7 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

Unsure, she looks like she may be on the crazy hot scale 

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

Obama had someone murdered for speech sympathizing with terrorists. No one really cared 

Sounds like somebody has been on Newsmax too much.

 

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

So a NSDAP from Europe publicly calling for another holocaust is ok? He stays? 
 

He probably gets a cabinet position

So they deported a gay Venezuelan hair dresser who legally entered at a port of entry and requested asylum because he had tattoos that indicated membership in a known criminal enterprise. 
 

The tattoos were of crowns that had Mom and Dad written below them. In English. Because, you know, every crown tattoo is indicative of gang membership. Also on the list of tattoos are tattoos of clocks, trains, and those goofy star tattoos every 00s sk8er boy got.  
 

But I guess it’s cool with @Gannan that we sent a guy seeking asylum in the US from a commie regime to an El Salvador prison because he had no rights, or something.

Not sure why @Gannan is catching heat for the visa issue. These people are not US citizens and don't have the same legal protections that we do.

Now, as with everything that Trump does, he's a vile lunatic boob about why he's kicking all the non-white visa holders out, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. We elected the monster and now we have to deal with the consequences of of him taking these unethical, but ultimately legal domestic policy actions.

Someone explain to me what I'm missing. 

10 hours ago, Bill said:

But I guess it’s cool with @Gannan that we sent a guy seeking asylum in the US from a commie regime to an El Salvador prison because he had no rights, or something.

Are we arguing if it's right or legal? Of course it's not right.

13 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Not sure why @Gannan is catching heat for the visa issue. These people are not US citizens and don't have the same legal protections that we do.

Now, as with everything that Trump does, he's a vile lunatic boob about why he's kicking all the non-white visa holders out, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. We elected the monster and now we have to deal with the consequences of of him taking these unethical, but ultimately legal domestic policy actions.

Someone explain to me what I'm missing. 

It's pretty simple. The government can't revoke someone's visa simply because they don't like what a person said. That is a blatant violation of the first amendment. 

"These people are not US citizens and don't have the same legal protections that we do."  It doesn't matter if someone is a US citizen, a legal resident, or a visa holder, the government is prohibited from infringing on their right to free speech. 

If a visa holder has committed a crime, then sure they can have their visa revoked and be sent back to their home country.  That is not what happened here. 

" but ultimately legal domestic policy actions"

Well that's the debate here. Some, like myself, do not believe it is legal for the government to revoke someone's visa simply because they don't like what they said. 

 

5 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Are we arguing if it's right or legal? Of course it's not right.

It's neither. First amendment applies to all legal residents.

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

It's pretty simple. The government can't revoke someone's visa simply because they don't like what a person said. That is a blatant violation of the first amendment. 

"These people are not US citizens and don't have the same legal protections that we do."  It doesn't matter if someone is a US citizen, a legal resident, or a visa holder, the government is prohibited from infringing on their right to free speech. 

 

Do we have court rulings/legal precedent of a non-citizen being protected by the 1st Ammendment? 

I'm genuinely asking. I don't know the answer. 

 

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

It's neither. First amendment applies to all legal residents.

If that's factually and legally true then I'll happily agree and retract my previous statements. But I've searched, albeit briefly, and I can't find a straight answer. 

8 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Do we have court rulings/legal precedent of a non-citizen being protected by the 1st Ammendment? 

I'm genuinely asking. I don't know the answer. 

 

Not specific to the 1A but SCOTUS has ruled based on the equal protection clause in the 14A for non-citizens, even undocumented ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

 

 

8 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

If that's factually and legally true then I'll happily agree and retract my previous statements. But I've searched, albeit briefly, and I can't find a straight answer. 

So non citizens have first amendment rights as well as rights to due process.  That has been settled in the Supreme Court.  Trump's team is trying to do is invoke the "Enemy Aliens Act"  from the 1700s to skirt that issue.  Which states:

Quote

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

It's supposed to be an extreme wartime measure directly against people from countries that have attacked the the US.  It's been used in the war of 1812 on the English, WW1 on Germans/Austrians/Hungarians, and WW2 on Germans/Italians/Japanese (it's what Truman used to throw Japanese immigrants into internment camps).  And now, dingus is trying to use it on a Turkish girl who wrote an opinion piece asking her school to publicly recognize a genocide in Gaza (among others).

It was a problematic and frankly antiquated act when Truman used it during WW2, but at least it was technically used how the act was supposed to be used.  This isn't.  We've haven't proclaimed war on a country and even if we did he's applying it to non-palestinians.

11 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not specific to the 1A but SCOTUS has ruled based on the equal protection clause in the 14A for non-citizens, even undocumented ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

So some rights but legally open to interpretation specifically on the 1A issue. I think we can both agree that compared to all of the other factually illegal things this administration has done, the visa thing doesn't make the top 5, right?

the last four years the cucks screamed and reeeeeeeee'd about the biden administration farting in the wind, and yet they celebrate this. 

do it the right way. 

