Legal immigrants being jailed for their opinions
How do pro-deportation Americans feel about legal immigrants being jailed for political activities?
(First Amendment Rights apply to non-citizens as well.)You're phrasing the argument incorrectly. I believe that you are referring to the pro Hamas protesters who were here on a student visa and abused the privilege of being allowed to study in the US by abusing Jewish students and staff at their universities. Good riddance to terrorist apologists.
By the way would you be as much in favor of the first amendment and so called legal immigrants if pro MAGA foreign students on a student visa decided to camp out and occupy various universities and terrorize left wing students and staff in the US?You didn't answer the question though??
How do you feel about a student, here on a visa, jailed for writing an opinion piece in a school newspaper?? And if you agree, how do you square that with First Amendment rights?Again, a terrorist apologist. And I think you are missing the part where their student visa was revoked so they were no longer in the US legally so they were deported. The US does not need foreign agitators. It has enough homegrown lefties burning Tesla dealerships for democracy.
But do try my thought experiment: how would you feel about foreign MAGA supporters agitating in the US while on a student visa.The revoking of the Visa happened AFTER the op ed....maga "agitating"? It's called free speech and it's protected under the First Amendment... Agitate away.
"It's called free speech and it's protected under the First Amendment..."
The First Amendment applies to American Citizens. It's in the US Constitution.Can you provide some evidence that the First Amendment does not apply to students who are here on visas?!
It may very well apply to students on visas, but the country does not have to grant or continue a visa. They are here on permission. Permission revoked. Back to hamas land she goes where she can certainly exercise her right to free speech.
"the country does not have to grant or continue a visa. They are here on permission."
That would require Congress to make those changes... In the meantime, they are protected under the First Amendment.
Demonstration, peaceful protest, and freedom of expression of one's beliefs, is protected by the First Amendment. The Amendment also applies to international visitors who are welcome to participate in lawful public demonstrations and protests.
At the moment, a judge has halted the deportation of this Turkish student from Tufts."That would require Congress to make those changes... In the meantime, they are protected under the First Amendment. "
That's really a stretch.
Did they have to give her a visa in the first place? It's a discretionary permission for someone to be in the country, when they come from countries whose citizens do not enjoy the favor of being able to enter without one. A visa can be revoked.
She FAFOd, as did all of the other pro Hamas terrorist sympathizers.I had to wonder that, too - did Congress vote on every individual visa that has been give out? I really don't think so - around 10 million are issued next year and that would mean that Congress examined and voted on them at the rate of 3 seconds per visa with no time to eat, sleep or visit the bathroom.
Are you serious??
The laws regarding student visas in this country are enacted by Congress through the Immigration and Nationality Act and then implemented and enforced by the U.S. Department of State (for visa issuance) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (for entry and maintaining status).Well, it was pretty plain that, unlike you insinuated, Congress did NOT give approval for each VISA, and won't be needed to cancel them, either.
Like most things that come out of our government today, Congress has no part of it. As you say, the Dept. of State or HS does it. Now, just who has ultimate control of those departments? Executive or Legislature?"....then implemented and enforced by the U.S. Department of State (for visa issuance) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (for entry and maintaining status)."
I guess you answered your own question then.
In case you missed it, the power to deal with these things is delegated to the department of homeland security, etc. which means it is up to them and the President, since the department is under his control.
Surprise, Hamas sympathizers! Should have gotten advice from an immigration lawyer instead of reddit.Your need a government book. The executive branch does not create legislation.
What does Reddit have to do with immigration law?You are really missing the point. Hence my reference to reddit and the kind of ill informed discussions in r/law and r/politics
The department of Homeland Security is under the control of the executive branch, whether or not created by Congressional legislation. Congress does not direct it.
Their visa was revoked and they can leave.
But do try my thought experiment. Think of the most repulsive and objectionable free speech that a foreign national on a student visa could say, something that repels even you, and tell me whether the US is obligated to let them stay.
It is more than apparent that some people today feel they can pick and choose which laws to follow. I mean, it is becoming sickening to see this kind of attitude. We have a long list of laws that pertain to visa holders; they should be followed, or the person should be deported.
You're really missing the point. Of course it was revoked afterwards. It was revoked because of the Hamas loving op-ed. And then good riddance.
What OP ed? Again, do visa holders need to be held accountable for the laws that they accept when entering our country?
Wow! This seems a very odd question. I mean, if you know the laws a visa card holder must follow to avoid deportation, you could answer this question yourself. I mean, the facts are very easily found online... You can skirt them, and offer you feel them unfair, but we are a nation of laws. A visa holder must follow the laws as written.
So, the answer to this question depends heavily on what the student wrote and whether their actions violated the terms of their visa. The First Amendment protects free speech, even for non-citizens, but it does not grant them immunity from consequences if their speech falls under categories that violate U.S. law or their visa conditions. For example, if the student merely criticized the government or expressed a controversial opinion, it would be highly problematic for them to be jailed, as this would go against the spirit of free expression. However, if their article incited violence, promoted terrorism or a terrorist group, or encouraged illegal activity, it could fall outside the protections of free speech and lead to legal consequences, just as it would for a U.S. citizen.
Student visas, such as F-1 visas, come with specific conditions.
I note that you did not offer the OP in question."visa holder must follow the laws as written".
What law was broken in the case of the student arrested for her opinion piece? I find it odd because student visa holders are protected under the First Amendment.
You offer nothing of what was in the OP or a link to it. How would anyone answer that question? If this person is here on a visa, they must follow the laws that are required to follow. Period. So, it would be beneficial to beable to see the content of the OP. How the hell would anyone be able to give a straight answer to such a question?
There is lots and lots of dancing around with one-liners on the thread. A better question, due to the fact no one knows who or what you are talking about, is --- Do you think when we offer the privilege of a visa (for any reason) that this person be held accountable to follow the laws that they agree to when the visa is given?I read the op-ed, and I don't see anything that warrants deportation. Perhaps we do not have all the information. She is entitled to a hearing. The court will rule on the merit.
Plus--- Following her detention, Öztürk's legal team, including the ACLU of Massachusetts, filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that her constitutional rights to free speech and due process were violated. I believe she is still being detained pending her immigration hearing.
I'm torn between militant acceptance of it, and outright disapproval.
If they enforced it universally, as in doing so for any paid/unpaid political agitation by foreign-loyal individuals/non-citizens regardless of stance, I'd outright support it and anything it would require to enforce it.
However, they're selectively enforcing it against individuals based on perspective and content as opposed to the actions themselves. This creates a concerning dynamic of jailing and deporting political/social opposition as opposed to any and all threats to American fundamentals and infrastructure.
The government should charge them all with sedition and/or treason depending on their expressed loyalties and then send them all back, or militantly and openly support traditional American fundamentalism and nationalism because it has somehow become a counter culture in our own nation. I'd love to see universities and other public demonstrations promoting traditional American values for once.The argument that legal immigrants should not face consequences for political activities because the First Amendment applies to them is not entirely logical or factual when considering U.S.
Non-citizens, including visa holders and green card holders, do have the right to be heard in court if they are facing legal action, including deportation. The U.S. Constitution provides due process protections to all individuals within the country, regardless of immigration status.
While non-citizens, including green card holders and visa holders, do have some constitutional protections, their legal status is contingent on compliance with immigration laws, including restrictions on political activities in some cases. The First Amendment protects free speech, but it does not grant non-citizens immunity from deportation or other legal consequences if they violate the terms of their visa.
For example, non-immigrant visa holders (such as student visas, work visas, and tourist visas) are typically prohibited from engaging in certain political activities that could be deemed a violation of their visa conditions. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 237(a)(4)(A) allows for deportation of legal immigrants if they engage in activities deemed a threat to national security, including political activism tied to foreign organizations that the U.S. government considers unlawful. Additionally, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B) states that non-citizens involved in activities linked to terrorism or groups advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government can be deemed inadmissible or deportable. Even **green cardYou are completely missing the fact that the First Amendment still applies to these Visa holders... Even following your disingenuous argument, her op-ed did not endorse hamas terrorism, or even mention it. Odd huh?
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. However, while the First Amendment does protect the rights of non-citizens in many cases, its application is nuanced, especially when it comes to non-citizens who are in the U.S. under specific legal statuses, such as those on visas.
Non-citizens who are present in the United States are generally afforded constitutional protections, including First Amendment rights, but certain restrictions can apply based on their immigration status and specific laws governing their stay. Here are some key considerations:
Visa and Immigration Laws: The U.S. immigration system places various conditions on non-citizens, which can limit or shape their First Amendment rights. For example:
Student and Work Visas (e.g., F-1, H-1B): These visa holders are subject to certain limitations, such as restrictions on employment and speech related to their status or future visa renewals. Speech that violates the terms of their visa, such as advocating for violent overthrow of the government, could have serious consequences, including deportation.
Non-Immigrant Visa Holders: Those here on temporary non-immigrant visas may not have the same degree of protection when it comes to political speech or activities that could be perceived as interfering with their legal status or the interests of the United States.
Law of the Land:
The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798): Though largely repealed, these early laws highlight the U.S. government's past attempts to restrict non-citizens' political speech, particularly concerning foreign nationals. They underscore the notion that non-citizens may face limitations in speech, particularly when it concerns national security or relations with other nations.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): This law includes provisions that allow for the deportation of non-citizens for certain types of speech, particularly speech deemed to incite violence or endanger national security. For example, individuals who support terrorist activities or foreign governments hostile to the U.S. can face deportation based on their speech.
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS): This program was established in the early 2000s for certain visa holders, requiring them to register and submit to additional scrutiny, including their speech and activities. Although the program was suspended in 2011, it reflects the kind of control the U.S. government can exert over non-citizens' expression if it concerns national security.
Recent Legal Interpretations: U.S. courts have often ruled that while non-citizens have certain First Amendment rights, these rights can be limited if speech threatens national security or the interests of the U.S. government. In cases where non-citizens engage in activities that may undermine the interests of the U.S. or violate visa conditions, the government has the authority to restrict or take action against those individuals."First Amendment Rights apply to non-citizens as well... "
The question of whether non-citizens have the same freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition as U.S. citizens isn't a simple yes or no.
That's partly due to the different ways people may be in the United States.
If a person who is in the U.S. on a temporary work permit is applying for a green card or full citizenship, the kinds of groups they belong to and whether they have said or written anything that is deemed dangerous or against U.S. interests may affect their application, or their status.
These people should self-censor or refrain from protesting or joining clubs or other groups that could negatively affect their immigration status.
The group with the most questions around whether and how the First Amendment applies to them are those with no legal status: unauthorized immigrants.
In 2015, the Department of Justice argued in a federal class action lawsuit that unauthorized immigrants do not get First Amendment protections.
The DOJ reasoned that the Supreme Court previously suggested First Amendment and other protections apply only to immigrants who enter legally and who have "sufficient connection" to the U.S.
The Immigration Act of 1903, also called the Anarchist Exclusion Act, sought to deport immigrants with anti-government views. John Turner, from England, was one such anarchist who advocated for union organizing. Lawyers for Turner argued his views were political speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court (U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams) disagreed, saying Turner held views seeking to overthrow the U.S. government, and Congress has broad power to deport non-citizens.
At the height of the anti-communist era, Congress passed laws effectively outlawing the Communist Party in the country and making it legal to deport non-citizens who were members. The case Galvan v. Press centers on Robert Galvan, who was born in Mexico and came to the U.S. in 1918 at age seven. His wife and four children were all U.S. citizens. When questioned by immigration officials, he said he had been a member of the Communist Party for two years in the 1940s, before Congress passed its anti-communist laws.
The government tried to deport Galvan, and lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, citing his First Amendment right to political speech and association. The court sided with the government's decision to deport Galvan.
Known as the "Belgian Socialist" case, this Supreme Court ruling (Kleindienst v. Mandel) affirmed that while First Amendment interests are important, they do not overrule federal authority to deny people legal entry into the country.
Belgian journalist Ernest E. Mandel led a socialist publication and sought entry into the U.S. to lecture at Stanford University. He was denied.
The Supreme Court has not ruled in a direct way that neatly resolves it. But has leaned heavily toward allowing the government the right and authority to deport those it considers a threat.
This is just more right wing BS. this makes it quite clear.
“Several Supreme Court cases have confirmed that legal permanent residents or green card holders have the same basic constitutional rights that also protect natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens. In Bridges v. Wixon (1945), a divided Supreme Cort held that Harry Bridges, an Australian who had lived in the United States since 1920, could not be deported due to support for the Communist Party.”
So, please lets put this inane idea to bed?I made my statement with supporting cases...so no, we will have to agree to disagree.
Cut off their funding... end programs that give immigrants temporary legal status, end all taxpayer support.
That alone will solve the problem. People will stop coming if we stop paying them to come here and stop giving away billions to NGOs and non profits that offer financial or social support.I think that it a problem of respecting the first amendment as it applies each and every citizen or legal resident.
Under your strict interpretation, can we keep out the South African farmers bitching about circumstances there, for whom trump wants to give a welcome mat?
By the the way, unauthorized immigrants are not legal permanent residents or green card holders.
Is the idea of socialism a threat to American national security, to the point that people are not allowed to discuss it?
What kind of tyrannical regime are you advocating for, Ken?One that doesn't take BILLIONS of our taxpayer debt each year and give it out to NGOs and Non_Profits that use that money to help illegal migrants get here and/or support them in any way once they get here.
One that doesn't put undocumented/illegal migrants on Social Security.
It's good the people on this thread do some research on the topic.
Let me give you some real world experience.
I have had and have relatives with green cards
Part of the paperwork you sign to get one clearly states you are still subject to deportation by the State Department for "cause."
This means if the State Department believes you've broken any terms of getting the green card for any reason you can be subject to deportation. I believe this statement is intentionally vague.
The only time you do not have to worry about deportation is when you obtain American citizenship.
That is why I am stunned a green card holder would take a chance at being arrested by going to a protest. A single arrest can start the deportation proceedings against you.
I knew a man from Canada who was in the US with a Green Card for over a decade. He refused to pay his several traffic tickets. HE was warned by not paying them he could be in violation of the terms of having a green card. This guy believed the company he worked for would take care of things. He still refused and even racked up a few more unpaid traffic tickets. He went to trial and was deported.
When you have a green card you need to avoid any type of legal violation.
Going to these protests as green card holders is just plain stupid.The Trump administration has alleged that some students have supported terrorists as a basis for their removal. To prove that, they will need to demonstrate that they did more than simply practice free speech.
Why? Do words not indicate "support for terrorists"? Does waving a flag in the middle of a protest (or riot) not indicate support? Does waving a sign indicating support not indicate support?
If not, why do these kinds of things? What is the purpose if not to show support? I saw on the news one "protest" at a Tesla location where all the protesters began doing a line dance in the road - is entertainment the purpose then, not to show support?ICE Acknowledges First Amendment Limits on Its Power to Remove Foreign Nationals
"obtained legal memos suggest that proposals to remove non-U.S. persons from the country based on their political expression likely violate the Constitution....
On Monday, we published two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memos that reveal the government’s assessments of the constitutional limits on its ability to screen and exclude people from the United States based on their speech, beliefs, or associations. We obtained these documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against ICE and other government agencies.
