13 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Using this logic, all Trump supporters could be arrested for what happened on January 6th, regardless of whether or not they were there.  Regardless of whether or not they agree with the Capitol riots.  But by this logic, just because other people who DID break the law might share some similar views, that means ALL Trump supporters can be arrested for January 6th.

That’s faulty logic.

No, by my logic a foreigner here on a visa could be deported for being part of the protest even if they didn't storm the capitol or even writing an op ed about how great Jan 6th was. Which they should have been if such a thing occurred. 

32 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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.

I agree with this. I even started this by saying its not how I would do it. 

1 minute ago, mayanh8 said:

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.

Yeah, citizens do have more in terms of the details of the due process but even undocumented non-citizens have the right to a level of due process (read "legal hearing with neutral part") as ruled by SCOTUS.  The administration is relying on the Alien Enemies Act to get around the due process as others have explained.  Highly dubious usage given the conditions laid out in that act.  The district and appellate courts have both ruled for a temporary injunction and the Trump team has appealed to SCOTUS.  The logic in the appellate court against the usage of the act was pretty vicious and imho opinion it is obvious we/he can't legally use a wartime act when we aren't at war.

11 hours ago, Bill said:

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.

I didn't say "it was cool". I even said "it's not how I would do it". However the entire movement definitely had elements of pro hamas rhetoric, and was violent at times. Foreigners who choose to align themselves with it, without distancing themselves from the violent and pro hamas aspects of this movement, don't get any sympathy from me. These people WANTED Trump elected. They got their wish. Now they have to deal with the consequences. 

3 minutes ago, Gannan said:

No, by my logic a foreigner here on a visa could be deported for being part of the protest even if they didn't storm the capitol or even writing an op ed about how great Jan 6th was. Which they should have been if such a thing occurred. 

That's a bit of loose reasoning if you ask me but in any case their is no evidence that the Tufts lady was in any protests that were illegal AND she didn't write anything about how great an illegal protest was either.

I remember when the ACLU used to support the rights of the Klan to demonstrate.  I felt that was a good thing as much as I disliked the Klan.  The situation with some of these apprehensions/deportations has a similar aspect where upholding the rights is more important than worrying about the people involved.

26 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.

Sooo here's another question. I hate agreeing with Trump and Trumpers mind you. However, the Biden administration letting anyone with a smart phone who downloaded the app, could cross the border legally claiming asylum. I think Biden was a good president, but this was colossally retarded, and its one of the primary reasons we have Trump redux.  Trump claims Biden wasn't within his right to do this. It basically set up a system where there was literally no limit to how many migrants we took in. If a billion people showed up with the app, we'd have to take them. It's why NYC had to put them up in 5 star hotles for free. There was nowhere to put this massive amount of people. Trump's argument is that Biden was not in his legal right to do this, therefore we do not have to let them stay. I hate to say it, but there's merit to this argument. 

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

That's a bit of loose reasoning if you ask me but in any case their is no evidence that the Tufts lady was in any protests that were illegal AND she didn't write anything about how great an illegal protest was either.

I remember when the ACLU used to support the rights of the Klan to demonstrate.  I felt that was a good thing as much as I disliked the Klan.  The situation with some of these apprehensions/deportations has a similar aspect where upholding the rights is more important than worrying about the people involved.

The KKK are American citizens. Same thing. If we had foreigners here marching with the KKK, their visas should be revoked. 

7 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I didn't say "it was cool". I even said "it's not how I would do it". However the entire movement definitely had elements of pro hamas rhetoric, and was violent at times. Foreigners who choose to align themselves with it, without distancing themselves from the violent and pro hamas aspects of this movement, don't get any sympathy from me. These people WANTED Trump elected. They got their wish. Now they have to deal with the consequences. 

You certainly don't have to give them any sympathy.  However, you can still defend rights that SCOTUS has ruled on and not have any sympathy for Palestinian supporters/protestors.

 

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

The KKK are American citizens. Same thing. If we had foreigners here marching with the KKK, their visas should be revoked. 

You continue to forget that SCOTUS has ruled that non-citizens also have rights based on the Constitution and First Amendment.  You don't have to like that but it is the law.

