Why do Democrats defend violent, criminal illegal immigrants?
Wisteguens Jean Quely Charles is a member of a violent Haitian street gang with 17 convictions to his name, including multiple drug, weapons, and assault and battery crimes. Ariel Rene Romice-Patino is a Mexican national who was hit with a 62-month prison sentence for sexual exploitation of a child. Cristofer Alexander Ramirez-Oliva is a Honduran convicted for third-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.
These three dangerous individuals were in the country illegally and finally apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of President Trump’s targeted raids on violent illegal immigrants. Yet, Democrats are decrying the raids, acting like these criminals are the victims. Why?
Somehow, in the warped world of progressive politics, removing predators from our communities is deemed "controversial." Arresting child rapists, gang members, and drug traffickers has become a rallying cry for Democrats who insist these deportations violate "human rights." You’d think protecting law-abiding families—immigrants and citizens alike—would be common sense. But not when the Democrats get involved.
These raids aren’t targeting hardworking immigrants or struggling parents doing honest labor to build better lives. ICE focused on violent criminals, arresting hundreds across cities like Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago. These are places desperately in need of federal help to keep communities safe. Yet the Democrats running these cities — our so-called leaders — are putting up roadblocks.
Take Chicago, for instance. Mayor Brandon Johnson has doubled down on the city’s sanctuary policies, actively shielding criminal illegal immigrants from deportation. When ICE arrests gang members and sex offenders, Johnson acts as though the federal agents were the bad guys. Seriously? Does he think a child predator deserves a second chance over the safety of actual children? Or is this just pandering to his activist base, who apparently equate "open borders" with "no consequences" for violent crimes?
Meanwhile, Left-wing media outlets from Politico to the Los Angeles Times eagerly spread fearmongering headlines about ICE "raiding schools" and "traumatizing communities." Local news stories warn of kids too scared to go to school because their families think federal agents will show up at recess. This, of course, is nonsense. ICE explicitly targets criminals, not innocent families dropping kids off at kindergarten.
So why do Democrats pedal these lies? The answer is twofold.
First, by framing all illegal immigrants as innocent victims, Democrats can play the savior. They claim they’re "protecting" these communities from Trump’s "racist" policies, positioning themselves as champions of the oppressed. Never mind that their fearmongering terrifies the very families they pretend to protect. Imagine being an otherwise law-abiding immigrant who hears the lies that ICE is targeting "everyone," all while knowing your neighborhood harbors a gang member ICE could remove. Democrats don’t care about that reality. They care about optics.
Second, the Radical Left genuinely believes that criminals are victims of systemic oppression. As I explain in my book, "What’s Killing America: Inside the Radical Left’s Tragic Destruction of Our Cities," they refuse to differentiate between hardworking immigrants trying to live the American dream and violent offenders exploiting our broken immigration system. To them, illegal immigrants are a monolithic, protected class. The Left’s ideological blindness leads them to defend even the most despicable criminals because acknowledging their guilt would mean admitting their policies are flawed.
What’s infuriating is that Democrats don’t even care about the communities they claim to defend. If they did, they’d support getting violent predators out of immigrant neighborhoods. Instead, their policies put everyone — citizens and immigrants — at greater risk. They’d rather block Trump’s efforts than acknowledge that his administration is doing something right.
The truth is, Democrats are more interested in scoring political points than keeping you safe. They’ve abandoned common sense for virtue-signaling, and they’re playing politics with your safety. They’ve decided that pandering to their activist base is more important than protecting law-abiding citizens. And the rest of us — immigrant and native-born alike — pay the price.
This isn’t about being anti-immigrant; it’s about being anti-criminal. No one’s calling for deporting a single mom cleaning homes or picking fruits and vegetables to support her family (the two jobs Democrats always relegate illegal immigrants to). But defending child rapists? That’s indefensible. And if Democrats can’t — or won’t — draw that line, then they’re not fit to lead. Come to think of it, that’s a big reason why Trump won so decisively last November."The truth is, Democrats are more interested in scoring political points than keeping you safe."
That's rich considering what trump and musk just did to the FAA...
But Democrats aren't the monolith your post paints them. The vast majority of people do not support illegal immigration. The so called "sanctuary" cities all have very different laws under those statutes. If folks living in those cities, with those laws, are unhappy they simply vote out the leaders that brought them next time around. That's the way democracy works. It certainly isn't a concern of mine.
You know what I wonder though? Why are illegal immigrants in red states being protected? Where are the sweeping raids through slaughterhouses, meat packing and processing plants? dairy farms? cattle farms, poultry farms? Literally isn't happening... Where are the massive raids in Texas? Why do these raids seem to be happening predominantly in blue areas?
What do people generally call this? Oh yeah, weaponization...
