Another excellent article which serves to illustrate our painful history of deliberate disobedience of the Constitution. Liberty for me, but not for thee.
ICE in action again, in what seems to me, an average American, to be another in a long litany of government sponsored unconstitutional activities:
…..”they began detaining them before giving them an opportunity to retrieve the documents from their work lockers.”
Fifth Amendment:
- [ ] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note that the Fifth Amendment refers to persons, not citizens as proper recipients of protection under our Constitution.
We now live under an authoritarian regime. Thinking, patriotic Americans must reject this by joining with any organized peaceful demonstration against the regime, in addition to writing to all of our elected representatives on a regular basis.
If we fail to do our duty we will all lose the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as set forth by Jefferson.
Kevin: This is very timely as my wife wrote about the possibility of these kinds of markers/sites of remembrance just over a week ago: https://substack.com/home/post/p-178527147
"We must ask ourselves: what kind of society do we become when silence replaces solidarity? Memorials are not just symbols of grief; they are acts of resistance. They remind us that every disappearance deserves to be seen, named, and mourned. If we truly believe in justice, we must confront the policies that erase people from our communities and challenge the narratives that justify their absence. Only then can we begin to heal what has been broken."
I wonder what would happen if the steps taken to free Anthony Burns in Boston were taken to free immigrants. I’m actually surprised something like that hasn’t taken place yet.
Great essay. The parallels between the ICE Kidnappings and the Fugitive Slave Act have crossed my mind many times. As always, your writing is poignant and appreciated
Thanks so much for this piece. Last week I led my talk on the Fugitive Slave Act with this comparison, with my main point that enforcement of the Act was what drove public opinion in the North firmly into the antislavery camp. Frankly, the students didn't need me to make that point; they were already "there." Also, since we're in Worcester, I noted (as per Doug Egerton's new book on Higginson) that when a fed marshal came to our city to arrest Higginson on suspicion of being the person who killed Batchelder, he was nearly lynched.
This is late and it’s long, but boy, does Mr. Boone ever need to read it. It’s from an article in a national newspaper:
In August, Jemmy Jimenez Rosa and her husband, Marcel, took their three young daughters on a vacation to Cancún, Mexico. On their return to Boston Logan airport, a Customs and Border Protection officer took Ms. Rosa aside and led her to a back room where she was told she should say goodbye to her girls. “I keep thinking this is a nightmare. Is this a nightmare? Like, is this really happening?” Ms. Rosa recalled.
Ms. Rosa was placed in a detention cell at Logan. Officers gave her virtually no information and dismissed her husband’s requests that he be allowed to bring her diabetes and anxiety medication. Ms. Rosa was born in Peru and has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since she was 9 years old; she is now 43. Just weeks before the trip to Cancún, she had renewed her green card without incident. Her husband and her daughters are American citizens.
Over the past several months, alongside a team from Opinion Video, I’ve spoken to a half-dozen people and their families who have been taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. Each was re-entering, or was already in the country legally. No one was smuggled across the border.
None of the people we spoke to had a recent criminal record. (Three had minor nonviolent brushes with the law, all in the distant past; one received a pardon.) All were treated like suspected violent criminals, forced into tiny cells, dressed in prison uniforms, manacled for transfer. Those we spoke to were held for anywhere from 10 days to over 70 days. The experience shattered their equilibrium.
Mr. Boone, please note that laws are primary, can authorize or limit executive orders, and executive orders cannot validly contradict the Constitution or a statute.
The Lankford border bill, officially known as the bipartisan border security package, was introduced in early February 2024 by Senator James Lankford. Candidate Trump actively opposed the bill, urging GOP lawmakers to block it because he wanted to keep border security as a central campaign issue for 2024.
American law has traditionally been a process of incremental change. In the case cited above such incremental change was torpedoed by a candidate for purely selfish political reasons.
Having stayed abreast of this legislation at the time it was written and introduced, I fail to see how its political dismissal benefited the American people.
