I think the federal government treationg people differently based on their religion is illegal 100% of the time and no matter how much of a hard on you have for this president's policies violating the core values of this country isn't the way to go about enforcing them

your point is stupid, wrong, and patently unamerican. consider it refuted.
what about immigrants who hold anti american ideologies, practice them under the guise of religious freedom, and refuse to assimilate to the overarching american values (sharia law).

it would be unamerican for trump to deport illegal immigrants who hold american values but how can you say an illegal immigrant who is convicted and deported harbors american values? im in favor of naturalizing children brought to america who are 100% american (speak english, attend public school, love american culture, and would have no real ties to central or south america if they were deported). they are disposed to criminality not because they are from a specific race but because of the nature of their illegal status. these non citizens are being used like pawns as cheep labor, to traffic illegal substances, and as sexual commodities by the same sanctuary state politicians and people of influence that actively undermine federal immigration policy. Immigration is not a states right- its the job of the federal government to protect its borders and is completely justified to enact any immigration policy it feels necessary in order to protect the nation from people who are largely considered in the public eye to be anti american. think of the children at this point is just a partisan wedge issue used by the same people who profit off of illegal immigration, gang activity, cartel drug and human trafficking etc.


yeah god forbid the 4th and 5th amendments prevent us from punishing people who haven't been convicted of a crime. under current civil forfeiture law siezed assets aren't even required to be returned after the suspect is found not guilty, sounds constitutional to me, make america great again!
'If the property has been used in association with criminal activity, the property is subject to civil forfeiture proceedings... most[states], regardless of innocence or guilt, require the property owner to carry the burden of proving the property was not associated with criminal activity.' its time to consult your defense attorney! hypothetically if the cops seize the wad of cash you had because they had some sort of reasonable suspicion you of participating in a drug deal, you are now the defendant and if the cash was legally obtained you shouldn't have a problem in court proving your innocence. how do you expect criminal investigations to proceed if you obstruct law enforcement from obtaining evidence? if there is no wrong doing the 'blind justice' court system should rule in the defendants favor. the abuse of power isn't in the civil forfeiture law, the abuse is coming from cops without oversight who bend reasonable suspicion and judges whose rulings are unjust. How do you operate a criminal investigation if the law enforcement can't obtain evidence? if there is no wrong doing or abuse of power by civil servants than there should be no problem here.