Posted on 06/09/2025 11:23:50 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
As the number of immigration raids has increased across Southern California over the last week, there are more questions than ever about how to handle an interaction with federal agents.
Agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement made arrests in the garment district, specifically at Ambiance Apparel, where immigration authorities detained employees inside the clothing wholesaler, and other locations on Friday. Protests followed into the weekend, prompting the deployment of National Guard troops in downtown Los Angeles by the Trump administration.
The raids are the latest in a string of high-profile immigration enforcement actions over the last week, part of President Trump’s deportation crackdown. A few days ago, immigration agents raided a popular San Diego restaurant and made arrests, sparking a standoff with outraged residents. Agents also arrested Chinese and Taiwanese nationals at an underground nightclub in the Los Angeles area.
Officials suggest that many more raids are coming.
“I’m telling you what, we’re going to keep enforcing law every day in L.A.,” Trump’s “border czar,” Tom Homan, told NBC News. “Every day in L.A., we’re going to enforce immigration law. I don’t care if they like it or not.”
Officials have not said how long the raids will last or described the larger operation. But in the deployment memo sending the National Guard to L.A., officials said “the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.”
Over the last few months, The Times has asked experts for guidance for employees and employers who find themselves in the...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Leftist activism being passed on as news by the LA Slimes. What a shock!
Illegal immigrants are INVADERS.
There are no constitutional provisions for invaders, only that the feds are ordered by the Constitution to prevent invasion (and obviously deport invaders within our country) (US Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4).
Here’s a thought: keep your grubby hands off immigration enforcement agents and don’t obstruct them in legally performing their constitutional duty, and you’ll be fine. Just fine.
Here are your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law ...
Sweet.
In terms of advice: illegal aliens in this country should leave this country immediately before ICE knocks on their door.
What about our rights as US citizens to have our laws enforced and to be free from foreign interference?
Trump talks about common sense but his administration hasn’t figured out this one yet.
You have the right to catch rubber bullets and breath tear gas.
REPORTER NEEDS TO BE ARRESTED, IMO.
AIDING ABETTING & HARBORING
It appears that southern California (and maybe the whole state) has become a sort of two-country state, of both the United States and Mexico.
At least in the minds of many Californians, including pretty much the entire government of California.
You have the right not to commit crimes. You chose not to exercise that right.
Once again. They do have rights. However when going before an immigration judge those rights are nowhere nearly as extensive as what rights a criminal in a regular criminal proceeding has. Think quicker resolutions.
One example with a difference would be that although illegal immigrants do have a right to an attorney they do not have the right to have the state provide (and pay) for one.
You’re going to have to prove your assertion constitutionally that illegal aliens which are the same thing as invaders have constitutional rights.
The Constitution says invaders should be KEPT OUT and I read that to mean any invader inside our country should KICKED OUT (Art. VI, Sec 4).
The Founders’ Understanding of “Invasion”By: Dave Benner|Published on: Mar 15, 2019
Categories: Constitution, Guarantee Clause, Immigration, Militia
Even by the middle of the 18th century, the English language lacked a widely-used set of standard definitions to English words.
While English dictionaries existed, those that did were widely considered deficient for a variety of reasons. Famous Scottish philosopher and historian, David Hume, complained that the English-speaking world possessed “no Dictionary of our Language, and scarce a tolerable Grammar.”
After a decade of intense work, famed English writer Samuel Johnson provided a remedy to these qualms through the publication of a two-volume dictionary. First released in 1755, his work had a profound effect on English literature and western civilization in general.
For almost two decades after its publication, Johnson’s Dictionary was still considered the seminal dictionary for the English-speaking world. This timeframe included that in which the American founders drafted and ratified legal documents, including the United States Constitution. As the contemporary gift to the historical scholar, Johnson’s work can be used to reach a deeper understanding of common terminology in its time of use.
With this background in mind, a firestorm of controversy has recently erupted over what is meant by the word “invasion” that appears in both Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. Respectively called the Militia Clause and the Guarantee Clause, these powers were meant to assure that the general government would protect the states from invasions.
