Summary
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) pushed back against Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, after he suggested the DOJ investigate her for “aiding and abetting” illegal immigration.
Homan accused her of helping people evade ICE by educating constituents on their constitutional rights. AOC dismissed the threats, challenging Homan to proceed and calling him a “coward.”
Tensions are high over immigration enforcement and civil liberties, with AOC arguing that informing people of their rights is legally protected.
Wow, how dare she!
Are illegals constituents? Do non-citizens have constitutional rights?
“aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”
From a Supreme Court decision in 1952: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep345/usrep345206/usrep345206.pdf
It had long precedent and has been upheld since: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
Now, the question about whether or not they’re constituents could probably be debated, since they can’t vote. But if a person who didn’t vote for an official is still a constituent, then a person who couldn’t vote for an official is as well.
illegals
really, dude? really?
They’re not even human to them
Yes because they’re human, just not American. Inalienable rights are inherent to all people.
Are Navajo constituents? How about Puerto Ricans?
Because they might want to know their rights.
The people related to immigrants are often voting constituents interested in their and their families rights if that’s what you mean. Immigrant do have constitutional rights. For example, you can’t just deny them freedom of speech or enslave them just because they’re non citizens. That would be wild.
I’ve wanted to develop a conversation on this subject for a long time, because it’s a fallacy “both sides” have fallen for: The fact that illegal actions are often right, and legal actions are often immoral.
People will often harp on the fact that an act was “technically not legal”; yet throughout history, we have needed illegal acts to frame what’s right in the world. When we discuss these things online, it’s more honest to talk about “What the harm is” - a subject that often leans in favor of left-leaning opinions both for what’s illegal (living in the USA illegally, generally causing negative harm) and improperly using presidential powers to shut down government agencies (not just illegal, but also extremely harmful).
If you disagree and specifically want to harp on legality, then I invite you to see what happens if you start shooting jaywalkers in the street for their flagrant violation of the law. Prosecutorial discretion exists for a very important reason.