Why do Republicans defend violent, criminal sexual assaulters, fibbers, and masters who are or are married to immigrants, some illegal like Elon Musk according to his own brother? Why won't Republicans educate themselves instead of being so mean and hateful to anyone who isn't white? How does it feel to learn that most DEI recipients are white women and white male CEOs? Look it up. Y'all Republicans really need to sit down, have a long conversation with yourselves in a mirror and figure out why you were so easily brainwashed by a felon
Mike.
I completely agree. It’s baffling that Democrats and the Left refuse to acknowledge the very real consequences of allowing unvetted, often dangerous criminals to remain in the country. Instead of protecting law-abiding citizens—immigrants and native-born Americans alike—they twist the narrative to paint ICE as the enemy while shielding individuals with long histories of violent crime.
This isn’t about being anti-immigrant; it’s about ensuring that the people coming into our country aren’t dangerous criminals who will prey on our communities. The fact that sanctuary city leaders like Brandon Johnson actively work against ICE’s efforts to remove gang members and sex offenders is proof that their priorities are completely backwards. They seem more interested in appeasing radical activists than actually keeping people safe.
The Left's refusal to distinguish between hardworking immigrants and violent offenders is a dangerous ideology. In their minds, every illegal immigrant is a victim of oppression, no matter their crimes. But letting child predators, drug traffickers, and gang members stay in the country doesn’t make us more compassionate—it makes us less safe. Their policies don’t just fail American citizens; they fail the very immigrant communities they claim to protect.
Trump’s administration understood that securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws isn’t about race or politics—it’s about protecting innocent people. If Democrats cared about public safety, they would support these efforts instead of playing political games that put all of us at risk. Thanks for posting this thread. it is an important issue that needs dissecting."The Left's refusal to distinguish between hardworking immigrants and violent offenders is a dangerous ideology."
This is no one's ideology.
Trump invoked the alien enemies act rather than using our immigration laws to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members gang members. Deportation under the act has been temporarily halted by the courts due to it's potential unconstitutionality.
Some interesting facts coming out about those who were rounded up though...
"Sworn declarations filed last night confirm the Trump admin sent INNOCENT people to rot in prison El Salvador, including a professional soccer player tortured by the Maduro regime who entered this country LEGALLY to seek asylum and has NO CRIMINAL RECORD in either country."
https://x.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/19 … 4556424488
The complete list of the court documents...lol... What do you disagree with that is contained in the court filings?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 … g-v-trump/
The Trump administration ADMITTED last night that many of the people sent to do hard labor in a Salvadoran prison are people with NO CRIMINAL RECORD.
Stunningly, they argue that because they DON'T know much about these people, that justifies denying them due process!
Many who are being deported did commit crimes in the US, and as I have posted several times, most who are being deported were vetted and had serious crimes on record from their country of origin. You know the ones Biden caught and released after ascertaining they have serious criminal records.
I think the courts will sort this out, and Trump will become the victor.
A few facts----Trump has implemented several measures to legally facilitate the deportation of migrants with criminal records. One of the key initiatives is Operation Safeguard, launched in January 2025, which targets undocumented migrants, particularly those with violent criminal histories, for detention and removal from major urban areas. Additionally, the Laken Riley Act, signed into law on January 29, 2025, mandates the detention of undocumented immigrants charged with or convicted of crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury, such as drunk driving.
Trump has also invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a statute dating back to 1798, to classify certain migrant groups as "alien enemies," allowing for expedited detention and deportation. For example, in March 2025, Venezuelan nationals alleged to be gang members were removed under this authority. Further strengthening enforcement, he has issued executive orders granting broader authority to immigration agencies, enabling them to arrest and deport deportable migrants even if they lack criminal records, thereby expanding the scope of removals.
Additionally, a new registration requirement announced on February 25, 2025, compels certain undocumented immigrants to register with the Department of Homeland Security, facilitating the identification and deportation of those with criminal backgrounds. These measures, taken together, have reinforced the legal framework for deportations under Trump’s administration, ensuring that individuals with criminal histories are swiftly removed from the country.
In my view, the courts will respect his actions to remove criminals with criminal records that followed them or those migrants who broke out laws while here.
As a rule, the U.S. has a yearly quota for accepting asylum seekers. It seems that some are more focused on keeping criminals in America rather than prioritizing law-abiding migrants. I think Joe Biden has already brought in enough migrants that we can afford to be selective and ensure that only those who respect our laws fill our yearly quotas. Oh, but I almost forgot—we're about 10 years behind in court hearings, making the system even more chaotic.
During President Biden's term from January 2021 to January 2025, approximately 2.5 million migrants were released into the United States with notices to appear in immigration court or report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a later date.