All of the Jan 6th terrorists should have been deported to El Salvador. 

5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You continue to forget that SCOTUS has ruled that non-citizens also have rights based on the Constitution and First Amendment.  You don't have to like that but it is the law.

So are we arguing about what is, or what should be? I will always say the government has to follow the law. However, Trump doesn't follow the law, and we elected him anyway so it is what it is. I'm not sure why people are so shocked he isn't following the law in this case. He doesn't any other time. 

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

So are we arguing about what is, or what should be? I will always say the government has to follow the law. However, Trump doesn't follow the law, and we elected him anyway so it is what it is. I'm not sure why people are so shocked he isn't following the law in this case. He doesn't any other time. 

Several of us believe that is important to take a stand on the principle of due process and in particular in support of the first amendment and the Constitution.  It doesn't seem like you agree.  Or maybe you are using the "doesn't apply to me so I don't care" argument.

So much for Trump bringing gas prices down.  Gasoline futures over the last 3 months:

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Several of us believe that is important to take a stand on the principle of due process and in particular in support of the first amendment and the Constitution.  It doesn't seem like you agree.  Or maybe you are using the "doesn't apply to me so I don't care" argument.

You're acting as if taking a stand on a message board matters. It doesn't. I was first really surprised when you all cared waaaaaaay more about this than the other crap he pulls. But yeah I don't care. Elect me president, and I wouldn't deport people without due process, and I'd follow the law. But I'm not president, Trump is. I also think it's worth discussing because this is exactly why he won. Liberals care more about foreigners than every day working people. No one wants to see illegals in 5 star hotels for free when they are struggling to buy groceries. It's why Harris lost, and what I'm seeing is a bunch of you playing right back into that. Trump literally took food out of hungry kids mouths and I saw maybe 2 posts about it. Some foreigner fighting for Palestinians gets detained, and there's pages and pages on it. If the opposition doesn't tap into what people actually care about, we will get a 3rd term of Trump or a first of JD Vance. So am I saying this is a great thing, and that Trump is great for doing it? Of course not. I'm pointing out the absurdity of it. 

49 minutes ago, Gannan said:

No, by my logic a foreigner here on a visa could be deported for being part of the protest even if they didn't storm the capitol or even writing an op ed about how great Jan 6th was. Which they should have been if such a thing occurred. 

1) you can’t have your visa revoked for being part of a legal protest

2) there is no evidence she was part of any protest that broke any laws

3) She wrote an op ed voicing her opinion that the school should divest from companies that support Israel.  
So far, the government has yet to put forth any evidence that she did anything that would warrant her visa be revoked.  And if it wasn’t for having access to legal representation, she would have already been deported with no due process.

So once again, no, a person can’t have their student visa revoked and deported because the government doesn’t like the opinion the person expressed.  That is some Banana republic 3rd world country nonsense.

29 minutes ago, Gannan said:

So are we arguing about what is, or what should be? I will always say the government has to follow the law. However, Trump doesn't follow the law, and we elected him anyway so it is what it is. I'm not sure why people are so shocked he isn't following the law in this case. He doesn't any other time. 

I don’t think anyone is shocked.  People are simply pointing out that this case looks like a very clear blatant violation of the first amendment.  

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

You're acting as if taking a stand on a message board matters. It doesn't.

Yeah, I figured you'd say that.  Right, it doesn't but we share our opinions on here and discuss them and I've shared mine.

You keep making this only about foreigners while the entire point others (including me) are making has to do with individual rights and freedoms.  We are certainly not putting foreigners ahead of Americans.  On the contrary, in our minds we are defending American citizens by saying we won't accept the dilution of due process.

btw - Go look at the DOGE thread, the Russia/Ukraine thread, the Judiciary thread, and in the rest of this thread.  You'll find all of the same posters being upset with all the other stuff you mention.  None of those things are being overlooked though it can be harder to discuss and the consequences for most of that stuff is down the road a bit.  However, due process is a unique hill and deserves some special attention.