However, the two clauses have recently been cited by those who support sending military forces to the southern border to restrict illegal immigration, with some going as far as to suggest that the president has a unilateral power to do so. It seems reasonable, then, to take a glance back and analyze what the American founders had in mind when they constructed the protection from invasion authority.
According to Johnson’s 1785 English dictionary, which was widely available as the Constitution was drafted, the term “invasion” is defined as follows:
[page image]
The first definition – “hostile entrance upon the rights or possessions of another; hostile encroachment,” provides several specific examples for clarification. The first cites 1 Samuel 30 from the Bible. This chapter describes David’s conquest of the Amalekites. In this pursuit, David captured an escaped slave, who told him that his master had recently waged war upon a group of elite mercenaries known as the Cherethites. According to the Bible, the Cherethites were part of Israel’s army.
In the second case, exposition is given through an allusion to an invasion of the Ausonian shore, a reference to the southern and central regions of Italy. In this situation, the term is characterized by “arm’d invasion,” leading Ausonian nations to “embrace the war.”
The third case also references a specific military invasion that took place in 1066, where William the Conqueror raised an army with the intent of invading the English isles and overthrowing the Anglo-Saxon dynasty.
All three examples point to cases in which military forces were equipped with weaponry, fought behalf of a foreign power, and intended to commit physical violence against individuals in another country. Conversely, in no instance did the term refer to the migration of an individual, or even large groups, from one territory to another, where said individual(s) lacked intent to inflict military harm.
As to the second definition, “attack of a discase,” suggests a definition unconnected to military subjugation. However, with “discase” meaning to strip or undress, even this case relates to a deliberate attempt to cause physical harm to another person. Therefore, even with the argument that the word “invasion” has a broader application on this basis, it would still require one to hold that such invasion would include a physical attack rather than mere relocation.
Supporting this view is the definition of the term “invader” from the same dictionary:
[page image]
As we can see, each of the examples cited in the first definition point to military actions, including an invasion of Scotland by Spanish invaders and a reference to invaders partaking in battle in Paradise Lost.
In addition, another example implies that the natives of Attica, a location in Greece, were never expelled because they had not faced the “fury of invaders.” Again, all examples suggest that military coercion was a key component of an invasion. Definition two – “an assailant” – pertains only to an individual that physically attacks another.
Outside of Samuel Johnson’s work, other dictionaries confirm this understanding. Nathan Bailey’s famous dictionary, which Johnson used as a primary source of information for his own, also bolsters this conception of the term.
According to the 1763 printing of the work, to invade was to “attack or set upon.” To “set upon” meant to make a sudden and unexpected physical attack, which is similar to how the phrase is widely used today. Similarly, another dictionary, printed in 1753 by John Bevis, records that to invade was to “enter by force” or to “seize and lay hold of.”
Regardless of one’s personal disposition on immigration and military policy, the founders’ understanding of “invasion” did not pertain to mere travel or migration from one country to another.
On the contrary, the most prominent English dictionary available, the most widely adopted legal dictionary in the American states, and other popular dictionaries of the era all held the term to mean the projection of a physical attack.
Consequently, the ability militarize United States borders to stop mass migration is not expressly granted through the originally ratified version of the Constitution.
Correct application of the Constitution is as written and originally understood and intended.
I’d like proof that the original understanding and intent of “invasion” in Art. IV, Sec. 4 isn’t people illegally entering into our country.
Otherwise, you don’t have a country with meaningful and enforceable borders.
AFAIC, these illegal immigrants are invaders.
I don’t have to prove a dang thing. There are numerous court cases proving just that. You could perhaps do a little damn research.
Be sure to distinguish between the rights of those going in front of immigration judge and those going before a usual criminal court.
For now until proven otherwise, illegal immigrants are invaders!
Are you at all familiar with the 14th and 5th Amendments? Oh there have been USCC cases on the rights of non U.S. citizens whether they have legal status or not.
People entering illegally are not considered invaders by any definition of how that word was understood when the Constitution was penned.
They need to be quickly deported following a brief hearing in front of a immigration judge.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-6-2-3/ALDE_00013726/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.