ICE’s memo titled Constitutional Considerations Relating to Proposed Enhanced Vetting of Aliens in the United States for Counterterrorism Purposes analyzes the constitutional frameworks that constrain government agencies’ “counterterrorism vetting” programs. Significantly, the memo recognizes that non-U.S. persons in the United States have due process rights and “can invoke protections under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.”
The takeaway? The First Amendment gives very broad protection to political speech, including to speech that is contentious or unpopular. Accordingly, regulations that target political speech on the basis of viewpoint almost never survive judicial review.
Here is the ICE memo...
https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/rjbx2s3tzo
https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/ice-ack … ationals-1*shrug* As long as we decide that ALL people, foreigners, illegal aliens, citizens, green card holders, criminals and so on and so on, have the same identical rights provided by Americans, then you have it right.
For me, I don't see that as a part of who we are.
But I noticed you didn't reply to the idea that words can be, are intended as, and actually ARE support for terrorist groups. Got an opinion there, or just don't want to acknowledge it as it gives a reason to deport?Words are protected. Our Free speech rights are what differentiates us from China, Russia, North Korea. Actions would be a different matter. People in this country, citizen or not, voice support for all kinds of hate
Didn't ask if words are protected, now did I. I asked if words can be considered as support for a terrorist group. And twice you have sidestepped, refusing to answer that very simple question. Don't forget that actions are considered as falling under "free speech", too!
Why?Will words be considered "support" ? The court will decide. Previously these deportations required evidence of "material" support for terrorism but this current administration is attempting to broaden the standard for denials/ deportations.
A state department statement from 25 March, obtained by the Guardian, describes a new standard for visa denials based on a broad definition of what constitutes support for “terrorist activity”. The directive states that “evidence that an applicant advocates for terrorist activity, or otherwise demonstrates a degree of public approval or public advocacy for terrorist activity or a terrorist organization” can be grounds for visa rejection. If these broad measures will stand is yet to be seen.
The students challenging their removals have the potential to reshape the law related to free speech and immigration.
Should a visa student who writes an opinion piece regarding the war in Gaza be deported? I don't think so. Supporting Palestinians does not equal support for Hamas. Should a student who provides material support to a terrorist organization either financially or otherwise be deported? Absolutely. Every one of these cases have to be dealt with on an individual basis.
A person writing an op-ed saying we think that Israel is committing genocide, that's not going to be enough, but if they are promoting activities that the government thinks are related to terrorism, then that could be grounds to say they did engage in terrorist activity....and be removed. If people are engaging in activities prohibited by their visas they are eligible to be removed."The court will decide". Another sidestep, refusing to give an opinion. Of course the court will decide; it will decide everything..
"A state department statement from 25 March, obtained by the Guardian, describes a new standard for visa denials based on a broad definition of what constitutes support for “terrorist activity”."
And did Congress pass these new standards? Or did it come from some faceless, unnamed bureaucrat deep in the bowels of D.C.? If they didn't, doesn't that mean that they are not needed to determine each and every deportation case? Just the "boss" of it all, the President?
"Should a visa student who writes an opinion piece regarding the war in Gaza be deported? I don't think so. Supporting Palestinians does not equal support for Hamas."
Agreed. But when that "opinion piece" cries out for people to join Hamas, asks for funding for Hamas, what then? Is that now "support" even though just words? It is IMO.
Your last paragraph is something we can pretty much agree upon. The question then becomes just what was said, what was written, what was done in these "protests" supporting Hamas and his atrocities."And did Congress pass these new standards? Or did it come from some faceless, unnamed bureaucrat deep in the bowels of D.C.?
No of course not. The Trump Administration has sidelined Congress. They appear to no longer have any function as he rules by executive decree. These new deportation standards for visa students come from Rubio's interpretations.
Certainly. A student here on a Visa should not be recruiting for Hamas or any other terrorist organization.
"But when that "opinion piece" cries out for people to join Hamas, asks for funding for Hamas,"
Are you referring to the opinion piece written by the Turkish student from Tufts? Here is the piece...
https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj
Deportation for this? I don't think so.I skimmed the article; I wouldn't deport for that either. It is wrong, he is full of crap and lies, but not worthy of deportation.
Why I should just go and exhume Joseph McCarthy. What makes people think that there are two different standards for the First Amendment, one for legal residents and one for citizens? One just has to revisit all that red scare stuff in the 1940s and 1950s, the witch hunts and blacklists, that were more politically motivated than reflecting any real concern about the nation being consumed by Communism. It was a time of fear, terror and stupidity, yet the political Right has always been great revisiting ideas like this. They never learn from errors of the past, have they ever?
"They never learn from errors of the past, have they ever?"
You mean like the DEI proponents that wish to reinstate discrimination? Or the creators of "safe places" to fight the scourge of illegal drug usage in our country?
Perhaps you refer to the gun haters that attack the preferred weapon of crazy killers rather than the mental problems that USE that gun? Or was it the concept of throwing tax money at hunger rather than providing useful jobs that actually create the wealth needed to end hunger?
What is it you refer to?"You mean like the DEI proponents that wish to reinstate discrimination?
Can you post an example of a real-world DEI policy that exists at a corporation, organization, absolutely anything that you can find that defines their DEI policy and what specific actions are contained in that policy? Conservative folks continue to misrepresent these initiatives and pretend that they are something that they are most definitely not.
Find me something that is more than a sensitivity training or an enhanced recruitment drive and then we can talk.Haven’t you got the memo yet, Wilderness? DEI is a racist and sexist slur promoted by the sorts of people who themselves are a slur relative to the entire human race.
Its your sort that then and now seek to muzzle speech contrary to the ideas and policies proposed by oligarchs and plutocrats.
It is your sort that then and now resisted the legitimate concerns of organized labor creating the phony Communist scare to distract people from the true issues of the time.
Regardless of what you say, having guns as available as hotdogs at the ball park contributes to the ease of mass murder. We are never going to agree on this.
You will let people starve on the other side of the planet just to prove the righty’s hackneyed ideological points, while we throw more food away than these people could dream of eating. The world is not based on the foundation of an Horatio Alger primer, you know. Without boots or bootstraps it is difficult for one to pull one’s self up. I will be witness to America transition from greatness to glaring mediocracy at best and you can blame the Right for it.
That dope President that so many of you elected will put the screws to his supporters while tanking the economy. And deep down, I hope he does just that to teach them a lesson in buyers remorse. I am just sad that I may have to “go down with the ship” as a result. But, it might be well worth it, regardless.
I refer to the fact that conservatives are and have always been stick in the mud anachronistic. It is the last place where any progress can be expected.
I set my goal to undermine and discredit the Right at every turn as their ideology is a retrograde and malicious way of thinking.
One more issue where the majority of Americans don't agree with the democrat party.
Keep it going democrats.Trump is decimating the 401ks of Americans, you really think the focus is on the Democrats right now LOL? 3 trillion dollars of wealth lost yesterday and today will be another blood bath. JPMorgan just raised the recession risk to 60%... And what does dear leader have to say, "it's going very well". Took off for an early weekend to attend a Saudi backed golf tournament at one of his properties...
Maga owns this. The crybabying over the price of eggs has now turned to the price of cars.. good job. Republicans won't be able to show their faces in their districts.Well, those in the investing business will ask you "Are you in for the short nickel or the long quarter?"
This means be prepared to stick to things during difficult times.
Those who have been investing form many years know this is nothing compared to things that have happened in the past with the stock market.
There was the 1987 Black Monday crash. The Dotcom bubble in 2000. The financial crisis of 2008. The COVID cash of 2020.
Guess what? Each time the market rebounded. The next quarter after these things happened most investors had regained their money. Within a year they had regained all their money and were making a profit.
I'm not worried a bit.
These tariffs are reciprocal, Meaning, the United states is putting the same amount of tariffs on countries they put on us. The reality is that most of the tariffs are still only about only 50% of what other countries have on the United States.
Read this article by the Tax foundation. Even with the new tariffs in place most countries will still have more tariffs on US goods than the United States has on their goods.
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-re … culations/
This is a good move in many ways. It creates a situation where countries can negotiate the lowering of their tariffs on US good opening up more markets for US goods.
Since there are no tariffs on foreign companies who have their manufacturing plants in the United States, this is leading to increased manufacturing coming to the United States. It is a good move for blue-collar workers.
I'm certain that once all of this settles the United States will benefit greatly from it.
Again, President Donald Trump is going for the long quarter. He not going to settle for the quick nickel.Did folks get the long quarter after Smooth Hawley? No, they got the shaft. It really is the essence of stupidity when one chooses an option that has failed previously but expects a different result. It highlights his lack of knowledge about trade and economics. But I'd expect no less from a man who bankrupt casinos for God's sake.
Obviously you didn't read the article from the Tax Foundation.
Yeah I did, you mean the one that says this....
"The method for calculating other countries’ so-called “tariffs” for reciprocal purposes is nonsense. Bilateral deficits are not tariffs, nor are they meaningful anyway; trade in services is relevant; and tariffs cannot be used to target overall trade deficits. The overall result is an extraordinary policy error that will severely damage the economy while failing to reduce the US trade deficit."
AND THIS?
"Set aside, for now, the damage to economic growth these tariffs will cause, or the distributional impact of one of the largest tax hikes in US history. Other Tax Foundation work will cover that. (We currently estimate the cumulative amount of Trump tariffs at $3.1 trillion over 10 years, amounting to a roughly $2,100 tax increase per household in 2025 alone.)".
Maga will HAPPILY absorb this I suppose?In April 2025, the Trump administration introduced a tariff policy comprising a universal 10% tariff on all imports, with additional "reciprocal" tariffs for specific countries based on trade imbalances. The formula used to calculate these reciprocal tariffs involved dividing the U.S. goods trade deficit with a country by the total U.S. imports from that country, then halving the result, with a minimum tariff rate set at 10%.
Axios, Reuters
For example, if the U.S. had a $50 billion trade deficit with Country A and imported $100 billion worth of goods from that country, the calculation would be:
$50billion
---------------- ÷2=0.25 or 25%
$100 Billion
Yes, yes I did and I would encourage everyone else here to do the same... More from the article...
"Bilateral trade balances are not evidence of malfeasance. Even when they fully reflect economic substance, they should not necessarily balance. And sometimes they do not even reflect economic substance.
Consider a hypothetical example with three countries and three goods:
Tropical Country produces a surplus of sugar, an adequate amount of lumber, and little wheat.
Farm Country produces a surplus of wheat, an adequate amount of sugar, and little lumber.
Forest Country produces a surplus of lumber, an adequate amount of wheat, and little sugar.
Each country would have a strong bilateral imbalance with each other country; Tropical Country would import wheat from Farm Country and export sugar to Forest Country. Farm Country would import lumber from Forest Country and export wheat to Tropical Country. And Forest Country would import sugar from Tropical Country and export lumber to Farm Country. These three countries would be ill-served by creating balanced bilateral trade.
For a real-life example, consider the US trade relationships with the UK and with Indonesia. The UK has a similar climate to many parts of the US, and the US has little need to import many UK goods because it is good at making domestic substitutes. By contrast, Indonesia is a large archipelago of tropical islands, a climate suitable for growing rubber, coconuts, coconut oils, palm oils, coffee, spices, and other goods for which few sites in the US suffice. Are US high imports from Indonesia an indicator of some artificial de-balancing of trade, or a natural consequence of the US having more to gain from Indonesian goods imports?"
This is really so much more nuanced and complex than Trump is portraying. Either he has no grasp on this at all or he's just trying to pull one over on you folks. His ham handed tariffs address none of the nuances
Thank you for the link, it is a wealth of information.Still, other countries will still have higher tariffs on their US imports than the US has on the imports of other countries.
The is the beginning of countries finally coming to the table to negotiate their tariffs on imports from the United States.
This is a good thing.I think you've misunderstood most of the article. Trade imbalances are inevitable due to the differences from country to country, just on climate alone. We can't grow enough coffee here to meet demand, we can't produce enough rubber to meet needs... These are just a few examples. LOL putting the highest tariffs on impoverished Nations that have no market for our exports is ridiculous. We are still getting things that we need from them and can't produce in any sizable amount. Trump lacks any understanding of how this actually works.
It will be a great achievement. At last, we have a president who took action on an issue that has been a point of contention for over 40 years. Numerous Congress members, primarily Democrats, have previously introduced similar proposals and advocated for what Trump is now implementing. Yet, trying to convey this fact to some people today seems futile, in my opinion. A+ for trying
Do you ever do research, at all? I suggest you do so regarding Smoot-Harvey.
I understand it thoroughly. What have I missed? The country suffered as a result of the act.. don't really understand your point or statement whatsoever.
The "happy talk" continues? I am not giving Trump anything. He fails, the Left will see that there will be hell to pay for Trump and this administration.
Okay,
The United States is 36 Trillion dollars in debt.
So, what is the democrat plan to address this?
Waiting.Well more importantly, what is Trump's plan? Because his tax plan blows up the deficit... I think you keep forgetting that Republicans control the house and the white house right now...
This is what we are facing right now...
"The $4.5 trillion reduction in tax revenues would increase the budget deficit and push up interest costs by an estimated $941 billion ($806 billion dynamically).
Added interest costs plus the revenue losses from TCJA extension result in a combined deficit increase of $5.4 trillion ($4.6 trillion dynamically) from 2025 through 2034."
How is this okay??
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/ … ynamically)%20from%202025%20through%202034.Just a really bad source---- . A 2005 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) questioned the reliability of the Tax Foundation's state and local tax burden estimates, noting a lack of formal accuracy assessments. Additionally, a 2018 study highlighted significant median absolute percentage errors in state tax revenue forecasts. Therefore, while the Tax Foundation's analyses are influential, their predictive accuracy has not been extensively accurate.
You put your trust in an organization with a poor track record.Please provide a source that gives another estimate of how much Trump's tax plan will add to the deficit.
I find these attacks of" bad source" or "bias" to be pretty disingenuous.
What do you find in the methodology of the tax foundations number in which they arrived at to be in question?
I definitely think that I have been criticized for sources even a few years old and you're citing 2005? And your source says the text foundation was criticized for for state and local? Not federal analysis.
But like I said, does anybody think that Trump's tax plan won't add to the deficit?LOL... my citing the tax foundation is criticized but not a peep when it's used by Mike... Typical.
The Dems plan cant be any worse than the Republicans, and if I recall Trump spent like a drunken sailor on liberty raising the deficit well beyond that of his predecessors over a shorter period and he is projecting higher deficits for the future, already. So, I don't trust anything Trump or Republicans have to say, actually I would have to believe that the very opposite of what they say is most probably the truth.
So, you did not have long to wait, now did you?The Democrats are stuck in the mud, as they have been for a couple of decades. Their newfound ideological path turned out to be very muddy.
So?
What president has taken actions in an effort to reduce the national debt?
Only one had the courage to attempt to do something about it...President Donald J. Trump.
Joint Economic Committee (.gov)
https://www.jec.senate.gov › public › democrats › 2024/10
Oct 7, 2024 — The US economy has performed much better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents in the modern era.
U.S. economic performance by presidential party
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › U.S._economic_perfor...