Additionally, over 1 million individuals were admitted under humanitarian parole programs, which granted temporary legal entry and work authorization to migrants from countries like Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Furthermore, as of January 2025, nearly 919,000 migrants had been allowed into the U.S. through the CBP One app process, established in January 2023, allowing migrants to schedule appointments to request asylum at ports of entry.
CBS NEWS
In total, these figures indicate that over 4.4 million migrants were permitted to enter the U.S. during Biden's presidency while awaiting immigration proceedings.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Additionally, in December 2024, 17% of irregular border encounters resulted in migrants being released into the United States after being processed with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, a significant decrease from the 65% release rate in October 2023.
We have over 2 million on the books waiting to have hearings, which now have about a 10-year waiting period... Do you think Joe provided us with enough asylum seekers? By the way courts have been even under Joe denying a majority of seekers.In Fiscal Year 2024, the approval rate for asylum applications in the United States declined significantly. In October 2024, judges granted asylum in just 35.8% .
MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE
These statistics reflect the evolving dynamics of immigration enforcement and migrant processing during that period."Many who are being deported did commit crimes in the US, and as I have posted several times, most who are being deported were vetted and had serious crimes on record from their country of origin."
The filings with the court show that the lawyers for the administration, as I have shown with a screenshot, do not back up this claim whatsoever. We also have at least one filing that I've seen so far from an individual who had no criminal record from this country or the country of origin and on top of it was an asylum seeker...
"In my view, the courts will respect his actions to remove criminals with criminal records that followed them or those migrants who broke out laws while here."
I would disagree. I don't see any way in which they will validate his use of the Alien Enemies Act. He has acted in an unconstitutional manner.
I'm getting the distinct feeling that right wing media isn't reporting on the Act whatsoever
ICE identifies gang members based on several criteria. These include admitting membership in a gang, convictions for violating federal or state laws related to gang activity, or meeting specific criteria such as having tattoos that identify a particular gang. ICE policy requires officers to note at least two gang membership identification criteria. Tattoos can be used as one of these criteria to classify individuals as gang members.
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-l … nationwide
https://www.ice.gov/features/raging-bullGovernment misses deadline to provide answers in Alien Enemies Act deportations case...
Judge James Boasberg had ordered the government to provide, by noon today, "the information discussed in the Minute Order of March 18, 2025, or to invoke the state-secrets doctrine and explain the basis for such invocation.”
As of 1 p.m. ET, the government had not posted to the docket the information requested in five questions, nor had they posted to the docket invoking the state-secrets doctrine.
I want consequences for these fools.'A federal judge chastised a Justice Department attorney Friday, expressing doubt about the legality of the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.
The government’s not being terribly cooperative at this point, but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order, who ordered this and what the consequences will be,” Boasberg said Friday.
Entering the 75-minute hearing Friday, Boasberg appeared frustrated, telling Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign at the onset that the recent filings included “intemperate, disrespectful language” he couldn’t recall ever seeing before from the federal government.
The judge noted that the Trump administration's arguments about the extent of the president's powers are "awfully frightening" and a "long way from" the intent of the law.
With DOJ attorney Ensign appearing to undermine arguments made earlier this week about the timing of the order and continuing to struggle to answer Judge Boasberg's questions, the judge suggested that the DOJ might be risking its reputation and credibility with its recent conduct."
"I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world to practice law, the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility," Boasberg said. "I just ask you make sure your team [understands] that lesson."
LOL Trump only surrounds himself with people who are willing to debase themselves...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-returning … =120024244I have my cash on the SC on this issue. I think they will be forced to take it up, and most likely soon.
Rogue district federal judges need to realize their authority does not expand to a national level. That is the job of the Supreme Court.
Why are judges rogue only when they disagree with trump? And when the Supreme Court knocks this out of the park, will they be rogue also? Will you agree with their ruling?
Its part of the Internationalist/Globalist/Corporatist efforts in conjunction with foreign enemies like China (who own more than one politician in DC) and disreputables like Soros who are working to use lower courts (and AGs) to impede and impair our government... especially the EO.
When they have a chump in the White House that is catering to their whims, like Biden and his misfits did, they allow them to function seemingly with the full force of their position.
When someone like Trump gets in there, who in any way tries to put the people of America first, or tries to expose and eliminate the corruption that is woven throughout the entire federal (and many State) government... then every effort is made to thwart those efforts, no matter how nonsensical and irrational it is to do so on any given topic.
The idea that ANY government or ANY nation can exist with some peon lower judge interceding or deterring the efforts of their President, especially here in the United States, even 20 years ago would have been unthinkable.