Indeed he is, but he did something that this 119th Congress has been unwilling to do: sit down with the opposition party and work things out simply because der Fuhrer will not allow it. I will defer historical confirmation to Mr. Levin, but the current Congress, based on my reading, seems every bit as toxic as its 1861 predecessor.
The ICE Gestapo is terrorizing Raleigh, NC, as we speak. Restaurants are shutting down and other businesses are deserted because their clientele are scared to leave home. Shame on the baboons running our country right now. Not to mention people like "Daniel Boone" who support this inhumanity.
Why should someone be detained even briefly solely because of the color of their skin or their last name? The Kavanaugh opinion is going down in history with the Taney opinion on Scott.
“Briefly detained”? If the violent Trump immigration Gestapo were using due process and otherwise following civilized, established rules of immigration enforcement, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Previous administrations operated under the rule of law and legally deported large numbers of illegal immigrants. There was no need to defend them by tossing in misleading propaganda like “briefly detained.” Tell that to anybody who was rounded up and summarily sent to a South American torture prison without due process.
“Without border law you do not have a country”? Without the rule of law you risk descending into fascism.
Let’s be clear about what is happening. People are being stopped and arrested illegally, based solely on their appearance. Many have a right to be in the country under the law, others have a right to apply to stay under the law, and some are even US citizens. Once detained, people are being deprived of their due process and habeas corpus rights, as the Trump administration attempts to deport them without bringing them to court. Even those brought to court face kangeroo courts: they are deprived of counsel and of the ability to prepare and present evidence; they are not permitted prehearing release even when they are obviously not flight risks; and they face judges that lack independence from the executive and, indeed, are specifically chosen because of their bias. This is unAmerican.
Another excellent article which serves to illustrate our painful history of deliberate disobedience of the Constitution. Liberty for me, but not for thee.
ICE in action again, in what seems to me, an average American, to be another in a long litany of government sponsored unconstitutional activities:
…..”they began detaining them before giving them an opportunity to retrieve the documents from their work lockers.”
Fifth Amendment:
- [ ] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note that the Fifth Amendment refers to persons, not citizens as proper recipients of protection under our Constitution.
We now live under an authoritarian regime. Thinking, patriotic Americans must reject this by joining with any organized peaceful demonstration against the regime, in addition to writing to all of our elected representatives on a regular basis.
If we fail to do our duty we will all lose the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as set forth by Jefferson.
Thank you so much for the kind words, for reading, and for upgrading to a paid subscription. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.
You do excellent work—so I offer my thanks to you.
This is a fascinating story and an apt comparison. One of your best! Thanks.
Thanks so much for reading, William and thank you for the kind words.
Kevin: This is very timely as my wife wrote about the possibility of these kinds of markers/sites of remembrance just over a week ago: https://substack.com/home/post/p-178527147
This is wonderful. Thanks for sharing, John.
"We must ask ourselves: what kind of society do we become when silence replaces solidarity? Memorials are not just symbols of grief; they are acts of resistance. They remind us that every disappearance deserves to be seen, named, and mourned. If we truly believe in justice, we must confront the policies that erase people from our communities and challenge the narratives that justify their absence. Only then can we begin to heal what has been broken."
I wonder what would happen if the steps taken to free Anthony Burns in Boston were taken to free immigrants. I’m actually surprised something like that hasn’t taken place yet.
Great essay. The parallels between the ICE Kidnappings and the Fugitive Slave Act have crossed my mind many times. As always, your writing is poignant and appreciated
Thanks so much for this piece. Last week I led my talk on the Fugitive Slave Act with this comparison, with my main point that enforcement of the Act was what drove public opinion in the North firmly into the antislavery camp. Frankly, the students didn't need me to make that point; they were already "there." Also, since we're in Worcester, I noted (as per Doug Egerton's new book on Higginson) that when a fed marshal came to our city to arrest Higginson on suspicion of being the person who killed Batchelder, he was nearly lynched.
Ice is detaining US citizens. Anyone excusing this behavior is a traitor to their country and should be treated accordingly.