The United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administrations of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
Reddit · r/PoliticalDiscussion
The Blinder and Watson report shows the economy has performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/economic … institute/
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
Overall, we rate the Economic Policy Institute as Left Biased based on economic positions that favor liberal policies. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.But what have they reported that you can debunk with other sources? It doesn't matter if they lean one way or the other...look at what they are reporting and how they arrived at their conclusions.
I’m not sure you actually read my comment. If you did, it seems clear you missed the context of what I was saying. At no point did I accuse the EPI of posting false information, so why would you ask me to debunk what they have posted? Here's my original comment for reference. It seems like you’re having a hard time grasping the context.
"https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/economic … institute/
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources." Sharlee
I shared my observation that they tend to use loaded language and lean toward liberal causes. While I acknowledge that their reporting is generally trustworthy, I still find it biased. I have no intention of justifying why I feel that way—my mindset is strongly conservative and often at odds with liberal ideologies. That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone here on this forum.You dismissed the entire article due to the fact you felt the outlet had a bias rather than fact check what was actually written. That was my entire comment. I've said it before, that I find it disingenuous to dismiss entire articles because they come from a outlet that has a lean either way rather than actually tackling the merits of what was written.
You're deflecting and spinning—something you tend to do when your response doesn't quite align with the comment you're addressing.
I directly engaged with the website content and shared my perspective. At this point, the other user is spamming links, dropping article after article without commentary. I actually took the time to address one of those articles in detail, but the constant repetition of the same topic through link dumping has become tiresome.
I respond to comments by choice, and in this case, I already engaged with the topic thoroughly. The repetition from that user is unnecessary and adds little to the discussion.
This was my response to Kathleen, where I directly addressed the topic at hand. I shared my perspective and included some background on how I arrived at that view. She didn’t offer a personal rebuttal—just a repetition of links. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/363 … ost4362929
I don’t think it’s appropriate to comment further on my thoughts about those who engage in link dumping, but I will say that it’s naturally disruptive in a chat or political forum.
So, are you saying that right wing bias journalism does not appeal to the same emotions and/or stereotypes for those who are emotionally tied to the rightwing point of view? That is certainly not what I see.
"So, are you saying that right wing bias journalism does not appeal to the same emotions and/or stereotypes for those who are emotionally tied to the rightwing point of view?" Cred
No-- I did not share my thoughts on right-wing journalists. I was strictly referring to one particular website. I had no reason to compare right-wing and left-wing journalists. Kathren did not post a link to a right-wing website. I can certainly offer my view now that you have asked.
Right-wing journalism definitely pulls on emotions, just like left-wing media does for those who lean that way. Both sides use emotional appeals, but they focus on different things. Right-wing outlets often hit on themes like patriotism, fear of losing traditions, and the importance of personal responsibility, painting certain issues as threats to these values. Left-wing outlets, on the other hand, focus more on social justice, equality, and protecting marginalized groups, often portraying the other side as holding back progress.
When it comes to stereotypes, right-wing media tends to emphasize protecting traditional values, critiquing political correctness, and warning about radical change. Left-wing media often talks about systemic inequality, racism, and oppression, framing conservative views as outdated or harmful. So yeah, both sides play to their audience’s emotions, but they do it in different ways depending on the issues they care about and the values they prioritize. Personally, I prefer journalism that’s straight down the middle—someone who writes without bias. It's hard to find, but it's not impossible. It’s refreshing to get information without it being wrapped in a political agenda.
So it appears we agreeSo, here is the “blue moon”. Acknowledging that bias and taking sides are true of either side. But, I have my preference for one side over the other for a variety of reasons and everybody who has ever followed my comments here know that.
Yes, we do agree….
You’ve shared the perspective of an author, and while Jeffrey Frankel offers a thought-provoking opinion in his op-ed, his analysis falls short of addressing the full complexity of the issue. He overlooks a range of critical variables that should be considered when evaluating economic performance under different administrations—factors like global events, the timing of business cycles, inherited conditions, and the role of bipartisan legislation. Without accounting for these elements, his argument lacks the depth required for a well-rounded assessment. Since you haven’t explicitly shared your own perspective and appear to align with his viewpoint, I’ll offer the other side of the coin—my view.
The claim that the U.S. economy performs “significantly and consistently better under Democratic presidents” over the past 75 years does not hold up under closer scrutiny. Economic performance cannot be fairly assessed by simply averaging GDP or job growth under presidents from each party, because economic cycles rarely align with presidential terms. For example, Barack Obama inherited the Great Recession, while George W. Bush entered office as the dot-com bubble was bursting and faced the economic fallout of 9/11. Likewise, Donald Trump inherited a growing economy from Obama but was hit with the COVID-19 pandemic—something beyond the control of any administration. Additionally, it’s important to remember that Congress, not just the president, plays a major role in shaping the economy. Bill Clinton oversaw major economic growth during his presidency, but Republicans controlled Congress for most of his tenure, helping drive pro-growth legislation like welfare reform and balanced budget agreements.
In my view, when assessing long-term impacts, Ronald Reagan’s economic policies in the 1980s—centered on tax cuts, deregulation, and supply-side principles—initially triggered a recession but were followed by years of strong growth, lower inflation, and a reshaping of economic policy that even influenced Democrats like Clinton. Economic strength also must be weighed against inflation and debt. Under President Biden, job growth rebounded sharply after COVID-19, but inflation reached 40-year highs, and the national debt surpassed $34 trillion by early 2024, raising questions about sustainability. Republican-led tax reforms, such as the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, are often criticized for adding to the deficit, but they also helped deliver 2.9% GDP growth in 2018 and historically low unemployment, including record lows for Black and Hispanic workers.
It’s also misleading to cite average economic performance under Democratic presidents without recognizing that the numbers are skewed by particularly strong periods under Clinton and the recovery years under Obama. Carter’s presidency, marked by stagflation and energy crises, and Biden’s inflation-related challenges complicate the notion of consistent success. Many Democratic successes occurred under favorable global conditions or after Republican policy groundwork had been laid. Overall, while Democrats have overseen periods of economic strength, there is no consistent, causal evidence that their policies alone drive better economic outcomes. The 75-year record shows a far more complex reality, where both parties have overseen successes and failures shaped by global events, bipartisan legislation, and long-term economic trends—not party labels.
Kathleen, we all know this to be the truth but the Maga folks won't accept it unless it comes from Fox or the Heritage foundation.
Thank you.
The first sources were truncated though. But thank you. It takes no effort to find sources on this fact - if you are looking for facts.
Willowarbor: Sharlee can be very condescending. Please don't take it personally.
Oh, how profound—LOL. First, I believe that Willow can handle anything that comes her way; her conversation skills are fantastic. She is unafraid to share her thoughts and can handle fodder.
As you might notice, we converse almost daily and have lengthy discussions. I enjoy that we can be so open with each other. Hopefully, she feels comfortable conversing with me. She certainly could choose not to engage.
As for your comment, I don’t think anyone would disagree with your assessment that I can be condescending at times.LOL But it’s a bit odd, maybe even creepy, how fascinated you seem to be with following my posts— enough so that it appears you have become accustomed to my style of commenting. You may also have noticed, I am very forward and unafraid to share my views.Shar,
I'm sure you realize when people refer to you or anyone as condescending, it means you've won the argument. They can not come back with a fact or point that contradicts what you've said. So, rather than admit they've lost, they need to resort to the victim mentality of "Yeah, yeah, yeah, well you're condescending."
It's actually kind of sadI've been told I can come across as condescending, and I think it happens when I'm really worn down by a perspective I just can't agree with, especially when it doesn’t make sense to me. I realize that arrogance sometimes slips into my comments, and I guess I tend to express that emotion instead of anger.
I believe some people resort to labeling because they’re either frustrated that no matter what they say, I don’t agree with them, or they've come to realize I might actually be right. Instead of accepting that someone simply doesn’t share their view, they choose to label instead.
"But it’s a bit odd, maybe even creepy, how fascinated you seem to be with following my posts— enough so that it appears you have become accustomed to my style of commenting."
Fascinated? No.
Unable to avoid? Yes. You write more words in almost every discussion than everybody else combined. It is your style. Yes, I am much more succinct. The result of training - most likely.
You are not the only one on this site who seems to feel personally attacked by opposing views. It happens to everybody at one point or another. In my opinion, it lowers the level of debate for all of us.
Other than posting links to counter glaring inaccuracies, I’ve taken the last 40 days off. It’s given me time and perspective to set some rules for myself going forward.
Expect more links (documentation) and fewer responses (arguments).
If you want to read fuller paragraphs written by me, I have 160 articles on this site and seven books on Amazon or at your nearest bookstore.I took up the first invitation to check out your articles. I'll hold off on commenting for now, as I'm sure you put a lot of effort into creating each one. At times, I’ve felt like a few personal jabs have come my way, but overall, I find that most people here share their views without resorting to insults. Some are quite passionate, some prefer not to shy away from more intense discussions, and others present their opinions freely.
I believe just posting a link is a great idea—it sparks conversations that lead to a variety of perspectives.
"A gentle reminder to all MAGA voters affected by the presidency: you voted for this. Your choice was against democracy and your own rights. If you need someone to blame, look no further than your own judgment, character, and decisions. You voted for this sh*t and you're gonna have to suffer like everyone else." - Willowarbor
Lincoln’s Gettysburg address has nothing over this comment. Most succinct, to the point and quite true.
As a general rule, I don’t usually respond to your comments, but this one really stands out. I don’t see anyone here who supports Trump complaining about what he’s doing. In fact, it’s pretty clear we back his agenda and expected some turbulence along the way. I was pleased to see you write more than one sentence—until I realized it was a quote.
Hey Trumpies, is this really the kind of tyranny from Trump that you are so anxious to protect?
——-
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration's emergency motion to block the order to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed Xinis' order requiring the government "to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025," should not be stayed.
"The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process," the judges said. "The Government's contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.
———
Trump is a tyrant and he does even bother to operate in nuances. Can’t you Trumpbots see where all of this is leading and the total despotic, extralegal approach that Trump is using? There is more to all of this than “administrative error”. Regardless, it is an error that needs to be corrected to the benefit of the victim immediatelyBehind the present scenes of today (04/07/2025) to be aware of arrives on April 20th . . .
DECLARING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES posted by/at the White House (January 20, 2025)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential … ed-states/
"Sec. 6. Reporting Requirement. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this proclamation, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the President, through the Homeland Security Advisor, a report outlining all actions taken to fulfill the requirements and objectives of this proclamation; and
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this proclamation (April 20), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a joint report to the President about the conditions at the southern border of the United States and any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807."
One article giving background. Admittedly is is a left leaning source.
What to do if the Insurrection Act is invoked published at Waging NonViolence (Apr 4, 2025)
https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/04/w … s-invoked/
"What is the Insurrection Act?
The Insurrection Act is a dusty law that has gone without updates for 200 years. The original text states: “That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws… the president of the United States [can] call forth the militia [or armed forces] for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection.” (Technically, it is now not just one law but a series of statutes in Title 10 of the U.S. code.)
One might wonder what the law defines as an “insurrection,” and it’s woefully undefined. Updated modern language merely calls it “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellions.” While the Supreme Court has upheld that the president alone can decide the meaning of these words, it reserved for itself a chance to review the constitutionality of the military’s actions. But the courts would have to enforce that provision.
Notably, the Posse Comitatus Act — which blocks the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement — is suspended under the Insurrection Act. The role of the military is to “assist” civilian authorities, but not replace them (so this is not technically martial law).
In theory, Trump could order the army to go door-to-door searching for undocumented residents. The Coast Guard could aggressively patrol the border. Marines could be asked to shut down legal protests. Then the actions would be subject to federal court review on their constitutionality.
The Insurrection Act has been used a lot: President Lincoln in the civil war, President Grant against the Klu Klux Klan, President Johnson to end school segregation, and most recently, President Bush invoked it during the L.A. riots.
As legal experts have said, the door is wide open for abuse."Hi, Tim
That is the problem of “insurrection” is that it is far too undefined.
The key in “updated modern language” is unlawful, and what is lawful or not should be codified.
The President may well define the meaning but his interpretation has to be consistent with the law and the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.
Are the Bill of Rights suspended, so that anyone can be accosted, subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures and harassment?
this Posse Comitatus gives the President a great deal of authority and it is not supposed to be employed without compelling circumstances, which Trump does not have.
I can appreciate the circumstances Lincoln found himself in and they were unprecedented. I completely understand why he used the Insurrection Act to save the Union.
As for President Grant, he used it as per the definition of Posse Commitatus,
the state is unwilling or unable to enforce the prevention of infractions on the Constitutional Rights of its citizens, in this case, the recently emancipated freedmen. The spirit of secession has not been completely purged from the defeated Confederacy.
As for Eisenhower and succeeding Presidents, the states involved were not complying with the orders of the Warren court, that segregated schools under law were not legal. The South rebelled and did not comply
I have seen the national guard as such assist in putting down riots, seems that they may well have been sufficient to deal with the LA riots without draconian reactions taking legal rights away from everyone. I could say that about employing the Act during the 1992 riots and I could definitely say that about Trump, whose explanation for his use of these Acts are the most flimsy and unjustified of them all."this Posse Comitatus gives the President a great deal of authority and it is not supposed to be employed without compelling circumstances, which Trump does not have."
Isn't that opinion?
Others have the opinion that millions of migrants crossing the border every year is not a good thing for America and warrants such "extreme" measures... that it is very compelling indeed.
Hey, at least we are not Poland... they actually shoot migrants illegally crossing the border. I remember back in the day when there was a Wall and the USSR still existed there was good chance that could happen at any border.So, Ken. How do we justify taking a group of Venezuelan men, 90 percent without any records of crime committed in the United States, in stealth by the cover of darkness round them up and send them outside without the benefit of due process before they are removed. What sort of despotic, tin horned dictator at their worst can do that in America?
Conservatives consistently lie and exaggerate without limit, that much I do know. They are making all of this the equivalent of another Pearl Harbor and that it is not.
So, you want to lower the standard to that of the worse regimes regarding migrants?I don't think its necessary to round up everyone... just the few hundred thousand known criminals, murderers, rapists... going after them would be enough... but 'Progressive' judges won't allow even that.
Perhaps the no-ID no-background checks for those that they were flying in during Biden's time... glad we stopped using taxpayer dollars to fly them in.
And dumping 20 thousand or more migrants in any small town, in a matter of a couple years, that didn't help improve things... especially when so many are being given Social Security numbers and put on benefits.
So... when having to choose between two sides... the corrupt status-quo government and their open borders, pay to get them here, pay to support them...
And the Trump side... stop funding all the efforts to get them here... deport the known criminals... and CONTROL the borders to only allow people to come in legally, properly...
The Sanctuary loopholes... the cities that treat ICE and border agents trying to enforce the law and protect citizens, as the enemy... are not beneficial to the country or its citizens...
Allowing criminals to run free is not a good thing, you would probably be more aware of this if you weren't living in a Conservative state and enjoying the benefits it offers rather than a lawless haven that so many of your 'Progressive' states have become.
Funny that?
You talk the talk... but when it comes to where you live, you sit right in the reddest state there is to keep safe... and to keep from paying the insane taxation and prices of your ideologically matching States.Are the criminals CONVICTED rapists ,murderers by a court of law? if so. I say ok, deport them, if not, I say that the deportations are illegal and I don’t care what Trump says, otherwise without proof.