Just another sign that America is in chaos... and that the insane, the evil, the criminal have coalesced too much power and control within the nation, should Trump's Administration fail to flush it out and eliminate it (at least the majority of it)... the alternative for America will likely be war on a level where, when it is over, the nation is severely diminished and our freedoms forever dimmed.No, Ken. It's actually judges just doing their job and interpreting the law. Trump is just a whiny man-child who likes to play the victim.
That's just it... it is NOT their job... NOR their jurisdiction.
The fact that the President can be waylaid by a lower Judge... anyone other than Congress or the Supreme Court... is not how the system was meant to operate... it is corruption, it is a failing system, it is politics in our courts.
It will work itself out and such efforts will become ignored and irrelevant, or the government, our society, our civilization will quickly collapse far quicker than anyone can imagine.
Time will tell... will the Republic be saved and our kids be handed a still functioning free and relatively prosperous nation with upward mobility, or will we fall and be surpassed by our competitors, China, Russia, India as they lead a new coalition of nations out of the shadow of America and the West... whose nations are committing suicide.Ken, can you cite for us what the Constitution says about the role of the judicial branch?
Ken, according to the Constitution that is how it does operate regardless of how you believe that it should operate. As Chief Justice Roberts chastises Trump, he has the right to use the appellate court system to challenge a ruling from a lower court, I suggest that he uses it and stop whining.
I think maga is awfully close to saying to heck with the Constitution...let dear leader do what he wants. They've done quite a flip flop haven't they? I can vividly remember their posts filled with professed love of the Constitution and cries of Biden infringing upon it. And now? Not even the concept of freedom of speech is valued anymore by these people. There is no line which they will not cross for Trump.
I am no legal expert... I do not know the legal viability of the President using the Alien Enemies Act... or any other current contested decision by Trump.
Not going to pretend to be... but I recognize the political effort to undermine the Administration by using lower courts and State AGs.
It will be effective and then adopted and used by the opposition to continually challenge the EO going forward... or a correction will be made, so that no State AG or lower court Judge will ever be able to intercede like that in the future.
Mike--- Judge James "Jeb" Boasberg has cultivated a reputation among colleagues as a principled jurist with bipartisan respect. He was appointed to the federal bench in 2011 by President Barack Obama and previously to the D.C. Superior Court in 2002 by President George W. Bush. Throughout his tenure, Boasberg has presided over numerous high-profile cases, including those related to the Trump-Russia investigation and the sentencing of Capitol rioters. His rulings have attracted criticism from various political sides.
A few facts---Boasberg's tenure has involved oversight of several high-profile and politically sensitive cases. Notably, he presided over matters related to the Trump-Russia investigation and cases involving participants in the January 6 Capitol riot. In these proceedings.
Newsweek --- reports that Judge James Boasberg's wife, Elizabeth Manson, has donated more than $10,000 to Democratic candidates and causes. However, there is no public record of Judge Boasberg himself making political donations.
Just my view----Federal judges should not be scrutinizing a president’s agenda because it disrupts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Their role is to interpret laws, not interfere with executive policymaking, and doing so risks judicial overreach by engaging in policymaking rather than legal interpretation. This kind of judicial activism undermines democratic governance, as a president is elected by the people to implement policies, while judges are appointed for life and should not override the will of voters based on ideological preferences.
Courts should focus on determining whether executive actions comply with the Constitution and existing laws, rather than inserting political opinions into legal decisions. Excessive judicial scrutiny also causes delays in policy implementation, preventing a president from acting swiftly on critical issues such as national security, economic reforms, or immigration. Furthermore, it weakens executive authority, as the Constitution grants the president broad discretion in areas like foreign policy and administrative rulemaking, which should not be constantly challenged by the judiciary.
When courts scrutinize a president’s agenda too closely, it encourages political opponents to engage in forum shopping—seeking out courts that will rule in their favor—leading to politically motivated legal battles. Additionally, judges lack the specialized knowledge required to evaluate complex policy decisions beyond constitutional and statutory considerations. While judicial review is essential for ensuring lawful governance, federal judges should not be acting as political arbiters. The appropriate checks on a president’s policies should come from the ballot box and congressional oversight, not from judicial activism that undermines the executive branch’s ability to function independently.
A judge’s ideologies do not belong in rulings against anyone, especially our president. I hope to see the Supreme Court harness the powers of these judges when it comes to the president making decisions that fit the agenda he was sent to Washington to do.
A few facts---Boasberg's tenure has involved oversight of several high-profile and politically sensitive cases. Notably, he presided over matters related to the Trump-Russia investigation and cases involving participants in the January 6 Capitol riot. In these proceedings.
Newsweek --- reports that Judge James Boasberg's wife, Elizabeth Manson, has donated more than $10,000 to Democratic candidates and causes. However, there is no public record of Judge Boasberg himself making political donations.
