I supported the original vision. It was basically unnecessary because it was a restatement of what the law is, to put it all in one place, so I could certainly support that. Then your language was completely diluted in committee to open up this huge, gaping hole to say that you don't need a criminal conviction before deporting someone. We have enumerated the problems with that. For one thing, it deprives victims of a crime the opportunity to be heard and perhaps to get their restitution and to get their proper justice in court. Also, it sets a terrible precedent. This is the Thomas Jefferson point. When we say we are going to have lesser standards relating to immigrants, that then carries over to citizens. We have seen already in this huge immigration roundup what that means in terms of the trampling of the rights of our people under the Bill of Rights.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about changes to immigration policy and its implications for justice and rights.
Share
More from Jamie Raskin
But success on the merits is not the goal. It is meant to harass Jack Smith. It is meant to please their Fox News viewership. It is meant to whitewash their own participation in a scheme to overthrow our elections.
At a minimum, it appears that members of the Trump Administration were ready and willing to imprison an innocent American for a decade in a desperate effort to soothe an ex-landlord’s wounded ego about a terrible paint job and wasteful…
With control of the House, we can call hearings, conduct depositions, use subpoenas to compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents, if necessary, and pass bills that root out corruption to make sure the government is…
It is only a matter of time before an impartial judge and jury recognize that this case has been built on a Kafkaesque arrest and Orwellian charges.