Trump wants to dump 67000 South African white farmers here, yet complains about the Haitians that have been allowed to reside here legally. Again, I don’t care what either Trump or Vance as rank hypocrites have to say about it. Do we stop funding for all immigrants or only those with a dusky hue? Yes, control the borders legally and properly, but many have claims to the rights of asylum, will you ignore that across the board as well?
No, Ken, conservatism in the Trump mode sucks and really, it always has.
If it weren’t for my wife and the temperate climate, I wouldn’t live here. IT is bloody red and what advantage it once had in the costs of living relative to say, California, has quickly eroded recently. You, as a resident, should be aware of that.
Yeah, I talk the same talk that I have always, the red states suck and are increasingly becoming all the more uninhabitable. Where I choose to reside is not always about “money”, Ken……..
I have to choose between the musings of a tyrant and rules of law, I am always going to consider the latter."...I say that the deportations are illegal and I don’t care what Trump says, otherwise without proof."
And the rest of the country says "I don't care what you say, deport any illegal aliens". I really do think you are in a quite small minority on what to do with illegal aliens residing in our country.Due to the Supreme Court's ruling, those who are being deported must have immigration hearings. So, this should elevate citizens' concerns regarding the legality.
It will. And the naysayers to closed borders or deportation of illegal aliens will find another route to attack protecting our country from the invasion (past and present).
Just my opinion, but pretty sure of it. As in 99%+ confident that it will happen. Trump will NOT be allowed to deport the illegal aliens in our country; just look at the troubles he is having in getting rid of the violent criminal in that group. When will the cries be when he goes after the young woman down the road, with 2 children hanging from her skirt?He doesn't need to deport non-violent criminals...
He should be allowed to deport all those that are known (because of the crimes they have been convicted of already... here... or in their origin country) ... no judge should be able to stand in the way of our government protecting its citizens from foreign hostiles.
In order to fix... alleviate... correct... whatever word works for you... the current "migrant crisis" just STOP funding NGOs and Non-Profits that have anything to do with helping migrants get here and supporting them once they do.
To include eradicating the 5 million or so Social Security numbers given out to migrants so that they could collect benefits...
To include defunding any housing arrangements that paid for them to be living in 5 star hotels in the middle of the most expensive city in America...
To include defunding the UN, if necessary, so they stop wasting billions of our tax dollars on programs that facilitate the support of migrants coming to North America.
This 'crisis' arose because our tax dollars/debt funded all the key players who were making it happen.... stop funding it and this will go from a few million people crossing the border every year, to a few hundred thousand... a far more reasonable and sustainable/supportable amount.All good suggestions, but I don't see it helping that much. There will ALWAYS be those willing to pony up some cash to keep illegals here.
But I do not truly understand the problem. Every single one of them, male or female, adult or child, any country of origin, is by definition a criminal disobeying the law. Deport them. (Personally I except the Dreamers, but that's another discussion).That's fine if individuals want to donate money for those efforts ...just not when our own government is funneling billions of our taxpayer debt to do it ...which under Biden they most certainly did.
They spent our future debt and higher taxation to import millions over the 4 years of Biden ...it would have continued and compounded if Trump hadn't been elected.
With the ruling from the Supreme Court that even the ones with criminal records must have hearings, I can agree. This law has been on the books, those seeking asylum must have a hearing. I don't see how he could get around the hearings. He could attempt to expedite hearings by adding new Judges. So many migrants were poorly vetted and just released. We have laws that prevent criminals from even being considered for asylum, yet so many are now in our country. Trump jas the border all but closed. I am grateful the flow has decreased.
As of early 2025, approximately 1.4 million migrants in the U.S. have been ordered deported by immigration judges but have not yet been removed from the country. So, even when told to leave, many don't. Many never show up for hearings. What is apparent we need to be rid of our current immigration laws and start from scratch.“Trump will NOT be allowed to deport the illegal aliens in our country; just look at the troubles he is having in getting rid of the violent criminal in that group. When will the cries be when he goes after the young woman down the road, with 2 children hanging from her skirt?”
——-
Trump will not be allowed to deport any one without their receiving a hearing under due process, so don’t go “simple” on me, Wilderness….. Trump does not just get to decide this guilt or innocense outside the parameters of the law.
So, illegal aliens are automatically violent criminals, is the rightwinger always this obtuse in their thinking and reasoning?
Deportations without due process or hearing will not be allowed, your right wing Supreme Court made that clear. His just scooping people up without evidence of their residency status is dumb and is an expected outcome from conservative oriented thinking.
The minority is not as minority as you believe regarding the insistence that Trump follow the rules of law and not just do what he likes.
"IT is bloody red and what advantage it once had in the costs of living relative to say, California, has quickly eroded recently. You, as a resident, should be aware of that."
Trust me... if you are struggling with Florida's "cost of living" you would be unable to exist in a state like CA or NY... unless you consider living out of your car an acceptable alternative.
Just keeping it real.California is a big state and there are parts of it where one can afford to live, just stay away from the coastal areas. All of New York State is not New York City.
Not familiar enough with CA to say with certainty...
But I am with NY ...and I call BS on that statement ...there is NO WHERE in NY remotely as affordable as FL.
You would be very aware of that if you studied the matter or tried to move there."You would be very aware of that if you studied the matter"
According to personal finance website WalletHub, Florida ranked Florida number 49, nearly dead last as the least affordable state....
https://www.wptv.com/news/state/it-is-a … ordability
Also...Insurance Companies Seize Thousands of Homes in the Sunshine State As Florida is No Longer Affordable...with insurance premiums going up at an alarming rate, this has led to tens of thousands of homes being seized by insurance companies and leaving its inhabitants with nowhere to go.
https://www.savvydime.com/florida-is-no … ine-state/Willow, my household is trying to negotiate the ever increasing insurance for private home costs in this region as we speak.
The number of panhandlers on the off ramps and the number of misfortunate pushing shopping carts around is astounding. They have not been decreasing.
Dont mean to overwhelm you with superlatives, Ken. It is just that conservatives love absolutes rather than accept that everything is relative in the real world.
How does the cost and availability of real estate in Livingston County, New York, compare with that of Dade County, Florida?
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandho … -County_NY
Cred,
I lived in California for 8 years When you go east away from the big coastal cities, it's like a different world. These people don't like those who live in the big coastal cities. Many of them are rural and farming communities. It's quite a difference.
You are right, everything changes when you go into the easter portion of the state of California.The same can be said for NY... different people... not city folk.
That was not the issue... the issue was affordability... taxation... cost of power/electricity, "cost of living"... as well as laws that do not allow you to defend yourself in your own home, etc.
For instance, in order to own a pistol in NY State, you are required to provide four character references. These references must be individuals who have known you for at least a year and are not related to you.... have lived in the State for several years... then you have to justify your need to a Judge, etc.
Electricity costs three times the average per KWh in NY as it does in FL. Etc.
Property and School taxes on a home that costs lets say 300k... your taxation will be in the 10k per year range. In Florida its between 1.5 and 3k for the same house of similar value.
You can argue this all you want... but you won't be convincing anyone who can do basic math and has the facts that I am wrong.Why do people stay in that state?
I had family in NYC for many years. They all moved out by 2004.
Don't even start on what is required to start a business in NY.
I know people who hate everything about New York I hate, but they won't move because it's "their home."
I'm just stunned when I hear people considering a move to New York.If you are rich it isn't an issue...
If you aren't it's going to be a lot harder to achieve that status in NY than Florida. Especially if you aren't a crook.Well, rhe adirondacks are pretty, and much of Florida is as well, but I'll take Idaho over either. The bugs of Florida are missing and so are the libs of NY.
You hit it... Many people will not move.
It is interesting, many people lack the ability to uproot and leave behind what they know and who they know... majority of people are risk adverse, at least to that degree.
I remember having a long discussion on the matter with a very knowledgeable psych professor... It's a survival trait many lack, some people are readily capable of making such changes, while others can't cope with it at all.
Absolutely, Mike, it is all RED. I lived in Southern California for 5 years and the eastern parts of the state are not much different than the very depths of Eastern Oregon or Idaho.
You are right, there is quite a difference
https://www.ebay.com/itm/296834021272Nothing new there. There are very few large red cities and very few blue rural areas. It is only the giant concrete anthills of our country that produce that peculiar self destructive blue culture.
The deportation was later found to be unlawful, and a federal judge ordered the U.S. government to bring him back. However, the Supreme Court has since paused that ruling while legal arguments continue.
From what I read, he should not have been deported without the benefit of another hearing. He had protected status. I feel we have laws, and it appears ICE did not follow them. Now we have the Supreme Court involved, when all ICE needed to do was follow the immigration law and give this man an immigration hearing.Am I to assume that Trump and his justice department were clearly unaware of the questionable legality of all this prior to taking action?
Immigration officials have acknowledged that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an "administrative error." Robert Cerna, acting field office director for ICE, described the removal as an "oversight" carried out in good faith based on a final order of removal and alleged gang affiliation. Despite this admission, the administration contends that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to order his return, as he is currently under Salvadoran custody.
Recent legal developments have led to changes in the deportation process for individuals suspected of gang affiliation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can deport Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, but only if individuals are first granted a court hearing. This decision emphasizes the requirement for due process, ensuring that migrants are notified and allowed to contest their deportation. However this man was deported before this ruling, and I can't find any info if he did get a hearing or not.Absolutely no one on those first flights received due process.
As of now, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has not publicly reported whether the Venezuelan nationals deported under the Alien Enemies Act were provided with court hearings before their removal. However, multiple reports indicate that several individuals were deported without such hearings.
Our government is made up of traitors to the American people... people make six or seven figure salaries that are making sure your kids and grandkids live in a country that will look like LA or San Fran does today. Full of junkies... criminals... people without hope or a future.
IRS Commissioner RESIGNS, REFUSES To Help Deport Illegals BUT Had No Problem AUDITING Poor Americans
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics … index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thiiRHD7wzkWhat is positive in this story --- she is out of a job. I am thankful that this type is being removed from our federal payrolls.
She wasn't removed. She left because she felt she was being asked to do something illegal...
The request could have come in the form of an official directive, internal memo, or policy decision, often made by those in higher positions of authority, such as senior IRS officials, DHS leadership, or political appointees within the Trump administration. These decisions typically align with broader immigration enforcement goals, which may have been prioritized by the administration at the time.
In the case of the agreement between the IRS and DHS, if it was made in compliance with relevant legal provisions (for example, under a law allowing data sharing for immigration enforcement purposes), it could have been deemed legal. The Trump administration, during its time in office, had a focus on expanding immigration enforcement, and the use of taxpayer data for these purposes could have been framed as a legitimate action within the scope of immigration law enforcement.
However, whether it was "legally" valid would ultimately need to be determined by courts, and there could be ongoing debate about whether the practice violated constitutional or privacy rights. If Krause believed it did, her concerns might have been about potential overreach or violations of legal protections, but it does not necessarily mean that the action was deemed illegal at the time by those enforcing the policy.
Trump has an aggressive mandate. He’s been given clear authority and a strong directive to pursue bold, assertive, and ambitious actions. His campaign laid out exactly the agenda that’s now unfolding—so none of his moves should come as a surprise. I realize many people aren’t used to a president who actually follows through on what he said he would do. It seems some have become so accustomed to politicians' lying that they now accept those lies without question.
Why on earth would he retain any staffers in his administration who aren't aligned with his agenda? The time for complaining is over—he won. He should remove anyone who's not committed to helping him carry out the mandate given by those of us who voted for it.
You repeated my statement that showed clear context. Maybe you did not understand the context. I certainly did when I posted it.
Perhaps, run by my sentence and its full context, "those of us who voted for it” draws a clear line between supporters and non-supporters.
Context is very important, I was careful not to speak for non-supporters.
So be assured I realize non-supporters did not have anything whatsoever with sending Trump to Washington with a mandate. That would be the 77,284,118 voters. That is the second-highest vote total in U.S. history, trailing only the 81,284,666 votes that Joe Biden won in 2020.
1) Kilmar Abrego Garcia was here legally
2) Trump illegally sent him to a prison in El Salvador; the Administration admits this was a mistake
3) The Supreme Court unanimously ordered his return
4) Trump refused.
This is an active decision by Trump to indefinitely imprison a man in a foreign torture dungeon with zero due process...
Oh and he said he is open to deporting "homegrown criminals"...
Trump is claiming that they can pay El Salvador to imprison anyone, and once the person enters Salvadoran custody, no matter how illegal it was to get them there, there is nothing any judge in the United States can do to order them to bring the person back.... Just ponder that for a minute.
This is sick.You are wrong.
“The Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were unlawful and reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither the Secretary of State or President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador who, again, is a member of MS-13, which—as I’m sure you understand—rapes little girls, murders women, murders children, is engaged in barbaric activities in the world. And I can promise you if he was your neighbor, you would move right away.”
an ICE official said in court filings that Abrego Garcia's "membership in MS-13" makes him ineligible to be removed from that country.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said, "If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane. That’s up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s not up to us.”
An immigration judge in 2019 found Abrego Garcia to be affiliated with MS-13, an allegation he denies.Where did you get this info?? You're quoting Stephen Miller...a liar.
Stephen Miller outright lied in the oval office yesterday....this is what SCOTUS actually said.
And in terms of being a gang member? the U.S. government has never produced an iota of evidence to support this...
The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived,”
Judge Xinis
Perfect example of why Stephen Miller’s lie in the Oval Office was so insidious: low information folks believed the blatant lie that the Court sided with Trump over the truth...just incredible.
Oh and Barbie Bondi sat on that couch in the oval yesterday and bald-faced lied also... but that's what she was hired for.
This is how disinformation is spread.Attorney General Pam Bondi said, "If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane. That’s up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s not up to us.”
ALSO
The Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were unlawful and reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither the Secretary of State or President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador who, again, is a member of MS-13, which—as I’m sure you understand—rapes little girls, murders women, murders children, is engaged in barbaric activities in the world. And I can promise you if he was your neighbor, you would move right away.”Repeating Stephen Miller's lies does not make them true.... The Trump Administration is currently defying scotus... Let that sink in
The demonstration has offered to take him back, even send a plane to retrieve him. The president of El Salvador has refused to send him back. Miller did not appear to say anything that was not true this far. So, it appears now to be in the hands of the president of El Salvador.
A citizen from El Salvador was returned to El Salvador. He is now under the legal jurisdiction of El Salvador where he is a citizen.
The United States can only get back a citizen of El Salvador to the United States IF it is something chosen to do by the government of El Salvador.
Those are facts and you need to let them sink in.You understand that he was put on a plane without due process.? Due process is something that Trump should understand very well, he has fully taken advantage of this right. Due process for me but not for the huh? And that is complete bunk that he cannot be returned. There is a partnership between our country and El Salvador to house these people. El Salvador released several women who were wrongly sent... Of course Trump can get this man back, all he needs to do is ask. Come on.
In the Zadvydas dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argues that the Due Process Clause should not protect illegal aliens against the deprivation of liberty.
Scalia argued that those who have no constitutional right to remain in the United States, should have no right to be released back into the country. Thus, illegal immigrants have no liberty right protecting them from indefinite detention.
