incidents would dictate that people who do X & Y are more likely than others to be committing infraction Z -- so just give me all of the people who are X & Y and we're bound to turn up some Z's"


And per the kiplinger article, their powers extend to family members and the vaguely defined "associates". Which means if they feel they have reason to believe that one of my relatives or perhaps a co-worker or neighbor has been getting into some tax shenanigans, they can grab my info when they grab theirs.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If you notice in those articles, that power is pretty broad... to use a SQL analogy.

It may not be as broad as
SELECT *
FROM Accounts

But it's as broad as
SELECT *
FROM Accounts a
JOIN TransactionHistory th on a.AccountNumber = th.AccountNumber
WHERE th.TransferTarget = 'Bank XYZ'

--which is still very broad. When they leveraged a John Doe Summons to go after people making coinbase transactions, their criteria was broad enough that it ended up handing over the bank account information for nearly 20,000 people on one fell swoop.

In the late 2010's they leveraged the same types of "broad criteria search" aimed at people who transferred money to Swiss banks, and people who transferred money to financial institutions in the Caribbean.


...which is still in the same realm/mindset of the "patterns based on historical behavior & incidents would dictate that people who do X & Y are more likely than others to be committing infraction Z -- so just give me all of the people who are X & Y and we're bound to turn up some Z's"


And per the kiplinger article, their powers extend to family members and the vaguely defined "associates". Which means if they feel they have reason to believe that one of my relatives or perhaps a co-worker or neighbor has been getting into some tax shenanigans, they can grab my info when they grab theirs.

That's still quite a bit different from your original claim:

As it currently stands, they go to my bank, demand all transactions and account balances for every bank customer, and then start sifting through looking for things to use against people without a warrant and with consent

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's still quite a bit different from your original claim:

So now that we've got the semantics out of the way, do you feel that the IRS infringing in ways that are similar?

 

[BCP1928]

Thats not what I read. Everything I read actually had no numbers of each that were picked up. I read Reuters, NPR, and a bunch of others. They had total numbers, but no one said how many were illegals, nor now many had expir3d visas nor how many haf visas, but were not allowed to work nor how many had visas that were not expired and allowed them to work.

But according to the things I read the government stated that they had taken illegals, those that had expired visas and those who had valid visas but were not supposed to be working.

How long did it take? I do believe that they should put those who claim to be citizens first in line for confirmation. Once placed in detention it shouldn't take any more than a day at the most to confirm that they are citizens either through birth certificates or citizenship papers or a passport. It might take longer on a weekend since most times other government agencies are not open on a week end.

But bottom line is, if you suspect you arw working with illegals you might want to report it and or work somewhere else. I think reporting it would be best.

Yes, and Americans do feel that way. A LOT of them. Why don't you want illegals to go home and come legally?

No its not because polls showed that Americans were for deportations of illegals and shutting down border. A lot of them. Upward of 60%.

Now that has dropped to about 50%. So it has gone down since January. But most people at the time were for it. I actually thinknits dropped due to rhe left wings media and social sites being so against it. The media can be effective and we all know what influence social media can have upon people. If more people actually saw what people were doing against ICE I think it would go up again.

So no, its not meaningless.

So what was the deal? Those technicians were not just illegal immigrants sneaking in to work. They were here to help build a plant for Americans to work in. Their employer thought they were legal, their government though they were legal and they thought they were legal and when they had finished the plant they intended to go home. They were actually doing us a favor so we shackle them like criminals?