Comment by SmirkingRevenge

You don't really know the law and aren't seriously grappling with it or the many discretionary elements within it. Here's a good start for you though, from yesterday's NYT:

    As they have now seen, at least as far as Samuel Sey goes, deportation isn’t simply a matter of following the rule of law. It’s a policy choice rooted both in legal mandates and in acts of presidential discretion. And this president is using his discretion in a way that harms Americans and American national interests.

    American immigration law is a mess. The system is overly complicated and often internally contradictory. But one thing is clear — the rule of law does not require mass deportation. It does not mandate that a man like Sey has to leave the country.

    And it certainly doesn’t require his detention, away from his family, while the system adjudicates his case.

    First, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a 2023 case, United States v. Texas, the president has considerable “enforcement discretion over arrests and prosecutions” and that discretion “extends to the immigration context.” This means the president “retains discretion over whether to remove a noncitizen from the United States.”

    This isn’t a new principle. More than a decade earlier, in a 2012 case, Arizona v. United States, the court held, “Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all."

Read the whole thing (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/29/opinion/toxic-empathy-imm...