Scalia quotes Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissent stating, “Due process does not invest any alien with a right to enter the United States, nor confer on those admitted the right to remain against the national will.”
Unfortunately, that is not how the Supreme Court ruled.
So... the way for the Trump Administration to correct the situation is to appoint judges that will "see" the migrant in custody that they want to deport... this can be as simple a process as an online hearing... since Covid many court cases were "heard" online... its a simple fix... give these judges time to review the case against the foreigner and then OK the deportation.
Avoiding political judges, set up a centralized system that is not answerable to a particular State with extreme political biases.
"Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia now languishes in a brutal Salvadoran prison — even though, in contrast to Trump, he has no criminal record." NYT
So, I am supposed to believe that Trump and the government can not have returned a man that they illegally sent to a gulag? Trump is resisting court orders and allowing the El Salvadorian government to do the same. He is stalling and I see a constitutional crisis in its wake.
I want everyone to be subject to the rule of law, I don’t necessarily have to like him or her to have an interest in due process because that is ultimately my protection from a tyrannical, lawless state of affairs. Trump in his stupidity doesn’t seem to understand that.A citizen from El Salvador was returned to El Salvador. He is now under the legal jurisdiction of El Salvador where he is a citizen.
The United States can only get back a citizen of El Salvador to the United States IF it is something chosen to do by the government of El Salvador.Can you explain to us the status of Garcia, in our country.
He has no status in our country. He is not a citizen.
What is his status and does due process apply to that status?
Not when he is in El Salvador and is a legal citizen of El Salvador. US laws no longer apply to him.
The man shouldn't have been on the flight in the first place. The Trump Administration admitted it was an error...In 2019, an immigration judge granted him "withholding of removal" status... This Administration is wrong and now they are all lying about it.
You are completely wrong... Please go ahead and cite where his status excludes him from due process...
Mike, I don’t see you can so easily accommodate blatant lies from this administration. The question is what constitutes membership in MS-13? Is it a tattoo, gossip word of mouth, etc.
You conservatives are more than happy to bag anyone you don’t like and send them to a gulag, outside due process of law. Fabrication Barbie is lying as well.
I don’t like the administration playing fast and loose with the law. Trump and his henchmen knew well enough that involving anyone in this crazy rendition stuff without a trial or court hearing is illegal.
Trumps next target: American citizens.
Now, I really don’t care at this point how this Trump is removed and eliminated, I just hope that it is soon before he wrecks everything.Miller and Bondi lied so brazenly in the oval office press event with the Salvadoran President yesterday. I've never seen anything so egregious and Trump sitting there smirking like a Cheshire cat.
What did either lie about? The president of El Salvador stated live, he would not send him back.
Miller lying...
https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1911814479416877471
Barbie lying...
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1911829499668218225The statement made by Stephen Miller about the Supreme Court ruling is factual but requires clarification on a few points. I did not find that he lied in any respect. He spoke on one section of the SC ruling. Where did you feel he lied?
The Supreme Court ruling he referred to was indeed unanimous (9-0), but it did not directly say that "no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States." Rather, the ruling addressed the authority of lower courts in interfering with the executive branch's deportation decisions. The Court essentially affirmed that immigration decisions are within the executive's purview and that courts should not be intervening in foreign policy matters, including deportation.
As for the claim that "no version of this legally ends up with him ever living here because he is a citizen of El Salvador," this is correct in the sense that the individual in question, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported, is a citizen of El Salvador. The Court's ruling stated that if El Salvador decided to accept him back, the U.S. could deport him again, consistent with immigration law. The ruling, therefore, affirmed the U.S. government's right to deport him, provided El Salvador concurs.
In summary, Miller's statement broadly aligns with the ruling, but his phrasing on the district court's role and the exact legal process may be a bit simplified or framed in a way that could be misinterpreted.
I have found nothing in Bondi's statement that indicates mistruth of any form. Do you really think it wise to seek views on X?I didn't seek "views" on x, I used it to highlight the point at which the individuals lied... I used it for the video rather than quoting them...
Garcia has never been charged criminally in the U.S. or El Salvador and Justice Department officials have acknowledged the existence of an immigration order barring him from being deported to El Salvador.
The Supreme Court found the deportation was illegal and ordered the administration to “effectuate” "facilitate " his return. Pretty simple. I don't know where the information in your post came from but it is incorrect.
"The Court's ruling stated that if El Salvador decided to accept him back, the U.S. could deport him again, consistent with immigration law.
LOL , immigration law? And the law wasn't followed in any manner. The wording you cite, from Stephen Miller does not appear anywhere in the ruling.
The administration admitted to wrongly to porting this man, they provided no evidence to support their gang membership theory and now they are ignoring a ruling from scotus.
That should shock every American who cares about our system of checks and balances and the rule of law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 … 9_lkhn.pdf"Garcia has never been charged criminally in the U.S. or El Salvador and Justice Department officials have acknowledged the existence of an immigration order barring him from being deported to El Salvador." Willow"
Miller did not make that statement, and neither did Bondi.They both lied. Their statements in the oval office yesterday were outright lies... Your previous post quoted one of Miller's lies
the ruling did NOT explicitly state that “if El Salvador decided to accept him back, the U.S. could deport him again.” Miller lied.
Willow, chapter 2 is coming to fruition
https://apnews.com/article/trump-citize … c3a4c3defd
It is quite obvious now that Trump has no respect for the law. If he can get away with this, who is safe from his wrath? There will be a gulag waiting for you if you dare speak ill of “His Eminence”.
Have any “rule of law” Republicans disavowed Trump for refusing to comply with the Supreme Court or nah?
If this ruling can be ignored, ANY ruling can be ignored. Are we in a constitutional crisis yet??So, what is this about?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … rt-beliefs
Rubio declares power to deport legal immigrants for beliefs, statements or associations that are otherwise lawful?
What does that mean, does not the First Amendment put on hold for legal residents just because they are not citizens, a distinction without a real difference from those who are citizens? Is it thought police, why can’t anyone here believe, say or associate with whom they choose?
Am I going to be deported just because I am a black male that literally cannot stand Trump?
Follow the bread crumbs people, where is this leading?Cred,
As I've told everyone on this forum before, even if you have a green card, you can be deported for whatever reason the Secretary of State believes you need to be deported for.
On the green card form it clearly states having it does not make you an American citizen and you can still be deported at any time "for cause."
It is left intentionally vague.
So, this should be a good lesson to all green card holders to remember they're NOT US citizens and can still be deported.
My family members went through the entire process. None of them were stupid enough to do anything remotely against the law. It wasn't worth the chance.Why do you folks keep ignoring due process?
I have looked into this more deeply as it is obvious that I need to.
Under concepts of “National Security” threat, a green card can be revoked and its holder be deported. How much of a window for abuse by the Trump regime does that allow for? All of this is just an excuse, using one man as a political pawn.
So you can’t think, believe, speak or associate with lawful dissenters of Trump policies? Is that what the tyrannical State Department refer to as “cause”?
It is left “vague” so that Tyrants like Trump can run a freight train through it, to arrest and deport anyone that so much as gives him the finger.
It not about being “against the law” but against a tyrant that wants to control contrary opinions and ideas.
“The Constitution does not have a clause which states specifically, “either we have laws and follow them, or we don’t.” The closest the Constitution comes is in Article II, Section 3, where it is mandated that “the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause is violated each day when Donald Trump awakens and opens his eyes.”
I want the victim of this travesty to use the court system to seek redress in this matter.I don't want, nor do I think Mike wants, good... well meaning... people to be deported.
I want the criminals... the many tens of thousands according to reports put out during Biden's time, from his government agencies... the murderers, rapists, etc. rounded up with due haste and removed from the US.
MS13 gang members would be included in that. People trafficking fentanyl would as well.
I would also like it if we weren't using taxpayer dollars to provide them with transportation to get here, or putting them up in five star hotels in the most expensive city in America...
Basically common sense... good people stay... criminals be deported... lets not pay for them to go on vacation here in America on the taxpayer's dime.Ken, what is defined as good well meaning people? Do you have to be supportive of Trump policies to be such?
This MS-13 terrorist designation is just more BS from Trump, who is next, “Black Lives Matter”? Could a green card holder by deported for expressing sympathy with their goals and objectives?
Those murderers and rapists need to be determined as such by a court of law conviction, not just by Trump edict.
No one is here to encourage illegal immigration, but I want due process of law adhered to closely regarding everyone to ensure that Trump actions are fair and just as they usually are not.
Illegal migrants caught in criminal activity may well have forfeited their rights. First, in being here without any authorization, Second, in committing crimes. But, you know that is not what I am talking about, don’t you?
Trump did not even attempted to sort the wheat from the chaff, just tag em and bag them for shipment like so much freight, right?
The more I read about the less that I like this guy, Trump.I think it's fairly obvious that Trump is fighting the courts to assess what he can get away with so he can arrest and disappear citizens. If due process doesn’t matter for Garcia then it doesn’t matter for citizens and anyone can be arrested and shuttled off to a gulag.
Yeah I know... Trump is the word... word word word, Trump is the word.
More than 13,000 immigrants convicted of homicide are living outside immigration detention in the U.S., ICE says
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/ … rcna173125
A 2016 DHS Inspector General's report found there were 368,000 criminal immigrants who were not detained by ICE. According to ICE's fiscal year 2023 budget justification, there were 405,786 convicted criminal immigrants on the non-detained docket as of June 5, 2021, just under five months after Trump left office, indicating many crossed during the Trump administration. As of July of this year, according to the data provided by ICE to Rep. Gonzales, over 435,719 convicted criminal immigrants were on ICE's non-detained docket.
So... there you go... lets start there... no need to look any further... it would take a long... long.... long time to round up just 100,000 of the worst criminals and get them out of the country.
No need to go after hard working migrants that are just trying to make a better life for themselves.
Also... no need to be using taxpayer money to fund NGOs & Non-Profits who are trying to bring migrants in... or pay for their 5 star hotels in NY... or give them Social Security benefits.
Common sense... something the Progressive side of the house has little of... which is why we have Trump back in the White House.
The alternative to Trump was considered far worse... more delusional...deranged and detrimental to our lives.
If a green card holder goes before an immigration judge and the judge rules he can be deported, that is due process.
Again, anybody with a green card and a shred of common sense knows you don't do ANYTHING even close to breaking the laws if you want to become a citizen. My cousin was pulled over once and had his drivers license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration ready before the police officer came to him.
Remember, if you are not a US citizen, you don't have the same rights as a US citizen, because you can always be deported where a US citizen cannot.In 2019, an immigration judge granted him "withholding of removal" status...
Chuck Grassley having a hard time with the older folks in the middle of Iowa... This is when you know you have a problem. It's worth listening to these people. But please tell me more about how satisfied people are.
https://x.com/HeartlandSignal/status/19 … 0302779826A perspective in an article from . . .
Stephen Miller Egregiously Misrepresented a Supreme Court Order While Trump Nodded Along published at Reason (Apr 15, 2025)
No, the Supreme Court did not give Trump free rein in the case of a wrongly deported man.
https://reason.com/2025/04/15/stephen-m … -588181902
"Yesterday, seated next to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele during an Oval Office press conference, Trump was questioned by a reporter about whether he would ask Bukele "to help return the man your administration says was mistakenly deported, the man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador?" Trump, who appeared to have no idea about what was going on in the case, deferred to Stephen Miller, his deputy White House chief of staff.
"The Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9-0 unanimously," Miller told Trump.
The term misinformation has become somewhat overused in recent times. But it seems applicable here. Miller egregiously misrepresented what the Supreme Court actually said in its order. Was he lying? Did he fail to correctly read the Court's order and is now publicly operating based on his erroneous understanding? Either way, it was a disgraceful performance.
"And it's probably only going to get uglier from here. At the heart of the Trump administration's position is a naked assertion of unchecked power. Once the federal government has deported someone to the hellish prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration asserts, there is nothing that anyone—especially not a federal judge—can do about it. What is worse, by the administration's own admission, it does not matter whether the deportee was lawfully removed in the first place or not. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor has accurately observed, "the Government's argument…implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene." The word for what Sotomayor is describing is despotism[."And Bondi...
She misrepresented the Supreme Court’s ruling on Garcia during the Oval Office meeting also...Bondi claimed the ruling meant that “if El Salvador wants to return him, we would ‘facilitate’ it, meaning provide a plane,” implying the U.S. had no proactive obligation and that the decision was El Salvador’s alone. She also stated on Fox News that “nor do we want him back,” suggesting the U.S. could deport him again if returned, which the ruling does not support....
The Court clarified that “facilitate” involves ensuring his case is handled as it would have been absent the error, not merely offering transportation if El Salvador decides to act. The ruling rejected the administration’s claim of lacking authority and emphasized correcting the unlawful deportation, contradicting Barbie's portrayal of it as optional or dependent solely on El Salvador. Her statements were also misleading as she portrayed Garcia as an MS-13 member, despite immigration judges finding insufficient evidence and no criminal convictions, further distorting the Court’s focus on due process....
Shameful liars this bunch.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-defiant- … di-2059822
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025 … icials-on/Almost forgot about Little Marco...
Marco also lied about Garcia’s legal status during the Oval Office press conference yesterday. Rubio stated, “This individual is a citizen of El Salvador. He was illegally in the United States and was returned to his country.” This is inaccurate.
Garcia, had been living legally in the U.S. since 2019, when an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal” status, a protection barring deportation to El Salvador due to a well-founded fear of gang persecution. He was issued a work permit, worked as a sheet metal apprentice, and checked in annually with ICE, confirming his legal presence...
https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego … urn-ms-13/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/el-salvador- … 26484.htmlAnd another liar...Karoline Leavit.. this woman is appalling in her shameless lies and belligerence...
https://x.com/Peggles12/status/1912217411052613703On the issue of illegal immigration, democrats are earning their very low popularity ratings. It seems they just don't get it. I don't know why they value illegal aliens over American citizens, but that is a fact.
Laura Ingram puts in perspective.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6371536957112And of course... trump lying ..
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1912261192342528371
The judges now weighing contempt charges against the the trump crew...let's hope.
The 9 - 0 Supreme Court verdict was AGAINST the administration.
Trump just blatantly lied.
Up is down, in is out, night is day in their fascist fantasy land..."Harvard 'failed its Jewish students' and must face antisemitism lawsuit, judge rules
Harvard University "failed its Jewish students" and must face a lawsuit over antisemitism on campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack against Israel, a federal judge in Boston ruled.
Judge Richard Stearns said Jewish students plausibly claimed Harvard had been indifferent to their fears of walking through the campus and missing classes and extracurricular activities when they were allegedly harassed by pro-Palestinian protesters.
He did not rule on the merits of the claims, only that the lawsuit could move forward.
"The protests were, at times, confrontational and physically violent, and plaintiffs legitimately fear their repetition," Stearns wrote. "[P]laintiffs have plausibly pled that they were subject to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment."
Stearns said he was "dubious" of Harvard's claim that it allowed the protests to continue in order to protect the free speech rights of demonstrators. Instead, Harvard's reaction was "at best, indecisive, vacillating, and at times internally contradictory," the judge concluded.
