Shewasfly wrote:
It's not petty sarcasm. You'll know when it is.
OK.
I said that because you just genuinely seem to be confused about the way the law and government works. A federal judge gave an order for the president to facilitate his return to the US because he was denied due process. Multiple higher courts including the Supreme Court has backed it. Prior to that, the actual ruling was already not upheld. And you have repeatedly admitted this, in acknowledging that they sent him somewhere he was not supposed to go in the first place.
The fact that you ignore that a "mistake" was made (I don't think they made a mistake tbh, I think they sent him to El Salvador with malice) to jump into rants about illegals kind of says everything. Incompetence in the government doesn't matter and we can ignore it as long as they get "those people". And then you think we can further ignore the system of checks and balances as long as its hurting "those people".
Not true.
?
As explained above, that's not how any of this works, but ok.
It is exactly how this works. No court actually has the authority to do anything but demand due process, which even if he received, would do nothing to change his status or return him to the United States.
I'm very happy that you are now finally all caught up. << THAT was petty sarcasm. See, I'm actually honest about why I say things and the reasons behind the positions I take. Unlike...
Anyway, yes, this is about due process. Now on to the next hurdle. Your misunderstanding of what that actually means. A "flood of illegal aliens" has nothing to do with due process and more so with enforcement at the borders. Stop them there. But once inside, and if they go through the proper channels for things like declaring asylum, etc., they are entitled to due process. This is a fact and it is law. The problem that people are raising is that allowing this and the many other actions that this administration continues to take without regard for the law or constitution, you open the door for a complete abandonment on the US system of government and democracy.
If you think I'm clicking any links to watch proud racist Stephen Miller talk about whatever tf you think he's talking about, you are sadly mistaken. You are free to do so though, and it certainly checks out that a Trump supporter has no issue with or even likely agrees with someone like that.
I read the links to far left progressive websites, I don't see the issue with exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints. This is part of the reason there is such a divide, we label and condemn those we disagree with and decide they have nothing of value to contribute.
Anyways, I disagree with your assessment that once in the country hands should be thrown up in the air and the white flag flown. "Due process" in this instance involves spacing out court hearings so far in advance that by the time anyone could actually rule them illegal they'd have already lived their whole lives in the country, driven down wages by "doing jobs Americans won't", and utilized resources without paying taxes. This is assuming none of them are being trafficked as well, or committing crimes, which is obviously not the case.
(and if you're going to cite studies that claim illegal aliens are good for the economy, I'm not interested in that debate. Yes, in an abstract way, they improve GDP, because of course lowering the price of labor by having what is effectively slave labor, or indentured servants if you prefer that term, is going to improve the bottom line for companies)
This also ignores the fact that by the nature of this discussion, these are not actually US citizens, which should be a prerequisite for "due process" (and yes, I'm framing it in quotation marks because the idea is utterly absurd and just a weak excuse to game the system in this instance). And laws are designed to benefit the citizens of a country, not the citizens of the world, that is why the country exists in the first place.
Also one more point on the matter, back to the original case in question, "due process" is trying to overturn the withhold to deportation order issued in 2019. Now, this is my opinion, and not a legal argument, so feel free to dismiss it, but the original order probably should not have been given in the first place, as it in effect values the safety of an illegal alien MS-13 gang member over the safety of United States citizens. He's also since been involved in domestic violence and human trafficking cases, both dropped but I'm sure he's just an innocent guy just trying to live his life and didn't threaten his girlfriend/wife to drop the domestic case (that was sarcasm). Again, the only reason he wasn't deported in 2019 was because he claimed to fear for his life from gang retribution (all but confirming he's in a gang himself even though he tried to deny it originally). Legal loopholes are what's kept him in the country.
Umm using different words to describe the situation doesn't make it somehow not what it is. He was a US citizen that was detained to be deported. Again, we're talking about a situation where you are side by side seeing an administration ignore laws and the constitution to do what they want. Unapologetically making procedural errors and still standing on them. This is a slippery slope for many other Americans who are NOT just focused on causing pain to others. This could have easily went another way if the birth certificate wasn't on hand. Or if he had no other family to fight on his behalf. He, a US Citizen, could have easily been deported to wherever they, and then similarly told "oh well" if the administration simply felt like it, instead of being bound by our constitution and system of government. THAT is the concern.
What's not clicking? And why isn't it?
Oh. Now I see. Yes I'm sure it's only Spanish speakers, and not those that speak Creole and look a certain way being accused of eating cats and dogs, or those that speak Portuguese and look a certain way.
What a joy to be able to lie through your teeth about profiling and its potential impacts because you come from a group that is not effected and never has been.
I'm not going to respond to the insults, just state the facts, which your original article did not. A vehicle was involved in a traffic stop. Of the 3 occupants in the vehicle, the driver and one other failed to produce ID, and openly admitted they were in the country illegally. The third occupant could not communicate as they did not speak a known language (it was a rarely heard mayan dialect, its not like they just spoke spanish or creole which are actually fairly common languages).
Now in this situation, I think its perfectly reasonable to detain the third suspect until more information can be obtained. Which it was, and he was subsequently released. The alternative is you assume the third passenger in the car, who is completely unable to communicate with authorities, is just there by circumstance and released immediately. Again, he wasn't placed under arrest, he was detained. And if there was legal action to take against what occurred, some activist lawyer would be doing it, they're not, why do you think that is?