Once again my view---Given these variables, it is possible that Judge Boasberg could be biased and, therefore, should have recused himself. It would seem he could be an individual that could be afflicted with TDS. It is a condition that seems to prove to be incurable in many cases."Federal judges should not be scrutinizing a president’s agenda because it disrupts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Their role is to interpret laws, not interfere with executive policymaking,"
What is the constitutionally prescribed role of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government?
"while judges are appointed for life and should not override the will of voters based on ideological preferences."
They aren't though? They are applying the law to their cases. Maga made this cases over and over when Roe was struck down.
The political donations and actions of a judge's wife? Do you really want to go there? Two words....Ginny ThomasA judge’s role is to apply the law, not to act as a political roadblock against a duly elected president’s agenda. While the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, its function is to interpret laws—not to obstruct policies simply because they disagree with them politically. The issue arises when judges, or groups of judges, band together to systematically block a president from carrying out the very promises that won him the election. At that point, it ceases to be judicial oversight and instead becomes an abuse of power aimed at subverting the will of the voters.
As for the comparison to Roe v. Wade, that ruling was overturned because the Supreme Court determined that abortion policy should be left to the states, in accordance with constitutional principles—not because the justices conspired to enforce a specific political ideology. There’s a key distinction between applying the law as written and actively working to undermine an administration based on political bias."There’s a key distinction between applying the law as written and actively working to undermine an administration based on political bias.
Actively undermining and administration would be your opinion. How has the judge erroneously applied the law when coming to his conclusions?
My view is that Federal judges have the authority to rule against Trump if his actions are contrary to the Constitution and established law. Everyone is subject to the rule of law, including Donald Trump and his administration. That important check and balance by Federal judiciary needs to be maintained to prevent the abuse of power and authority, I would not have it any other way.
President Trump's immigration policy has emphasized the deportation of migrants with known criminal records, aligning with his administration's commitment to safeguarding public safety. This approach was formalized through Executive Order 14159, titled "Protecting the American People Against Invasion," signed on January 20, 2025.
The White House Source link to the signed document https://www.federalregister.gov/documen … hatgpt.com
This executive order underscores the administration's dedication to enforcing immigration laws, particularly targeting individuals deemed threats to national security or public safety. The policy reflects the administration's stance that strict enforcement of immigration laws is essential to protect American citizens.
However, the implementation of this policy has faced legal challenges. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportation of certain migrants, citing concerns over the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and the potential violation of due process rights.
I agree, that while the judiciary has a crucial role in interpreting laws and ensuring executive actions adhere to constitutional principles, I argue that such judicial interventions can impede the executive branch's ability to fulfill its mandate, especially when policies are enacted to protect public safety by removing individuals with criminal backgrounds. This tension highlights the ongoing debate over the balance of powers among the branches of government and the extent to which courts should influence immigration enforcement policies.
While judicial oversight is vital to prevent potential abuses of power, it's also essential to consider the executive branch's responsibility to enforce laws designed to protect citizens, including the deportation of migrants with criminal records. Striking a balance between these interests remains a complex and contentious issue within the framework of U.S. governance.
The constitutionality of Judge James Boasberg's ruling is a matter of significant debate. His decision to block the Trump administration's deportation policy aimed at removing migrants with criminal records was based on his interpretation of existing laws and protections for migrants. Specifically, Boasberg argued that the administration’s actions violated established legal procedures and protections under U.S. immigration law, such as due process rights for individuals facing deportation.
From a constitutional perspective, the executive branch has broad authority over immigration enforcement, including deportation, under the president’s duty to protect national security and enforce laws. However, this authority is not unlimited and is subject to judicial review, particularly when constitutional rights, such as due process, may be implicated. Courts often step in when there are concerns that an executive action violates the Constitution or established laws, and in this case, Boasberg ruled that the deportation policy violated certain procedural rights.
The issue here is whether the court overstepped its bounds by intervening in an area where the executive branch has considerable discretion, especially when the policy targets individuals with known criminal records—something that could be argued as a matter of national security and public safety. Some would argue that the judiciary, in this case, might have overreached by blocking a policy that aligned with the president’s constitutional responsibility to protect citizens, especially since the deportations targeted individuals with criminal backgrounds who posed a threat to public safety.
In my view, this case could very well warrant review by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it raises important questions about the scope of executive power, judicial oversight, and the interpretation of the Constitution in relation to immigration enforcement. The central issue is whether the judicial branch should have the authority to block the president’s immigration policies, particularly those aimed at deporting migrants with criminal records, which is part of the president’s constitutional responsibility to protect citizens and enforce laws.