"To conclude that the [lawsuit] has not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the allegations of the [lawsuit], proved hollow when it came to taking disciplinary measures against offending students and faculty," Stearns wrote in the opinion. "In other words, the facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students."
In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for Harvard said the university "has and will continue to take concrete steps to address the root causes of antisemitism on campus and protect our Jewish and Israeli students, ensuring they may pursue their education free from harassment and discrimination."
"We appreciate that the Court dismissed the claim that Harvard directly discriminated against members of our community, and we understand that the court considers it too early to make determinations on other claims," the spokesperson added. "Harvard is confident that once the facts in this case are made clear, it will be evident that Harvard has acted fairly and with deep concern for supporting our Jewish and Israeli students."
In a statement in December, then-Harvard President Claudine Gay said there are "some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students."
"Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard," she said, adding, "Those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account."
n the months since Oct. 7, numerous universities have faced criticism for their handling of both antisemitism and Islamophobia on campuses.
More than a dozen pro-Palestinian Harvard students filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in January, alleging the university had failed to protect them from harassment, threats and assault.
Harvard isn't the only one to face a lawsuit. Jewish students have also sued UCLA, New York University and Columbia University over their response to pro-Palestinian campus protests.
The U.S. Department of Education has opened Title VI discrimination investigations into both antisemitism and Islamophobia at several educational institutions, including major universities and the New York City Department of Education.
Federal officials have said the Jewish community, as well as the Muslim and Arab communities, have faced a sharp uptick in threats and hate speech since Oct. 7.
In January, Gay stepped down following a congressional hearing about antisemitism at the school and amid accusations of plagiarism."Trump and Salvadoran President Bukele sat in the Oval Office like a pair of smarmy abusers and openly mocked U.S. courts that have ordered the return of a wrongfully deported Maryland man.
Garcia, a father and sheet metal worker, was deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador due to what the Trump administration admitted in court was an “administrative error.” You don’t have to care about him or his family, though anyone with a hint of morality would , but you damn well better care about a U.S. president openly defying a U.S. Supreme Court order while yukking it up in the White House with a Central American leader who dubbed himself “world’s coolest dictator.". Seriously, he calls himself that.
Garcia, was detained by ICE agents in Maryland on March 12 and swiftly dispatched to what amounts to a gulag in El Salvador. That was in open defiance of an immigration judge’s 2019 ruling that Abrego Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador because he would face persecution.
Before I say more about this gross miscarriage of justice, it's worth reminding folks that this is the president Republicans wanted. And until they say otherwise, I'll assume this dictatorial behavior is also what they want.
The administration has claimed Abrego Garcia is a gang member, but a federal judge has already said there’s no evidence to support that claim. On April 10, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court order requiring the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it.”
It has been clear that Trump and his clownish crew plan to defy the order to return Garcia. That plan was cemented on April 14 in the Oval Office when not-at-all-cool dictator Bukele said: “How can I return him to the United States? I smuggle him into the United States? Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.”
That does not make our big, tough American president look very tough.
In fact, it looks like a dictator waltzed into the Oval Office and told the American people that their weenie president is powerless to retrieve a wrongfully deported man from a small Central American country.
The only other possibility is that Trump and Bukele are in cahoots and are jerking the U.S. Supreme Court around while flaunting their laws-don’t-apply-to-us attitudes.
If that’s the case, then it appears the U.S. government can simply disappear a person legally residing here with a wife and child who are are U.S. citizens and then fart around as if federal court orders are meaningless. And if THAT’S the case, then the idea of America is pretty much shot.
Trump is paying the El Salvadoran government $6 million to take alleged gang members whom ICE rounds up without apparent due process. A reciprocal relationship has been formed, women have been returned...of course Garcia can be returned.
At one point during their White House meeting, Trump said to Bukele: “Home-growns are next. The home-growns. You gotta build about five more places. It's not big enough.”
That means the plan is to start shipping full-on U.S. citizens, anyone the Trump administration deems a “criminal,” to Salvadoran gulags.
And that, to say the least, should scare the sh*t out of everyone. If Trump can defy the Supreme Court, it's curtains for America
But even if you don’t care about what happens to immigrants, I strongly suggest you think long and hard about what it means to have a president who gleefully ignores the courts. I want you to ponder that slippery slope and whether your idea of America involves a king who answers to nobody dispatching American citizens he happens to dislike.
Because that Oval Office meeting with El Salvador’s president showed, in no uncertain terms, that we’re perilously close to a scenario where Trump just does as he pleases. If that's what Republicans want, they should have the guts to stand up and say so, because this is what they asked for. This is what you voted for maga folks...
But for everyone else, it's time to stand up and shout “Hell no!” right freakin’ now, and not a moment later...And Barbie continues lying this morning....
https://x.com/krassenstein/status/1912490822555009426
Can someone provide the name of the judge or judges that ruled, as Barbie says, that Garcia was a part of MS-13?
What folks need to understand: this is carefully chosen test run. If they can say you belong to a certain group without due process, that’s how it will be carried out at scale....
Barbie says you’re "antifa"? Deported
Barbie says you’re a crip because you own a LA hat? Deported...
Spoke negatively against dear leader? DEPORTED"Can someone provide the name of the judge or judges that ruled, as Barbie says, that Garcia was a part of MS-13? " willow"
Are you actually calling the AG a liar?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap … 11.1_1.pdf
appeals documents Dec 19, 2019 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 … ia-v-noem/Yes I am calling her a liar because she's lying... No federal judge has ever ruled that Garcia was part of MS 13.... Your source sites and immigration hearing, with an immigration judge presiding. That is very different than a federal judge.
His alleged MS-13 membership primarily derives from a confidential informant's unverified accusation and a gang field interview sheet relying on superficial indicators like wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and association with people at a Home Depot...
The informant who alleged his gang membership reportedly linked him to the "Westerns" clique in New York, despite Abrego Garcia never having lived in New York.
Abrego Garcia's arrest records and police reports lack any substantial evidence connecting him to gang activity; local police had no incident report involving him during the incident cited.
Several documents and reports filed officially also highlight that the claims of his gang involvement rest on hearsay and uncross-examined evidence.
Multiple authorities, including U.S. district judges and the Supreme Court, have been involved in adjudications that recognized significant procedural and evidentiary issues in the case...
Bondi’s claims of Garcia's MS-13 membership are not supported by credible evidence or legal findings. Instead, the allegations appear based on uncorroborated informant tips and administrative assertions rather than concrete proof. Multiple sources emphasize that Garcia has never been criminally charged with gang membership, and his asylum hearings found him credible regarding his fear of gang persecution.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ab … %20return."Yes I am calling her a liar because she's lying... No federal judge has ever ruled that Garcia was part of MS 13.... Your source sites and immigration hearing, with an immigration judge presiding. That is very different than a federal judge." Willow"
The Judges belong to the Executive Branch court and did find prove he was a gang member and mentioned it in the final ruling; he was refused Bond partially due to his being a gang member---and allowed to appeal, which he did...
"After considering the information provided by both parties, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter. The Court first reasoned that the Respondent failed to meet burden of demonstrating
that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as
the evidence shows that he is a verified member of MS-13. Matter ofSiniauskas, 27 l&N Dec. at 210; Matter of Adeniji, 22 l&N Dec. at 1111-13; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(3). The BIA has held that, absent any indication that the information therein is incorrect or was the result of coercion
or duress, Form 1-213 is "inherently trustworthy and admissible." Matter of Barcenas, 19 l&N Dec. 609,611 (BIA 1988). The Respondent contends that the Form 1-213 in his case erroneously states that he was detained in connection to a murder investigation. He also claims that the 1-213
is internally contradicts itself as to whether the Respondent fears returning to El Salvador. The reason for the Respondent's arrest given on his Form 1-213 does appear at odds with the Gang Field Interview Sheet, which states that the Respondent was approached because he and others
were loitering outside of a Home Depot. Regardless, the determination that the Respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and
is supported by other evidence in the record. namely, information contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet. Although the Court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the Respondent's clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, THE FACT THAT A "past, proven, and reliable source of information" verified the Respondent's GANG MEMBERSHIP, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion. The Court further held that no bond was appropriate in order to ensure the Respondent's appearance at future hearings, as he had not met his burden of showing that he would not be a flight risk. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l 9(h)(3). The Respondent's case presents limited eligibility for
relief, thereby significantly diminishing his incentive to appear for future immigration proceedings. He is not married to his fiancée, and any immigration relief that he can be expected to gain from a marital relationship with her in the future is speculative. Although the Respondent
stated that he intends to file for asylum, his eligibility appears limited to withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture due to his failure to file an application within one year of his arrival in the United States. Those forms of relief are limited and contain standards that are difficult to meet. In addition, the record evidence shows that the Respondent has a history of failing to appear for proceedings pertaining to his traffic violations. See Bond Exh. 2, Tab I at 28-29. He asserted that he did not receive notice of these proceedings, but in his written statement, he admitted that he remembers receiving citations that he chose not to follow up on. See Bond Exh. 2, Tab B at 5. The Respondent's lack of diligence in following up on his traffic court cases indicates that he cannot be trusted to appear in immigration court. In light of these findings, the Court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter. That order was issued on April 24, 2019. The Respondent reserved the right to appeal. "
I suggest you read both rulings in full. I am satisfied he was a grand member, and I trust our judges and courts.You are citing an immigration judge.
Therefore, while an immigration court ruled on his status as a gang member for immigration proceedings, this is distinct from a federal judge making a criminal or definitive judicial ruling on MS-13 gang membership....but if you'd like to pursue this line...
In 2019, Immigration Judge David M. Jones conducted a thorough hearing over two days and found Garcia's testimony to be credible, internally consistent, and free of embellishment. Judge Jones granted him withholding of removal, recognizing Garcia's "well-founded fear of persecution by the Barrio 18 gang if returned to El Salvador..."I would like to see his full ruling--- it appears he also felt this man was a gang member, and needed to be kept in the US for protection against other gang members. The full context is important to ascertain whether or not he was a gang member. What is being reported, in my view, indicates his gang relationship is what kept him in the US.
The entire and I do mean entire history is here... The Trump Administration is not being honest about this case
Garcia's family were threatened by the gangs in El salvador, even to pay monetary tribute to them...
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ab … do-we-know
Ask yourself...what’s going to stop the government from deporting you to a prison in El Salvador?
How would you prove it’s an error if you don’t have due process? If it can happen to anyone, it can happen to you.
The people get it. Either everyone has due process—or nobody does.Well, first, I'm a legal US citizen. That would end any possibility to deport me anywhere.
Second, I'm not a member of a South American gang responsible for killing, raping, drug dealing and all sorts of other nefarious crimes who is in the country illegally.
I've never had to go before an immigration judge who told me I was a member of a gang.
So, I feel pretty safe.No federal judge has ever claimed or ruled he was a gang member....
I’m not sure people realize that individuals in our country claiming asylum—or those found to have entered illegally—fall under the jurisdiction of immigration judges, not federal courts. In this particular case, two immigration judges found sufficient evidence that the man in question had gang affiliations, yet one judge still ruled to allow him to stay for his own protection. The reason this case escalated to a federal court is that he was deported without first appearing before an immigration judge, which is a violation of federal immigration law. If he is returned, he will go before an immigration judge again, where he’ll have the opportunity to present his case. He won’t be brought before a federal judge at this point. The outcome will likely be either deportation or another form of protected status, similar to what he was previously granted, based on credible fears of harm from the gang he was once affiliated with.
Where is the evidence that he was once affiliated with a gang? What was the so-called sufficient evidence found by the first immigration judge? I believe it had to do with clothing and a police officer who was later removed from the force for some sort of misconduct?
Why would you feel safe? Garcia has the same protection of due process under the law with his status as you do with yours...
Real question:
If a president defies the ruling of the Supreme Court, what are we supposed to do?First, the situation with Kilmar Abrego Garcia has become increasingly complex. Despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that his deportation was illegal and ordering the U.S. government to "facilitate" his return, El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele has refused to release him. Bukele maintains that Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen and has labeled him a "terrorist," asserting that it would be "preposterous" to suggest his return to the United States
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned, unanimous order acknowledging that Garcia's deportation was illegal. The Court stated that the government must "facilitate" Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and ensure his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly removed. However, the Court stopped short of ordering the government to "effectuate" his return, citing concerns over the term's scope and potential overreach into executive authority.
And most importantly ---The Trump administration interprets the Supreme Court's directive narrowly, contending that their obligation is limited to providing transportation if El Salvador chooses to release Abrego Garcia. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the administration's role is to "facilitate" his return, meaning they would provide a plane but cannot compel El Salvador to release him.
Lastly-- The Legal Dilemma:
Supreme Court orders apply to U.S. officials, not foreign governments.
If El Salvador refuses to cooperate, there’s no easy way to enforce the order abroad. It’s a rare and serious collision between U.S. law and foreign sovereignty.
And then there is this showboater--- Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., was denied a visit with a Salvadoran migrant and accused MS-13 member who was deported to El Salvador, after flying to the country on Wednesday morning. "I asked the vice president if I could meet with Mr. Abrego Garcia, and he said, ‘well, you need to make earlier provisions to go visit CECOT,’" Van Hollen said.
He told Ulloa that he was not interested in taking a tour of CECOT and that he just wanted to meet with Abrego Garcia.
"He said he was not able to make that happen," Van Hollen said of Ulloa.
Very much appears that President Nayib Bukele meant what he said.I appreciate you tackling the question. Isn't it reasonable to assume that since there is a financial relationship between our country and El Salvador to house certain deportees that we have the ability to return an individual?
Given this financial and operational cooperation, it is reasonable to believe that we could formally request the return of individuals it has sent to El Salvador under this agreement. Legal experts have argued that because El Salvador is acting "as an agent of the U.S. government" by accepting detainees with financial compensation, the U.S. government does possess leverage to compel the return of individuals held there.
But, to the root of the issue: what shall we do as a country if this administration defies scotus? And what are the consequences?
Somewhat in this topic on a related thread we have hot off the press . . .
Boasberg finds ‘probable cause exists’ to hold Trump administration in contempt for violating orders on deportation flights published by CNN Politics (Updated 12:27 PM EDT, Wed April 16, 2025 - 1 minute read)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics … 4821174103
The complete brief article. Bear in mind it is a breaking story and more will arrive . . .
" US District Judge James Boasberg ruled Wednesday that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for violating his orders in mid-March halting the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
The judge is still deciding punishment and the next steps he may take, and is giving the Justice Department an opportunity to respond.
The situation has been a major political and legal flashpoint for the Trump White House in its efforts to carry out a historic deportation campaign, especially in mid-March when it sent three planes of migrants to a prison in El Salvador.
“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote in a lengthy ruling detailing his decision.
“The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” he added. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.”
This story is breaking and will be updated."“None of their responses has been satisfactory.”
It will be interesting to see if the judge gets any additional responses.If a ruling eventually comes down that Trump and crew have acted unconstitutionally, he needs to be impeached and the whole clown car should be driven out of town. For me, the fact that they are ignoring a court order is enough for him to be removed. This isn't leadership. This is undemocratic.
And all of that coming from someone who stood by and defended a cognitively declining president, one who should have been impeached within his first month in office. Sorry, but if the shoe fits.
