Immigrants as Seccessionists

David Flores is making the argument that the USA has betrayed the principles of the nations founders by allowing the government wide leeway in its treatment of non-citizens. Said leeway including indefinite detention based on religion, race, national origin, and probably even a musical affinity for Tatu.

... [Judge Gleeson] continued,
the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress and the executive
branch, in exercising their broad power over naturalization and
immigration, can make rules that would be unacceptable if applied to
American citizens.In the judge's view, the government has the right to
detain people indefinitely as long as their eventual removal is
"reasonably foreseeable."

I suspect that the Judge is right on the interpretation of the law. Which just goes to show that the law is flawed. The whole ruling falls apart on the "reasonably forseeable" clause since its not exactly compatible with indefinite detention -- unless one "reasonably forsees" that the prisoner will eventually die.

Still appealing to the authority of the founders is a weak argument in my mind. These are the same people who came up with the 3/5 human human ideology. Better to lay the moral framework for opposing this philosophy separate from the supposed hallowed inspiration of the founding fathers.

Its worth keeping in mind that had the revolution failed, they would have been labelled acccurately as traitors and executed.