In those cases yes, but ICE is disappearing people who have entered legally and are awaiting a CIVIL immigration hearing on status changes, etc. The cases you reference are a small minority of those being detained and deported.
75% of ICE detainees have no criminal convictions per ICEs own stats, however they conflate "immigration offenses" like filing errors with illegal entry so its impossible to tell from their own statistics to answer your question.
I might also add that, like it or not, asylum claims are a positive defense to illegal entry under US law and you can ONLY claim asylum upon US soil.
ICE has extreme arrest quotas now and are routinely exceeding their authority and violating the due process rights of of immigrants in thr US to meet those quotas.
> 75% of ICE detainees have no criminal convictions
1. Can you cite this?
2. I assume you mean, for things other than the putative illegal entry itself. Of course, that would still have to be proven, but it is still potentially a criminal matter. Fining people who are legally not entitled to be in the country, does not remedy the fact of them being in the country without legal entitlement.
> however they conflate "immigration offenses" like filing errors with illegal entry
How is this a conflation?
> I work in immigration law and can tell you that nearly all of the people we represent
The selection bias is clear; they're hiring legal representation because they have a case (and because they can afford to).
> ICE has extreme arrest quotas
Can you evidence this?
> violating the due process rights of of immigrants in thr US
What exactly do you consider that these rights consist of, and how are they being violated? Can you evidence this?
It is not a lie, immigration, is primarily a civil issue with civil enforcement. You don't get a lawyer, you don't get your case heard in Title III courts. There are a few things that are capital C crimes related to immigration, but the bulk of the current enforcement is related it civil immigration matters.
Don't think this meets either the common or legal definition of "invasion"
>you decided it was "racist" and threw a fit every time anyone suggested it was a problem.
I decided nothing, buddy.
>If you hadn't let it become an issue,
Interesting, because the last time it was about to be taken up by congress, DJT said not to do anything about it, for political advantage. Neither side has its hands clean here.
> it wouldn't require this response.
This is the only possible response? How unimaginitive.