There is no evidence that the Trump administration has acted unconstitutionally.This has nothing to do with Biden. We have a man in office right now who is ignoring court order... Ignoring a co-equal branch of government.
Comer and Jordan spent quite a lot of time trying to get Biden impeached...
So, this is the dingbat tyrant you damnable rightwingers chose as the VP? No one is making this up, these are the verbatim words from Vance representing the dynamic duo of despotism Bull sh!t, but heavy on the verbosity, that is Vance for you.
I can’t believe what I am seeing and how much of it is merely being accommodated by other branches of government and the press itself. After all of this, Republicans remain on my sh!t list indefinitely. I have to do everything I can to be rid of them as a mortal danger to the republic.
________
On Tuesday night, Vice President JD Vance made explicit that the intent is to defy legal principles that date back to antiquity, scolding those who insist on respecting the rights of the “many” undocumented immigrants who have “committed violent crimes, or facilitated fentanyl and sex trafficking.”
“To say the administration must observe ‘due process’ is to beg the question: what process is due is a function of our resources, the public interest, the status of the accused, the proposed punishment, and so many other factors,” Vance wrote on social media. “To put it in concrete terms, imposing the death penalty on an American citizen requires more legal process than deporting an illegal alien to their country of origin.”
Ignoring that the hundreds of people sent to El Salvador had never stepped foot in that country before, Vance rattled off his main point: That it’s too hard to provide “illegal aliens” with anything resembling due process, which itself, you know, “produces errors.” Because trial by jury is cumbersome, and justice still not guaranteed, why bother with any process at all?
“What I am OK with is the reality that any human system will produce errors. Further, I accept the actual tradeoff: between not enforcing the law and enforcing the law. And I choose the latter despite the inevitable errors,” Vance wrote.
Put plainly: The vice president of the United States is arguing for the embrace of abject tyranny, where perceived membership in a category — “illegal alien” — is sufficient for unilaterally sentencing someone to life imprisonment with no recourse. While framed as applying to the foreign-born, deprived of the rights endowed by their creator, there is no need to argue that this poses the threat of a slippery slope: a government that has already expelled legal immigrants is obviously capable of falsely labeling a U.S. citizen a member of this enemy class, and indeed its top officials are arguing that such “inevitable errors” are a small price to pay for cleansing “the blood of the country.”
————This is truly unbelievable. So according to Vance, due process is seen as nothing more than an inconvenience to be ignored. He is literally arguing that due process and law... the Constitution..can be straight up ignored by the executive. And maga wonders why the concern? It's a slippery slope from deporting an innocent man without due process to Trump disappearing US citizens who disagree with him. They are actively working to undermine the rule of law and push the country further and further towards authoritarianism. He talks about due process and how much is "due". The courts decide how much is due and THE COURT ruled 9-0 against Vance and Trump, yet they carry on...
JD Vance: “We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country. …The professors are the enemy"
LOL says the Ivy League graduate.
We have a Vice President advocating the same anti-intellectual dogma as Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin. Fascists abhor intellectuals.
https://x.com/AnnaDeMilanese/status/1912752741086122265Honesty would be good here.
"The Professors are the enemy" is a quote by former President Richard Nixon.
You've taken one small quote out of context to a much longer speech to meet your agenda.
THIS is something done by Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.I don't know Willow, but according to this the Hill article, It might well be the beginning of "the people" having had enough. Are people beginning to wake up?
Hope springs eternal....
https://news.yahoo.com/news/opinion-sto … 00788.html
Allowing people to critically think is the very contradiction to what it means to be an advocate of conservatism in the "Trump Era". Conservatism was once a balance to the other side, but too much of any ingredient in the stew is a bad thing and just a dash of Trump had made the dish totally inedible.
As I said, it is critical for fascists and tyrants like Trump and Vance to keep the masses ignorant while they shred the Constitution.
It is here, it is Constitutional Crisis at hand and I hope that they hang Trump by his gold plated testicles…
https://www.salon.com/2025/04/16/delibe … -contempt/They're going to have to wait for his 3rd term to come to an end before they can do anything... probably will die of old age in his 4th term... like Roosevelt.
Maybe he can do like Zelensky and just suspend all elections indefinitely.Third term? What comic books have you been reading, Ken? The Constitutions 22nd Amendment is quite specific about this, No way around it short of Trump and his Republican henchmen officially making the Constitution null and void. In the type of shape he is in, he wont live long.
"Maybe he can do like Zelensky and just suspend all elections indefinitely."
You shouldn't talk about Ukraine since it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.
Zelensky didn't "suspend" elections. It is in the Ukrainian constitution that when the country is at war elections can't be held. FYI...the Ukrainian parliament recently met concerning the issue of having national elections.
They voted to suspend national elections another 9 months. They will meet again in 9 months to decide it.
This is not something Zelensky decided, it was decided by Ukrainian elected representatives.
If a national election was held right now, there is a good chance Zelensky would win.
Maryland man' Kilmar Abrego Garcia exposed in police records as 'violent' repeat wife beater
A now-deported illegal alien accused of being an MS-13 gang member that was living illegally in Maryland has a record of being a "violent" repeat wife beater, according to court records filed in a Prince George’s County, Maryland, district court by his wife.
Fox News obtained the written domestic violence allegations filed in court against 29-year-old Kilmar Abrego Garcia by his wife, Jennifer Vasquez, in 2021.
In the filing, written in Vasquez’s own handwriting, she alleges Abrego Garcia repeatedly beat her, writing: "At this point, I am afraid to be close to him. I have multiple photos/videos of how violent he can be and all the bruises he [has] left me."
Vasquez alleged that Abrego Garcia punched and scratched her on her eye, leaving her bleeding. He also allegedly threw her laptop on the floor.
She wrote that on another day, Abrego Garcia got angry again, started yelling, and ripped her shirt and shorts off before grabbing her arm and leaving marks.
Vasquez recalled two times in 2020 that Abrego Garcia hit her.
"In November 2020, he hit me with his work boot," she wrote. "In August 2020, he hit me in the eye leaving a purple eye."
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released court documents regarding Abrego Garcia, which cast further doubt on the Democrats' narrative about his innocence.
DHS released new documents this week, which it says definitively proves Abrego Garcia, who was deported to the El Salvadoran mega prison "Terrorism Confinement Center" (CECOT) last month, is a member of the notorious MS-13 gang.
According to a Prince George's County Police Department interview sheet shared with Fox News by DHS, local police discovered Abrego Garcia during a murder investigation. Police found him loitering in a Home Depot parking lot with other known MS-13 gang members in possession of illicit drugs in 2019.
The police department’s Gang Unit MS-13 Intelligence Squad conducted an interview with Abrego Garcia and contacted a "past proven and reliable source" who identified him as an active member of MS-13 with the "Westerns" clique, with the rank of "Chequeo" and the moniker of "Chele."
The news comes as Democrats clamor for the return of Abrego Garcia, who they say was "wrongly deported" to a maximum-security prison in his home country as part of the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on illegal migrant crime.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., flew to El Salvador to visit Abrego Garcia in prison and work to secure his release. His trip has been criticized by many, including the mother of Rachel Morrin, a 39-year-old Maryland mother who was raped and murdered by a Salvadoran illegal immigrant in 2023.
"To have a senator from Maryland who didn't even acknowledge, or barely acknowledge, my daughter and the brutal death that she endured, leaving her five children without a mother and now a grandbaby without a grandmother so that he can use my taxpayer money to fly to El Salvador to bring back someone that's not even an American citizen. Why does that person have more rights than I do, or my daughter, or my grandchildren? I don't understand this," she said.
On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security doubled down, saying Abrego Garcia has a "history of violence and was not the upstanding ‘Maryland Man’ the media has portrayed him as."The issue is DUE PROCESS. Folks need to stop confusing the issue.
Constitutional Guarantee of Due Process...yes, even for those in the immigration system.
Due process is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which protect all "persons" within U.S. jurisdiction, including non-citizens and even those who are unlawfully present. This means every individual in the immigration system is entitled to just and fair treatment before any deprivation of life, liberty, or property occurs...
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that once an alien is physically present in the U.S., they have due process rights, which include the right to a fair hearing before an immigration judge before deportation or removal can occur.
Due process requires that individuals have notice of the proceedings, a neutral fact-finder, and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argue their case..
If this Administration wants to deport people, all they need to do is to use the law we have. Simple.
If they can ship Garcia off with no due process, they can do it to anyone. That's the point. Trump and DOJ Barbie don't get to subvert the Constitution. They also don't get to ignore scotus...You do know his case was reviewed by not one but TWO immigration courts?
The bottom line is I don't care.
He was here illegally, a MS-13 gang member, a wife beater, good riddance to him.
The democrats are so far off the mark on this issue it's not funny, it's just sad.The Democrats are not off the mark.
FACT....In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from deportation to El Salvador because he demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution from violent gangs there, which had targeted his family. He was NOT here illegally.
FACT...No credible evidence was ever provided in court proving that Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang.
FACT .... he was put on a plane and deported without the due process that is afforded and guaranteed to all individuals on our soil.
Get the facts straight. What's sad is the fact that maga wants to continually trample the Constitution and the rule of law."No credible evidence was ever provided in court proving that Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang."
WRONG
Two immigration judges determined he was a member of MS 13
"he was put on a plane and deported without the due process that is afforded and guaranteed to all individuals on our soil."
WRONG
He is part of a gang that had been determined to be part of an alien invasion.
FACT - He is illegal. He shouldn't be here.
FACT - Democrats are more concerned with this joker than with all the other people who have been murdered and raped by illegal aliens.
FACT - A Maryland democrat senator went to El Salvador to get his release. One of the stupidest moves by a member of the democrat party since letting biden to run for a second term.
He ignored the murder of a woman in his state, Rachael Moran, by the hands of an illegal alien.
A democrat senator is willing to travel 3,000 miles to El Salvador to try and get an illegal immigrant and citizen of El Salvador back to the United States, yet, he almost completely ignores the death of an American citizen, in his state, at the hands of an illegal alien.
democrats are showing signs of detachment from reality."FACT...No credible evidence was ever provided in court proving that Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. " willow
This is misinformation.
I posted both 2019 rulings, where the judges concluded that they were satisfied he was a gang member, and he was denied bond because of this finding. However, the appeals judge decided to keep him in the country, accepting his claim that he would face harm if deported due to his gang affiliation. Both judges were satisfied due to the evidence that he was a gang member.
I suggest anyone who wants facts ---Please refer to the links of 2019 court rulings. Two judges found evidence that this man was a gang member.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap … 11.1_1.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 … ia-v-noem/Shar,
This has gone from informed discussion to willful ignorance.
It's a shame. This is a huge losing issue for the democrats and they keep doubling down on it. Having the lowest popularity rates over the past decades isn't enough to get them to change their views. It's like watching someone hurt themselves who is totally oblivious to the damage they are causing themselves.
It's a shame when you seen the irrational rants over this.Based on Garcia's immigration status, does due process apply to his case?
If no, please provide a credible citation.I haven’t seen anyone—anyone—argue that this man should have been given due process. I’ve read comments acknowledging that his deportation was the result of an error, and I’ve mentioned this myself. However, the conversation has moved past that point. No one, no one, has made the case that he was denied a hearing and was due one.
The fact is, he was granted two hearings in 2019, but was accidentally deported without receiving another hearing. One can argue that the lack of a hearing is a legal fact, and that stands on its own. The Attorney General stated that she has done everything she could to facilitate his return, but due to sovereign laws, it is now up to the Government of El Salvador to decide whether to release him back to the U.S.Are you saying that you believe the administration was correct in denying him due process before putting him on that deportation flight? And that squares with the Constitution? The man was granted the status of "withholding of removal". That was changed abruptly without due process and he was loaded onto a plane... This is okay in your view?
"The fact is, he was granted two hearings in 2019, but was accidentally deported without receiving another hearing".
Isn't that a constitutional violation?
I'll cut to the chase..
The deportation of Garcia to El Salvador violated his constitutional right to due process under the U.S. Constitution...You're repeating yourself over and over--- conversation over, and I hope all will realize you are trolling.
"I haven’t seen anyone—anyone—argue that this man should have been given due process. "
So you are supporting ignoring the Constitution? You do realize that this man was not given due process before loaded onto a plane to a prison?
If he is not afforded due process, it sure does open the door for more folks to be denied the same, doesn't it?
The Trump Administration could have appealed judge Jones's decision of granting Garcia withholding from removal in 2019... They didn't. And now in 2025 it's okay to revoke that status without due process and load him on a plane?
To deny due process is unconstitutional....Good to know where people stand on Trump violating the Constitution when he feels like it...
What I find deeply irresponsible is the constant repetition of misinformation—it's blatant trolling, designed to force a false narrative into public perception through sheer repetition. This is how distorted views take hold and spread.
I’ve already posted links to both rulings involving this migrant, where not one, but two judges determined there was credible evidence linking him to gang activity. Despite this, left-leaning media continues to present him as having no gang affiliation—an assertion that simply doesn’t hold up. The judges relied on information provided by informants, which is standard in these cases. For safety reasons, it’s entirely typical that the identities of those informants are withheld.
I find misinformation hard to ignore. It's clear the media starts the ball rolling, and some do little to no research to confirm mrdi fodder. I don't find it sad anymore, I find it disgusting.When the truth hurts you create lots of fog to hide it.
That was once told to me by a democrat running for office.
This is how they operate. Facts, truth, and reality have no place in their thinking. They lie or distort facts, truth, and reality to achieve their political goals.
It is shame the democrat party has gone so low.
Clothing does not represent credible evidence of gang membership.
Yes, Garcia was granted withholding of removal in 2019, a protection recognizing credible fear of persecution, which implicitly undermines claims of dangerousness or gang activity.... He could have been deported at that point.
Courts, including immigration judges cited denied bond to Garcia based mainly on documents alleged to link him to the MS-13 gang, but those decisions were procedural and do not amount to a judicial finding or conviction of his gang membership.
Immigration judges cited a confidential informant's statement (uncrossed) and his clothing (such as a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with specific imagery) as evidence in bond hearings to assess whether he posed a risk to the community.
However, denial of bond is a determination related to flight risk and community danger, not a formal adjudication of gang membership.
Experts and legal observers have indicated that such immigration decisions do not prove gang membership but rely on evidence accepted at face value without assessing its full validity at that stage.
Judge Jones in 2019 did not find the government’s gang membership claims against Garcia credible.Instead, he found Garcia truthful and consistent, granting him withholding of removal due to persecution fears from a different gang (Barrio 18)...
But, that is all really beside the point.
Should this man, based on his current immigration status, have been afforded due process before loaded on a plane to an El Salvador prison? That is the key question.
Al Jazeera. (2025). Did US courts back Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s El Salvador deportation? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/1 … eportation
Benjamin Wittes. (2025). Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What Do We Know? - Lawfare. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ab … do-we-knowYou're reading media spin—I read both rulings. The judges took the informants’ statements seriously and acknowledged the evidence regarding this individual’s affiliations. Period. Believe whatever you want, but I’ll go with what the judges reviewed and ruled on. Funny how you can ignore two judges' rulings.
You are misinterpreting the 2019 ruling by Jones. Actually you haven't cited that case? Have you read that ruling? You've cited Kessler but ignored Jones...which came after.