I think migrants that are no threat should certainly get due process. I agree with Trump those that who were vetted and were known to have criminal records or gang-related records should be deported. We have over 2 million migrants waiting for hearings, most wait for 5-10 years for hearings. I think it a wise move to deport those with criminal records or gang-related records."I argue that such judicial interventions can impede the executive branch's ability to fulfill its mandate
Does it matter if the mandate is illegal?? Maga always seems to push the idea that there is only one way to get things done. The thinking of the conservative seems to be very black and white. Maga seems to believe that citizens can't be kept safe within the bounds of the constitution. We have immigration law. If it is not adequate, it is the job of the legislative branch to remedy that rather than the president illegally invoking the AEA. Unfortunately, trump has put them out of business. Completely usurped their co-equal power... Well they've actually given it to him. Don't blame the judiciary for doing its job, blame the Congress for not doing theirs.This is current beyond what I shared ---Looking ahead, Judge Boasberg has scheduled a follow-up hearing to determine whether the Trump administration defied his order by allowing the deportation flights to proceed. The outcome of this investigation will influence whether he extends the temporary restraining order blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
Trump says he didn't even sign the executive order... Was he lying? Or does he not remember? Dementia?
"Trump says he didn't even sign the executive order... Was he lying? Or does he not remember? Dementia?" Willow
The link is present that shows the document I referred to, as well as Trump's signature present on the document. You have a real problem with context.It doesn't change the fact that he said he didn't sign it... Is he lying about it? Does he not remember? Did someone else sign it? Is he having mental acuity issues?
At any rate, welcome to the front of under the bus Little Marco!
https://x.com/MikeSington/status/1903419922946183381After President Trump stated that he "didn't sign" the proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, the White House clarified that he was referring to the original law from 1798, not the recent proclamation. They emphasized that Trump personally signed the executive order to address the threat posed by the Tren de Aragua gang.
I appreciate that he consistently takes the time to engage with the press and speak at length. His leadership is active and transparent—holding meetings, speaking with world leaders, and addressing the media regularly. There’s no comparison to be made here. His mental sharpness and capability as president are evident, and I believe he is doing an excellent job. Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on finding a representative who truly aligns with your views, rather than questioning someone who is clearly delivering on his promises.After President Trump stated that he "didn't sign" the proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, the White House clarified that he was referring to the original law from 1798, not the recent proclamation.
You've got to be kidding me. Who would believe such a ridiculous statement? One only needs to watch the video of his statement... Does the White House really think Americans are that stupid? Have you watched the video? I don't care what the White House says on cleanup, Trump says he didn't sign it...
You really believe he was saying ‘I’m not John Adams, the guy who signed it back in 1798?’ … The obvious thing he was saying here is, “I did not sign this proclamation that was used last week to deport these aliens,” he then goes on to throw a little Marco under the bus..
Musk Donates to G.O.P. Members of Congress Who Support Impeaching Judges
"Amid a controversy over whether President Trump will abide by court rulings, Elon Musk gave the maximum to the campaigns of Republicans who back ousting judges who impede the administration."
But this is okay?
https://truthout.org/articles/elon-musk … ch-judges/This is an example of pure democracy in action. In a free society, individuals—including influential figures like Elon Musk—have the right to support political candidates who align with their beliefs and values. Musk’s donations reflect his stance on judicial accountability and his belief that some judges may be overstepping their authority in ways that obstruct the administration’s policies.
Political contributions are a fundamental part of the democratic process, allowing individuals to back leaders who will represent their interests. Musk, like any American citizen, is exercising his right to participate in shaping the political landscape. His support for members of Congress who advocate for the impeachment of certain judges is not about undermining democracy but rather about holding officials accountable in a system designed to have checks and balances.
At its core, democracy is about debate, challenge, and the ability to push for change through lawful means. Musk is using the tools available to him—his influence and financial resources—to support what he sees as a just cause, just as others contribute to candidates who oppose his views. This is how democracy functions: through open political engagement and the right to challenge government actions within the framework of the Constitution.
Thank God we have a man who is willing to be heard, and when Musk speaks his voice is amplified. He is a true patriot.
Bias in the courts can no longer be tolerated when it is used to obstruct a duly elected president from fulfilling the promises made to We the People.One thing I noted, whether a South African like Musk or an escapee from North Korea like Yeonmi Park, it seems many foreigners have become very vocal about what they see happening in America...
Sometimes, those that have not always enjoyed the freedoms we have here in America are the ones who realize better than most what is at risk... and where bad ideology can lead.But you made an issue out of the wife of judge Boasberg allegedly contributing to Democrats? Musk is directly involved in our government though Doge. Our legal systems protect Democracy by ensuring fair process is followed … the legal systems stand between Democracy and Dictatorship. Donations to political candidates who support impeaching judges are an attempt to influence the judiciary, potentially compromising its impartiality There are lots of donations that go on..but the danger of this is the proximity to the President and its direct purpose of doing his bidding.