 

Let me turn this around on you and say you are playing right into the MAGA/Trump line by saying "this is only about a bunch of sheety bad foreigners".  In my mind you couldn't be more wrong.

45 minutes ago, Gannan said:

However the entire movement definitely had elements of pro hamas rhetoric, and was violent at times

Nothing in her op-ed could be classified as "pro-hamas" rhetoric, and it definitely didn't advocate for violence in any form. You could say it was anti-Israel, sure, but if you're gonna argue that's sufficient grounds for deportation, then what types of speech even is afforded protection under the 1A in your view?

16 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Liberals care more about foreigners

btw - I don't think any of the posters discussing this with you are liberals.  Maybe I'm wrong about one of them but I'm pretty sure all of us are more never Trumper types and definitely not "liberals".

15 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Liberals care more about foreigners than every day working people.

Come on man, this is MAGA logic and doesn’t equate to the real world. 

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

btw - I don't think any of the posters discussing this with you are liberals.  Maybe I'm wrong about one of them but I'm pretty sure all of us are more never Trumper types and definitely not "liberals".

I don’t consider myself a liberal, but have many liberal views. It really depends on the issue. Classic liberal. 

54 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Sooo here's another question. I hate agreeing with Trump and Trumpers mind you. However, the Biden administration letting anyone with a smart phone who downloaded the app, could cross the border legally claiming asylum. I think Biden was a good president, but this was colossally retarded, and its one of the primary reasons we have Trump redux.  Trump claims Biden wasn't within his right to do this. It basically set up a system where there was literally no limit to how many migrants we took in. If a billion people showed up with the app, we'd have to take them. It's why NYC had to put them up in 5 star hotles for free. There was nowhere to put this massive amount of people. Trump's argument is that Biden was not in his legal right to do this, therefore we do not have to let them stay. I hate to say it, but there's merit to this argument. 

Now you're referencing asylum law reform, which is a different topic entirely. I don't think you'd have seen nearly as much push back if this is what you started with in the first place. But asylum laws have literally nothing to do with the case of a legal resident being detained and about to be deported for an innocuous op-ed she wrote on the conflict in Gaza.

3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

I don’t consider myself a liberal, but have many liberal views. It really depends on the issue. Classic liberal. 

Ok, well I'm thinking he doesn't mean "Classic" when he uses the term liberal.

28 minutes ago, Gannan said:

You're acting as if taking a stand on a message board matters. It doesn't. I was first really surprised when you all cared waaaaaaay more about this than the other crap he pulls. But yeah I don't care. Elect me president, and I wouldn't deport people without due process, and I'd follow the law. But I'm not president, Trump is. I also think it's worth discussing because this is exactly why he won. Liberals care more about foreigners than every day working people. No one wants to see illegals in 5 star hotels for free when they are struggling to buy groceries. It's why Harris lost, and what I'm seeing is a bunch of you playing right back into that. Trump literally took food out of hungry kids mouths and I saw maybe 2 posts about it. Some foreigner fighting for Palestinians gets detained, and there's pages and pages on it. If the opposition doesn't tap into what people actually care about, we will get a 3rd term of Trump or a first of JD Vance. So am I saying this is a great thing, and that Trump is great for doing it? Of course not. I'm pointing out the absurdity of it. 

there's only "pages and pages" of discussion about this because you and a few others appear to be claiming that people here on visas aren't afforded first amendment protections, which is just simply not true. 

You see to be lumping this student in with people here on visas who DO break laws and result in their visas being revoked.  You'll notice that no one (outside of maybe some far left leaning people) are saying that those people who broke laws shouldn't have had their visas revoked. 

 

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Now you're referencing asylum law reform, which is a different topic entirely. I don't think you'd have seen nearly as much push back if this is what you started with in the first place. But asylum laws have literally nothing to do with the case of a legal resident being detained and about to be deported for an innocuous op-ed she wrote on the conflict in Gaza.

Yeah I'm not sure what asylum law has to do with this.  And many people pointed out that the Biden Administration was essentially encouraging abuse of the asylum system with their policies. And many people have pointed out that the Biden Admin's general policies on illegal immigration are a big reason that Trump won.