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

So non citizens have first amendment rights as well as rights to due process.  That has been settled in the Supreme Court.  Trump's team is trying to do is invoke the "Enemy Aliens Act"  from the 1700s to skirt that issue.  Which states:

It's supposed to be an extreme wartime measure directly against people from countries that have attacked the the US.  It's been used in the war of 1812 on the English, WW1 on Germans/Austrians/Hungarians, and WW2 on Germans/Italians/Japanese (it's what Truman used to throw Japanese immigrants into internment camps).  And now, dingus is trying to use it on a Turkish girl who wrote an opinion piece asking her school to publicly recognize a genocide in Gaza (among others).

It was a problematic and frankly antiquated act when Truman used it during WW2, but at least it was technically used how the act was supposed to be used.  This isn't.  We've haven't proclaimed war on a country and even if we did he's applying it to non-palestinians.

If we get some sort of high court ruling on the issue and Trump doesn't comply I'll be on the outrage train.

And to be clear, it's not right to kick someone out of the country for protesting against Israel and for Palestinian rights. If any sane human being were POTUS this wouldn't even be an issue.

6 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

So some rights but legally open to interpretation specifically on the 1A issue. I think we can both agree that compared to all of the other factually illegal things this administration has done, the visa thing doesn't make the top 5, right?

It's not like I'm not ranking them, but it's part of a broader pattern of blatant disregard of the constitution itself. I can understand why someone might not care that much about this particular case, but at the same time, I'm not okay with setting the precedent that visas can be revoked for any reason deemed appropriate by the executive branch. It basically finally drops the charade that it was the "undocumented" part that was the problem.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not ranking them, but it's part of a pattern of blatant disregard of the constitution itself. I can understand why someone might not care that much about this particular case, but at the same time, I'm not okay with setting the precedent that visas can be revoked for any reason deemed appropriate by the executive branch. It basically finally drops the charade that it was the "undocumented" part that was the problem.

weird, but ICE as not shown up at any of the somerton businesses that are filled with illegal russians. 

it's as if only certain demographics are being targeted.

1 minute ago, mayanh8 said:

If we get some sort of high court ruling on the issue and Trump doesn't comply I'll be on the outrage train.

And to be clear, it's not right to kick someone out of the country for protesting against Israel and for Palestinian rights. If any sane human being were POTUS this wouldn't even be an issue.

That's all well and good, but he's avoiding due process in the mean time while we're waiting for those rulings. You need to figure that out before you can start deporting legal residents. This girl didn't get called into her consulate and explained her visa was revoked and given a lawyer to appeal. She was straight up abducted in the streets (the streets because I'm sure they didn't have a signed court order to go to her house or school), driven across the country to a detention center with zero contact with her family or lawyer, and remains detained without a charge. 

Do particularly care about some 20 year old pro Palestine girl?  No. But the first amendment and due process are basically our biggest anti dictator safety rails. Him testing those rails is a really big deal. 

13 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

So some rights but legally open to interpretation specifically on the 1A issue. I think we can both agree that compared to all of the other factually illegal things this administration has done, the visa thing doesn't make the top 5, right?

It's not really the "visa" that's the issue, it's the government blatantly violating the first amendment and the very easy slippery slope that this can lead to.   If they government believes they can revoke someone's visa because they disagreed with something they said, then what's next?   Maybe they start revoking people's professional licenses over not liking something they said.  Maybe the start arresting people over something they said.   It's not very hard to imagine what else the government could do if they believe they have this power.  And the right to free speech and the right to due process might be the two most important rights of all. 

 

8 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

If we get some sort of high court ruling on the issue and Trump doesn't comply I'll be on the outrage train.

I think that's kinda where we're at though. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/detained-tufts-student-cant-be-deported-to-turkey-without-court-order-judge-says

BOSTON (AP) — A Tufts University doctoral student who was detained this week can’t be deported to Turkey without a court order, a federal judge in Massachusetts said on Friday.

Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, was taken by masked immigration officials as she walked along a street in the Boston suburb of Somerville on Tuesday.

Trump says he's considering ways to serve a third term as president | AP News

 

don't get your panties in bunch libs, just some more sarcasm. 

Just now, Alpha_TATEr said:

Trump says he's considering ways to serve a third term as president | AP News

 

don't get your panties in bunch libs, just some more sarcasm. 

 

 

Just now, Mike030270 said:

 

 

still claiming the 2020 election was stolen with no evidence. lie till ya die, right donnie?  

45 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

Do we have court rulings/legal precedent of a non-citizen being protected by the 1st Ammendment? 

I'm genuinely asking. I don't know the answer. 

 

Yes we do.  SCOTUS has ruled several times on this topic.

Let's ask a practical question.  Do you support rounding up non-citizens who are here legally with zero due process, putting them on a plane, and dumping them into that El Salvador prison?  They still haven't even disclosed the names of the people put into that place.

edit: It isn't the visa thing that's the big problem here.

9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yes we do.  SCOTUS has ruled several times on this topic.

Let's ask a practical question.  Do you support rounding up non-citizens who are here legally with zero due process, putting them on a plane, and dumping them into that El Salvador prison?  They still haven't even disclosed the names of the people put into that place.

edit: It isn't the visa thing that's the big problem here.

Of course I don't support it. The crux of my argument is that I would think, by definition, a US citizen has some protections afforded to them by the US Constitution that non-citizens don't have.

Rounding all the blacks and browns up and disappearing them is OBVIOUSLY evil. I'm simply questioning what legal argument the executive branch has to support the policy since legal arguments don't go by feelers.