Gosh you folks flip flop SO much. But Please, tell me more about George Soros...Fact ---- Elon Musk is not a federal employee in the traditional sense. In January 2025, President Donald Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) through an executive order, tasking Musk with leading efforts to modernize federal technology and reduce government spending. While Musk has played a significant role in this initiative, his official capacity has been a subject of discussion. Some reports refer to him as a "special government employee," a designation that allows private individuals to work with the government on specific projects without becoming full-time federal employees. However, the White House has stated that Musk is not an official DOGE employee and does not have formal authority to make government decisions.
Musk is an American citizen with no official ties to the Government. Need I say more... Boasbergs wife is by marriage tired to a Federal Judge --- You know just like Thomas's wife was lambasted by Democrats for her political views Can you spell hypocrite Your anolgy is nonsensical.Nonsensical? Elon Musk is involved in cabinet meetings, just met with the DOD the other day... Hangs out with trump daily. His donations coupled to his close proximity to all of government is extremely troublesome. Has the judge's wife done any of that? I'm sure maga would have been just over the moon if George Soros would have basically moved into the White House and started dishing out money as a "special government employee". Yeah, would have gone over like a lead balloon. Indeed, very nonsensical
This seems to disturb you... I feel DOGE is doing a very good job. We will end up with a shiny and new Government-- all the corners cleaned, no cobwebs. Just Pinesol fresh. Hey, I sent Trump to Washington twice, this time with a fabulous cleanup crew.
So Judge Boasberg was just fine ideologically when he ruled previously in Trump's favor?. Plenty of Boasberg’s past rulings have actually aligned with Trump's political interests. but now he is biased? His decision in the alien enemies act case is based on ideology and not law?
One example...
"while presiding over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Boasberg encouraged the declassification of information related to the Trump-Russia probe, actions celebrated by Trump and top Republicans... "Go figure??
Also...
"Boasberg's actions included releasing FISA court materials that exposed problems within the FBI's probe into connections between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia's election meddling. He also facilitated the release of some of Hillary Clinton's emails from her private server to conservative groups."
A real liberal sympathizer huh?
You can't have it both ways. This is such a clear cut example of trump whining and making baseless accusations when he doesn't get his way. The judge was great when he ruled with trump but now he faces the wrath and retribution because he dares to apply the law and it doesn't fall in dear leaders favor. Absolutely unacceptable.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-deport … 617c87cdb5
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/22/politics … %20server.Appeals court upholds temporary block on Alien Enemies Act deportations..
"The theme that rings true is that an invasion is a military affair, not one of migration,” U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, pushed back in her solo opinion.
Wondering why he can't just act within the laws we have? He has done absolutely everything by executive order, pretending he's a king and that Congress doesn't exist.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba … emies-act/"A White House spokesperson said the White House intends to appeal the circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court"
"A federal appeals court rejected an effort by the Justice Department to lift an order temporarily blocking President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua gang members.
In a 2-1 decision, a Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the plaintiffs who are suing to block their deportation and any alleged Tren de Aragua gang members whom the administration seeks to deport under the Alien Enemies Act.
On Monday, the panel heard arguments from the Justice Department and the ACLU over the lower court's order temporarily stopping the government from deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU argued for the plaintiffs, five Venezuelan men seeking to block their deportation,
D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order that pauses the deportations under the act but still allows the Trump administration to detain alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg's order also does not prevent the government from deporting these alleged gang members or others under other existing immigration laws.
Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Patricia Millett both ruled in favor of upholding Boasberg's temporary relief. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, issued a dissenting opinion in favor of the Justice Department.
Politics
Appeals court upholds order stopping deportations under Alien Enemies Act
By Jacob Rosen
March 26, 2025 / 6:15 PM EDT / CBS News
A federal appeals court rejected an effort by the Justice Department to lift an order temporarily blocking President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua gang members.
In a 2-1 decision, a Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with the plaintiffs who are suing to block their deportation and any alleged Tren de Aragua gang members whom the administration seeks to deport under the Alien Enemies Act.
On Monday, the panel heard arguments from the Justice Department and the ACLU over the lower court's order temporarily stopping the government from deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU argued for the plaintiffs, five Venezuelan men seeking to block their deportation,
D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order that pauses the deportations under the act but still allows the Trump administration to detain alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg's order also does not prevent the government from deporting these alleged gang members or others under other existing immigration laws.
Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Patricia Millett both ruled in favor of upholding Boasberg's temporary relief. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, issued a dissenting opinion in favor of the Justice Department.