This is late and it’s long, but boy, does Mr. Boone ever need to read it. It’s from an article in a national newspaper:
In August, Jemmy Jimenez Rosa and her husband, Marcel, took their three young daughters on a vacation to Cancún, Mexico. On their return to Boston Logan airport, a Customs and Border Protection officer took Ms. Rosa aside and led her to a back room where she was told she should say goodbye to her girls. “I keep thinking this is a nightmare. Is this a nightmare? Like, is this really happening?” Ms. Rosa recalled.
Ms. Rosa was placed in a detention cell at Logan. Officers gave her virtually no information and dismissed her husband’s requests that he be allowed to bring her diabetes and anxiety medication. Ms. Rosa was born in Peru and has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since she was 9 years old; she is now 43. Just weeks before the trip to Cancún, she had renewed her green card without incident. Her husband and her daughters are American citizens.
Over the past several months, alongside a team from Opinion Video, I’ve spoken to a half-dozen people and their families who have been taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. Each was re-entering, or was already in the country legally. No one was smuggled across the border.
None of the people we spoke to had a recent criminal record. (Three had minor nonviolent brushes with the law, all in the distant past; one received a pardon.) All were treated like suspected violent criminals, forced into tiny cells, dressed in prison uniforms, manacled for transfer. Those we spoke to were held for anywhere from 10 days to over 70 days. The experience shattered their equilibrium.
“Without border law you do not have a country.”
Mr. Boone, please note that laws are primary, can authorize or limit executive orders, and executive orders cannot validly contradict the Constitution or a statute.
The Lankford border bill, officially known as the bipartisan border security package, was introduced in early February 2024 by Senator James Lankford. Candidate Trump actively opposed the bill, urging GOP lawmakers to block it because he wanted to keep border security as a central campaign issue for 2024.
American law has traditionally been a process of incremental change. In the case cited above such incremental change was torpedoed by a candidate for purely selfish political reasons.
Having stayed abreast of this legislation at the time it was written and introduced, I fail to see how its political dismissal benefited the American people.
Thanks. Good point, in my view. Though the word Republican doesn't mean much these days, I'd interject that the senator is one.
Indeed he is, but he did something that this 119th Congress has been unwilling to do: sit down with the opposition party and work things out simply because der Fuhrer will not allow it. I will defer historical confirmation to Mr. Levin, but the current Congress, based on my reading, seems every bit as toxic as its 1861 predecessor.
America is not Mexico.
We have a Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of which provides due process for all persons.
The ICE Gestapo is terrorizing Raleigh, NC, as we speak. Restaurants are shutting down and other businesses are deserted because their clientele are scared to leave home. Shame on the baboons running our country right now. Not to mention people like "Daniel Boone" who support this inhumanity.
Why should someone be detained even briefly solely because of the color of their skin or their last name? The Kavanaugh opinion is going down in history with the Taney opinion on Scott.
“Briefly detained”? If the violent Trump immigration Gestapo were using due process and otherwise following civilized, established rules of immigration enforcement, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Previous administrations operated under the rule of law and legally deported large numbers of illegal immigrants. There was no need to defend them by tossing in misleading propaganda like “briefly detained.” Tell that to anybody who was rounded up and summarily sent to a South American torture prison without due process.
“Without border law you do not have a country”? Without the rule of law you risk descending into fascism.
Let’s be clear about what is happening. People are being stopped and arrested illegally, based solely on their appearance. Many have a right to be in the country under the law, others have a right to apply to stay under the law, and some are even US citizens. Once detained, people are being deprived of their due process and habeas corpus rights, as the Trump administration attempts to deport them without bringing them to court. Even those brought to court face kangeroo courts: they are deprived of counsel and of the ability to prepare and present evidence; they are not permitted prehearing release even when they are obviously not flight risks; and they face judges that lack independence from the executive and, indeed, are specifically chosen because of their bias. This is unAmerican.
Amen. This is why it's at a minimum misleading, and maybe outright dishonest, to say that the only problem is that of being "briefly detained."
And I can only imagine what you would have said to Anthony Burns.