But the cameras that the law enforcement officers canvas in the area aren't centrally aggregated and tagged with meta data such that they can be queried at scale.
If we can have open standards to allow my car to interoperate with my home batteries (Franklin, Enphase, Tesla Powerwall or others), we'll all be better off.
(1) "Judge" is not necessarily identical with "due process." (2) Congress can't override constitutional protections by passing new laws. That would require a constitutional amendment.
A law cannot overturn the Constitution, you need an Amendment for that. In principle, anyway. If you have a Supreme Court that abdicates its duties then you can do whatever you want, at the cost of legitimacy.
The nuances of criminal procedure may not apply, but the fundamental constitutional rights still do, as well as human rights. Indeterminate detention violates both.
A distinction without a difference, and it's questionable whether deportation is actually the goal here. If that were the case they could put him on plane today.
Basically, the guy admits that he overstayed the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, but is arguing that the fact INS started processing his adjustment of status application gives him the right to stay in the U.S. until it's resolved:
> Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10. But he argues that because USCIS accepted and began processing his adjustment of status application, he is entitled to due process protections in its fair adjudication. Id. at 9. The Fifth Circuit has foreclosed this very argument, reasoning that the VWP waiver includes a waiver of due process rights. See Mukasey, 555 F.3d at 462. And “[t]he fact that [Culleton] applied for an adjustment of status before the DHS issued its notice of removal is of no consequence.” Id.
Remember that the whole point of the Visa Waiver Program is that you're conceding up front that you're just visiting and aren't making a claim for asylum or whatever. The idea is that the U.S. makes it easy for you to enter, in return for you agreeing that the U.S. can easily deport you if you overstay.
I think you misspoke. “Protects” is a statement of fact which does not resemble current facts. “is supposed to protect” would be more accurate.
The as built does not currently match the plan provided by the constitution and rule of law. Please see your nearest democratic representative to address the problem.
"The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.”
The statute is exceedingly clear. Subsection (a) first says: "An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
That applies to those who step across the border as part of a border crossing or rescue. The court decision applies it to all aliens, which is the never before applied part of GP.
The whole point of subsection (a)(1) is to treat all aliens similarly to those who cross the border for purposes of the chapter. Subsection (a)(1) is titled "Aliens treated as applicants for admission."
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
This Irish man would probably prefer to be removed from the property (country), instead of being indefinitely detained waiting for a trial whose outcome is already known.
The 6th Amendment of the US contains a right to a speedy trial. Otherwise, every arrest can become a life sentence if no trial is ever held.
The article says he refused to sign the deportation paperwork, does that not mean that his continued detention is a choice under his control? He could agree to return to Ireland and they would put him on a plane.
Compare: "The man refused to sign confession-papers, so that means his continued imprisonment is actually a choice under his control. He could simply confess to jaywalking, and they'd rip him away from his family and life and exile him to the streets of another country within a mere day or two. No problem."
Abject surrender in the face of threats/violence is always, technically, a fast resolution to anything, but it's not the kind of thing we (or the framers of the Constitution) wanted to optimize for.
He's already confessed! He admits he came here under the Visa Waiver Program, overstayed the 90 day limit, and that, as a result, he can be removed without proceedings for a determination of deportability: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton...
"Thus, individuals that entered the country under VWP are removable 'without referral of the
alien to an immigration judge for a determination of deportability.' See 8 C.F.R. § 217.4(b)(1). Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10."
Well, yes, basically this entire situation is one he created himself starting back in 2009. I would love to see a vast increase in legal immigration, and this guy isn't it.
Before we even get into the complete lack of morality in forcefully separating a married couple, removing him from his home and his business; you might want to check what happens to people who do agree to be deported. Plenty of examples where this has not at all been as painless as you are implying.
First of all, back in November, a judge approved his release on bond, which he paid, but the government ignored that order and continued to detain him.
After his detention, he was asked to sign paperwork opting for voluntary deportation; he refused, but then the government proceeded to claim in court that he had signed documents to that effect, which he and his lawyer insist must be falsified or otherwise in error. However a judge allowed them to stand, which removes his ability to appeal. Now, either because the government is inept or malicious, he seems to be stuck in a legal limbo unless his lawyer can challenge the government's documentation or force an analysis of those forms.
Yes, he should definitely choose to ditch his US citizen wife and move to a place she probably can’t reside or work legally. /s If the government kept you in a tent camp and said you could just sign some papers and be free to leave without your family, would you?