Judge Henderson, a Reagan-appointed judge, wrote in her opinion that despite the government's arguments that Boasberg's temporary restraining order limited President Trump's Article II power in dealing with counterterrorism and foreign relations, other avenues remain available to remove alleged Venezuelan gang members.
"[T]he President may arrest and detain purported enemy aliens under the Proclamation without violating that order," she wrote, adding Trump "can tap his substantial authorities under the [Immigration and Nationality Act" to do so.
Judge Millett, who was appointed to the circuit by President Obama, wrote that "in the government's view, based on its allegation alone, Plaintiffs can be removed immediately with no notice, no hearing, no opportunity—zero process—to show that they are not members of the gang, to contest their eligibility for removal under the law, or to invoke legal protections against being sent to a place where it appears likely they will be tortured and their lives endangered."
She also indicated that the government's appeal was filed too early in the adjudication of the case.
"There is neither jurisdiction nor reason for this court to interfere at this very preliminary stage or to allow the government to singlehandedly moot the Plaintiffs' claims by immediately removing them beyond the reach of their lawyers or the court," she wrote.
Millett was the most critical of the Justice Department's actions in Monday's arguments, going as far as to saying that Nazis deported under the AEA during World War II had more rights than the over 150 alleged Tren de Aragua gang members deported by the Trump administration last week.
In his dissenting opinion siding with the Justice Department, Judge Walker agreed with the Trump administration's arguments that the case should have been filed in Texas, where the plaintiffs are allegedly being held.
"The problem for the Plaintiffs is that habeas claims must be brought in the district where the Plaintiffs are confined. For the named Plaintiffs at least, that is the Southern District of Texas," Walker wrote.
A White House spokesperson said the White House intends to appeal the circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court, and called the panel's order a "failure to stay the radical decision of the District Court," that should "shock the conscience of the American people."
Meanwhile, Judge Boasberg will continue to oversee the case in federal district court.
On Monday, the administration invoked a state secrets privilege and refused to give Boasberg any additional information about the deportations after he asked for details about why the White House did not obey his order to return two planes carrying alleged Tren de Aragua gang members back to the U.S..
n a 14-page document filed late Tuesday night, top Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, responded to Boasberg's questions about why the government didn't turn around the two flights.
"These removals both complied with the law and safeguarded Americans against members of a foreign terrorist organization. The Government will continue to defend the removals before this Court and, if necessary, on appeal challenging this Court's two injunctions issued on March 15," Bondi and other senior Justice Department officials wrote.
The plaintiffs have until Friday night to respond to the government." CBS"A White House spokesperson said the White House intends to appeal the circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court"
"A federal appeals court rejected an effort by the Justice Department to lift an order temporarily blocking President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua gang members.
Shar,
I believe this was the plan all along. Once the Supreme Court rules things will change.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the democrats would want to try and stop these things. The optics and perception of them being for illegal immigrant criminals and against American citizens couldn't be more powerful.
As I said before, "democrats keep being you."
Related Discussions
- 118
The Many Cost Of Illegal Immigrants - Hard To Face But Relevant
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Illegal immigrants who entered US since Biden took office to cost taxpayers $20+ billion a year: analysis -- Biden administration has released more than a million illegal immigrants into the US"FIRST ON FOX: The number of illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. since President...
- 79
Over 60% of Registered Voters Want All Illegal Immigrants Deported
by Readmikenow 10 months ago
CBS host shocked by poll showing 62% of registered voters support deporting all illegal immigrantsA CBS News/YouGov poll found that 62% of registered voters said they would support a government program that would deport all migrants living in the U.S. illegally. The poll, conducted between June...
- 37
Why are Democrats obsessed with illegal immigrants?
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
Their behavior is an insult and a slap in the face of everyone who has come or does come to this country legally. That means they obeyed the laws of the land. Paid their money, was interviewed, stays out of trouble. This country NEEDs legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are...
- 166
Illegal Alien - Politically Correct?
by Elynjo 15 years ago
Hoopla. Most of the people these days are trying so hard to be politically correct and refused to call a person who entered the United States illegally an "Illegal Alien" for fear of being branded as "racist". For me, if you're illegal, you are illegal. No sugar coating, no...
- 172
Who supports illegal immigration?
by Eric Dierker 10 years ago
I cannot find a group that supports illegal immigration. Yet we cannot stop it. Now that is pathetic. So we must conclude that without saying it, some - many in America support it and do what they can to stop control of it. It would seem that this should be a target for midterm elections. Who does...
- 22
Trump Proposes Fund for Victims of Migrant Crime
by Sharlee 5 months ago
In a bold move aimed at addressing the growing concerns surrounding crime linked to migrants in the United States, former President Donald Trump has announced a plan to create a compensation fund for families who have suffered at the hands of criminal migrants. With an estimated 6 million migrants...