Also, please take note that the Trump administration did not appeal that decision....curious huh? they would have certainly appealed if they had the evidence that the man was a danger to our country.
But that is actually irrelevant at this point.
Should this man, based on his current immigration status, have been afforded due process before loaded on a plane to an El Salvador prison? That is the key question.So unfortunate he was not given a hearing--- It would seem he is now in the hands of his Government. I cited both rulings that are being considered by the AG when she speaks of him being a gang member. These rulings are the only two hearings this man had in regards to our immigration courts.
"So unfortunate he was not given a hearing---
So it's just an unfortunate event if this Administration purposely violates the Constitution? Violates due process?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it".I suggest you listen to Pam Bondi's own words, linked below. She has offered a timeline as well as information that the left media is not reporting. or twisting to meet their narrative. I feel confident she is being truthful, offering the facts. More and more is being released daily on this guy. At this point, after reading two of the immigration court rulings and hearing our AG lay out the facts, I am relieved he has been removed. https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-off … ang-member
You are pointing to two immigration hearings from 5 years ago. The last of which gave him the ability to remain in the country, legally.
When they decided to put him on a plane to El salvador, they revoked that decision with no due process...
I will gladly admit that I am wrong if you can point to the due process he received before being boarded on that plane. Barbie is misleading people about this, confusing people. Obviously it's working for some
An assault on the due process rights of anyone is a threat to the due process rights of everyone.
You failed to cite or even recognize the most recent hearing in 2019 that established Garcia's status from Judge Jones....
LOL detachment from reality?
Please cite the credible evidence for gang membership?
Repeating that he was here illegally doesn't make it true. He was here legally, court order proves it.
Garcia was granted withholding of removal in 2019, a protection recognizing credible fear of persecution, which implicitly undermines claims of dangerousness or gang activity.... He could have been deported at that point.
Due process applies to everyone on American soil, whether you like it or not.
Most of us want to live in a country where it’s safe to wear a Chicago Bulls cap without being sent to a gulag in El Salvador...now per DOJ Barbie ... wearing a Chicago Bulls hat says you're a gang member?
What next? agents are going to hang around the United Center and arrest most of the fan base?
But please, tell me more about how the rule of law and the Constitution are near and dear to your heart...Question...
Does the doctrine of "due process" apply to Abrego Garcia? Keeping in mind his status at the time he was removed from the country.Just for info what is circulating about. Speak with your pocketbook while surfing the waves.
There is lots of look here not there going on. This case is not about Garcia and what he has or hasn't done during his lifetime. This is Trump floating a balloon to see if due process rights can be infringed upon... Obliterated. Nothing more.
Emphatically agreed!! Much of his tenure thus far has been that on various fronts. He is testing the waters as they say looking for the 'legal' boundaries for authoritarianism. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" may apply when pondering the labyrinth of not only the power structure, but the structuring of power. One must consider that belief is power.
My side of the coin...
While some may emphatically agree with the idea that this leader is “testing the waters” of authoritarianism, such a claim is not only exaggerated—it’s borderline conspiratorial. The argument leans heavily on vague abstractions like “structuring of power” and “belief is power,” without offering concrete examples or acknowledging the actual checks and balances that have remained intact throughout his tenure. In a functioning democracy with an independent judiciary, a vocal opposition, and a free press, claiming that he’s slyly attempting to install authoritarian rule feels more like political theater than grounded critique. The phrase “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” is misapplied here—just because various actions are controversial does not mean they amount to some coordinated authoritarian takeover. Policy disagreements, bold rhetoric, and even institutional reform do not automatically equate to tyranny. At worst, this kind of hyperbolic framing stokes unnecessary fear and undermines faith in the very democratic institutions you claim to defend. It's not insightful—it’s speculative.okay . . . we each have an opinion and are afforded free speech and expression. Thanks for yours. Hold onto it for as long as you can.
Question? Do American citizens have to surrender their phones to customs
No, American citizens are not legally obligated to surrender their phones to customs. However, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can legally search phones at the border without a warrant or reasonable suspicion, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (.gov). While refusal to allow a search won't lead to denial of entry for citizens, it can lead to delays and potential detention.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Border Search Exception:
The "border search exception" grants CBP broad authority to search individuals and their belongings, including electronic devices, at the border without needing a warrant or even reasonable suspicion, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (.gov). This is based on the government's interest in security and the lower expectation of privacy at the border.
No Legal Obligation to Surrender:
While CBP can request to search your phone, you are not legally required to surrender it. Refusing the search can lead to consequences, but not to being denied entry if you are a US citizen.
Consequences of Refusal:
Refusing a search can result in your phone being seized and potentially your travel being delayed or you being detained, according to Northeastern Global News.
Tips for Protecting Your Privacy:
To minimize the risk of privacy intrusion, consider turning off your phone before entering the U.S., using a temporary SIM card or phone number, and backing up sensitive data. You can also alert a trusted contact before your trip so they can advocate for you if needed, according to The Verge.
[Edit: Further background]
Can U.S. border officials search your phone without a warrant? Here’s what you need to know published at the Miami Herald (Apr 17, 2025)
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ … 15606.html
"The short answer is yes, and this applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. But there are many layered steps travelers can take to protect themselves."
A little further along . . .
"Unlike inside the country, where Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches are more robust, the U.S. border operates under what’s known as the “border search exception.” This means that border agents don’t need a warrant under any circumstances or even suspicion for a “basic” manual search of your electronic devices. However, according to Customs and Border Protection, an “advanced” search requires “reasonable suspicion of a violation of law or a national security concern,” along with approval of a senior manager, before agents can use external equipment to gain access to a device and review, copy and analyze its content."The rule giving U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) the power to search phones at the border without a warrant or reasonable suspicion has been in place for years, based on the "border search exception." This exception allows the government to have broad authority at the border for security reasons, which means the expectation of privacy is lower when crossing into the U.S. It’s not a new policy, and it’s been upheld by different administrations over time, all of which have reinforced the principle that CBP can check your phone without needing permission.
But it's worth noting that this doesn't mean you have to hand over your phone; you're not legally obligated to surrender it. If you refuse, though, the consequences can include delays, detention, or the seizure of your device. It's all about balancing security with personal privacy, but it’s important to remember that this power isn't just about one administration—it’s been in place for decades, spanning various political landscapes. It bears mentioning that Bush, Obama, Trump, and yes, Biden left this rule in place and used it. Perhaps due to 9/11. (only a thought)
However, on the flip side, this power is a real concern for privacy advocates. It certainly can be argued that it undermines basic rights by allowing searches without any need for suspicion, which seems like a gray area in terms of personal freedom. While these searches are generally seen as part of border control measures, some point out the tension between security and individual privacy, especially when it comes to the increasingly sensitive information we keep on our phones. Plus, some say it creates a precedent where security concerns can override privacy in situations that go beyond what was originally intended. So, even though it's been in place for a while and upheld by multiple administrations, it’s understandable why people feel uneasy about the balance being struck between security and personal rights at the border.
You hit me with the classic ‘OK’—is that a ‘you’re wrong’ OK or an ‘I need time to think’ OK, or is it that I like sitting on the fence?
"such a claim is not only exaggerated—it’s borderline conspiratorial..
Well what would be the reason for an Administration denying due process rights protected by the Constitution to an individual in our country?
Thanks for the ^
How are you making out with power shortages in your neck of the woods? I only learned of it yesterday (04/16). I thought of you right away being the only person I know there. I hope you are weathering things well! Let us know.Yeah. The whole Island was without power (and no water). (Most still is.)
I have a solar system so power is no issue. Buuuut the water... Ugh.
We got lucky and got the water back about an hour ago. Still no power.
Thanks for asking!Thanks for letting us know!! I didn't realize the power was out for the whole island. Sad!
I am glad you are okay now. Solar is life saver I see. I am happy about that for you. I am very glad you got the water back!That's nice. Thanks!
And yes. Solar is live saver. We were withou power for months after h. Maria. So that (solar) was a priority for us when we bought our new house. Especially now that we have kids.Have a great Easter Weekend. No Easter egg hunts except the plastic ones I hear ha-ha How about there?
It is interesting how people's perspectives can be twisted when they take what our media puts out as factual or honest... rather than calculated and purposefully deceptive.
Look at the character assassination job that has been done on Elon Musk... for exposing how the FBI was controlling Social Media... for bringing to light the Twitter files...
Or how Tulsi Gabbard was the darling new face of the Democrat Party, everything they were looking for, articulate, military officer, non-white and a woman... she was their wet dream come true...
Until she showed that she had integrity and would not go along with their deception and corruption.
So... I know these few heroes that are fighting for their country, and the American people, will become the despised villains of the gullible and easily duped... which is why I take in almost nothing from our media sources... I don't need my brain rotted by the propaganda meant to twist my thoughts into believing right is wrong, good is bad, and so on...I heard the cavalry charge bugles blow as you rushed from behind the bushes to speak your peace. ha-ha I have been hiding and poked my nose into air for the hell of it. I see you doing the same.
Sorry to hear about the tragedy in Florida. This is getting ridiculous isn't it?
UPDATE
A federal appeals court has just shot down an effort by the Justice Department to stop Judge Paula Xinis from conducting an investigation into whether the Trump administration violated court orders to “facilitate” the release of a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, from a prison in El Salvador.
In a strongly worded order, a three-judge panel of the court said the government’s request to bar Judge Xinis from opening her inquiry was “both extraordinary and premature.”
“It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter,” one of the judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote. “But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.
Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear"
FINALLY..... CUTTING THROUGH THE BSIn my view, this will be on its way quickly to the Supreme Court. Not much to converse about until we hear from the high court.
I don't think there's any precedence for subverting due process as guaranteed in the Constitution.
CONTINUED
In rejecting the Justice Department’s arguments, the appeals court noted that the Trump administration’s accusations that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was a criminal and a terrorist were simply irrelevant to the question of whether he was treated fairly when Trump officials deported him to El Salvador on March 15 despite a previous court order expressly barring him from being sent there. “The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.”
Maybe Barbie can stop lying now?
Like Sotomayor, the appeals panel says if noncitizens do not have due process rights, then there is no guarantee that citizens do...
Here's the panel's commentary on the definition of "facilitate"
Commenting here instead of the first one. Kudos for the contribution. The ruling makes sense to me. However, I am no legal eagle.
From . . .
Reason is an American libertarian monthly magazine published by the Reason Foundation, with the tagline "Free Minds and Free Markets"
Arrives . . .
The Trump Administration's Increasing Hostility to Basic Due Process published at Reason (Apr 17, 2025)
Vice President J.D. Vance is only the latest to indicate he sees due process, as guaranteed in the Constitution, as an unnecessary impediment to the administration's goals.
https://reason.com/2025/04/17/the-trump … -588181902
The opening first four paragraphs . . .
"President Donald Trump has cracked down on immigration in his second term, deporting undocumented migrants and perhaps citizens next.
In the process, members of Trump's administration have demonstrated an overt hostility to basic rights of due process.
On March 12, agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador. Three days later, the government deported him back to El Salvador to be held in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), an overcrowded and dangerous mega-prison where the country's president offered to warehouse deportees from the U.S.
There is much to oppose in that action, perhaps most of all that Abrego Garcia—who had previously been granted a reprieve from deportation—was denied any semblance of due process when government agents grabbed him up, told him his protected status had been revoked, and shuffled him out of the country, all within the span of a long weekend."
The body of the article shares tid-bits not seen yet by some. The last paragraph is . . .
"There is a lot not to like about the Trump administration's actions so far. But its flagrant hostility to the basic tenet of due process is among the most chilling."https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc … rtificate/
US citizen held by ICE despite judge seeing birth certificate
An American citizen was held in a Florida jail at the request of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) despite the county judge being able to see the man’s U.S. birth certificate in court.
Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, who was born in the United States, was detained Wednesday in Florida by the state’s highway patrol and was charged with illegally entering the Sunshine State as an “unauthorized alien” under a state law that has been temporarily blocked by a judge, the Florida Phoenix news outlet reported Thursday.
Leon County Judge LaShawn Riggans said Thursday that despite the charge against Lopez-Gomez being dropped, she did not have the authority to release the 20-year-old because ICE asked Leon County Jail to hold Lopez-Gomez.
The judge inspected Lopez-Gomez’s birth certificate, which had been waved earlier in court by a supporter, saying, “In looking at it and feeling it and holding it up to the light, the court can clearly see the watermark to show that this is indeed an authentic document,” according to the Phoenix.
Lopez-Gomez was heading from Georgia and was pulled over in Florida by a Highway Patrol trooper.
Protests took place in front of the Leon County jail where the 20-year-old was held. He was released and reunited with his mother Thursday evening, the Phoenix reported.WOW... What in God's green earth is this kind of nonsense? First of all, it's profiling. Secondly since when do you need to provide a certified copy of a birth certificate during a traffic stop? This is incredibly dystopian.
Thank God the man wasn't shuttled off to El Salvador...
Are we in a constitutional crisis yet? Is maga really going to support this administration in subverting the Constitution? Yes or No?
Are you kidding me???
A federal judge today blocked the Trump administration from deporting noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin without due process.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued an injunction that bars the Trump administration from deporting any noncitizen to a country not explicitly mentioned in their order or removal without first allowing them to raise concerns about their safety.
"Defendants argue that the United States may send a deportable alien to a country not of their origin, not where an immigration judge has ordered, where they may be immediately tortured and killed, without providing that person any opportunity to tell the deporting authorities that they face grave danger or death because of such a deportation," Judge Murphy wrote.
"All nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and this Court all disagree."
Just one question... Why does this Administration hate the doctrine of due process as afforded in the fifth Amendment of the Constitution?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-blocks- … =120951918"Is maga really going to support this administration in subverting the Constitution?"
77 million of them already have.Really wondering, at this point, when Republicans are going to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law
Related Discussions
- 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...
- 20
What do you think of (legal) immigrants to your country?
by aka-dj 14 years ago
What do you think of (legal) immigrants to your country?Do you welcome them (in your own mind)? or do you wish they went back to where they came from. I'm not talking about illegals, or refugees.
- 34
Trump attacks lawyers and “frivilous” lawsuits=Constitutional Crisis?
by Credence2 3 weeks ago
Trump is now attacking lawyers and the Judiciary over what he calls frivolous lawsuits. Is a frivolous lawsuit one that opposes his policies and precludes him from simply doing what he wants, contrary to established law? As with the Venezuelans, anyone can clearly see that Trump is itching for a...
- 80
Donald Trump on Immigration (Deportation)
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
Trumps speech on August 31 was fraught with lies and miss-information. He should not call it his policy on Immigration, but it should be called his policy on Deportation. I watched the entire speech and it gave me chills. He sounded and acted just like Hitler and Mussolini. Here...
- 51
Should all undocumented immigrants be deported?
by Angela Kendrick 9 years ago
Should all undocumented immigrants be deported?I recently read an article where the author quoted an Arizona woman whose police officer son was killed by an undocumented Mexican immigrant with a prior criminal history who had never been deported. The woman who was the subject of the article,...
- 83
Demanding Accountability on Deporting Sex Offenders
by Sharlee 3 months ago
In September, the House of Representatives passed the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, which included provisions to deport illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes, including sex offenses. The bill passed with overwhelming support from Republicans, but shockingly, 158 Democrats...