After some research, it might be fairly simple for them to get into Ireland and fairly simple for her to get permission to stay as a spouse of an Irish citizen. Her getting a work permit may be a lot harder, so it may not be viable for them to survive there, especially if he's going in jobless too.
That does not make any sense. They just offered him the chance to waive the court process and go back to Ireland immediately. It does not mean that he must be here legally. It just means that a court will have to make that determination before any further steps can be taken.
I know it sounds crazy, but they do need his consent to being deported.
Coming to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program means you waive any rights you have to claim asylum, etc. This guy admits he came here under Visa waiver, and that he overstayed his visa by years. But they still can’t deport him, because he’s raising new legal arguments based on being married to a US citizen.
He probably wants to remain with his wife and home, just like Abrego Garcia did, who currently has been returned to his Maryland home and family, despite what the DOJ said would never happen.
Do they also lock you up on the property for 5 months while they figure out how to remove you from the property?
People’s inability to comprehend the need for basic legal rights like Habeas Corpus is incredible. We literally have leaders who don’t know what that means and when challenged on it, don’t even bother to look it up and remain uninformed when asked months later.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy, public trial in criminal prosecutions, protecting defendants from excessive, prejudicial delays between indictment or arrest and trial.
Sure but the courts have ruled that a "speedy trial" can take years (I don't agree with this, it's just what the courts have decided). Additionally if you're not a US citizen you don't necessarily have all the same rights as a citizen, and your case is processed in civil court. Anyone can be detained, and a good judge won't release illegal immigrants from detention since they're just not going to return to court until after their hearing.
@rayiner Do you understand that justifying his 5 month detention without due process means you are justifying your own 5 month detention without due process?
He is getting due process. He admitted to a federal court that he came to the US in 2009 under a Visa Waiver Program, which is limited to 90 days: https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2026/culleton... ("Culleton concedes he is removable under the VWP. Reply 10.").
By contrast, I'm a naturalized citizen. My dad came here on a valid H visa because he's an expert in public health and a U.S. company wanted to hire someone with his qualifications.
The State says "Due process" now means your body may be used in the hard labor prison archipelago. How quickly we Rationalize. How shamefully human we are.
Constitution also garuntees a speedy trial and specifically calls out these type of long detentions without conviction or trial being used as punishment.
If the Executive Branch doesn't care about the Constitution and inconvenient laws when directing the law enforcement agencies under its control, Congress doesn't hold the executive to account by either withholding funds or threatening impeachment, and the SCOTUS majority doesn't try to rein in these acts while seeming to lack the ability to enforce its own decisions, the words printed on the Constitution are just useless ink.
Elections have consequences, and we're all paying them. Some paying a lot more than others.
Two cities that recently asked a automated license plate reader (ALPR) company to deactivate their cameras say they have discovered that some devices remained operative long after officials directed the firm to stop recording.
While I too find it distasteful and distracting, the inclination to expunge politics from conversation may have played a role in getting us (at least in the US) where we are: 1) where people have forgotten to talk about politics politely, and 2) where politics have been weaponized by tuning to especially divisive issues specifically for high-engagement.
And that is where many of us have played a role: increasing engagement.
One approach would be a revenue-neutral carbon tax on extraction of sequestered carbon. And border carbon taxes for imports from countries who don't also have an internal carbon tax.
I don’t think something like that would ever fly in the US. In fact, the opposite is more likely. The drill-baby-drill mantra is going to push everything in exactly the opposite direction.
I think any solution will have to come from industry, not government.
This is because PG&E retail is about 2.5x the national average.
Also, worth noting in the event the conclusions are extrapolated to diesel over the road transportation: train diesel is much less expensive as it's exempt from fuel (state and federal) taxes.
> Most of the energy used accelerating is recovered at the next stop, so the fast acceleration does not consume much energy.
Not "most," but a lot. From the article:
> regenerative braking on the new trains is generating and sending back to the electric grid approximately 23% of the energy consumed by the system
"The President might not sign the bill, however. If he specifically rejects
the bill, called a veto, the bill returns to Congress. There it is voted on
again, and if both houses of Congress pass the bill again, but this time by a
two-thirds majority, then the bill becomes law without the President’s
signature. This is called “overriding a veto,” and is difficult to do because
of the two-thirds majority requirement."
reply