March 31Mar 31 2 minutes ago, Gannan said: I'm not a lawyer, but I consider myself to be "civically engaged" and have a general knowledge of how government works, and this is how I always understood visas and how they work. That's why my position from the start was "this was to be expected" and "what did she and other protestors expect"? I'll back halfway down on the free speech / visa aspect as this seems to be unsettled law according to the NYT article. My bad there (hand up) though all the info out there suggested otherwise until this article came out. I imagine we will get a SCOTUS ruling at some point. The other part is due process. I'm not sure what the law is there but I wouldn't think a person can legally be shipped halfway across the continent and held in detention in a jail indefinitely without a judge's ruling. I imagine we will learn more about that aspect as well as things go forward. The other example we haven't discussed is the shipment of people directly into the El Salvadoran hell hole prison without any due process. You won't convince me that is legal. We are not at war.
March 31Mar 31 28 minutes ago, vikas83 said: But we may have antiquated laws and precedent that allow it, and absent Congressional action clarifying it, we all need to live with the court's decision. Do you mean the (supreme) court's eventual decision? Because so far, district court ruled against the administration and blocked the deportation order. Unless I'm missing something and that's already been superceded by some other ruling.
March 31Mar 31 6 minutes ago, vikas83 said: 1. People on visas being deported for supporting Palestine/Hamas -- I think this is morally wrong, but there is some legal justification for it. Eventually, I'm guessing SCOTUS will have to weigh in on the issue. Hopefully they won't uphold the precedent from the 1950s, but we'll see. I also agree with @Gannan that people on visas (and green cards) do need to read the room a little bit. Again, I think it is wrong and morally reprehensible to revoke a visa for simply expressing an opinion. But we may have antiquated laws and precedent that allow it, and absent Congressional action clarifying it, we all need to live with the court's decision. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the WH then fair enough. They will still need to follow proper procedures and laws in detaining people, giving them due process, and deporting them correctly but if they do that then I won't like the law but I'll accept it. I'm not sure the law should allow the methods used with the Tufts lady.
March 31Mar 31 14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Do you mean the (supreme) court's eventual decision? Because so far, district court ruled against the administration and blocked the deportation order. Unless I'm missing something and that's already been superceding by some other ruling. I mean the ultimate SCOTUS ruling. Wherever they come down, we have to live with it. The administration should respect the District Court rulings in the meantime.
March 31Mar 31 1 hour ago, Gannan said: Again, are we talking about what the law says or what the law should be? I thought you were asking what it should be. I'm not a lawyer. Trump should follow the law. I've said that over and over again. However, people were deported under Nixon for protesting the war in Vietnam, so the 3rd world banana republic boat has already sailed. And people of Japanese descent were put in internment camps during WW2. Just because our country has acted like a 3rd world banana republic in the past doesn't mean we should allow it to happen currently or in the future.
March 31Mar 31 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: I mean the ultimate SCOTUS ruling. Wherever they come down, we have to live with it. The administration should respect the District Court rulings in the meantime. 17 more were transferred directly into the El Salvadoran prison over the weekend The WH says they were murderers and rapists but once again no names or details edit: WH says "some were convicted previously" and "others in legal processes" and "none were under the Alien Enemies Act"
March 31Mar 31 23 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: And people of Japanese descent were put in internment camps during WW2. Just because our country has acted like a 3rd world banana republic in the past doesn't mean we should allow it to happen currently or in the future.
March 31Mar 31 40 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: If SCOTUS rules in favor of the WH then fair enough. They will still need to follow proper procedures and laws in detaining people, giving them due process, and deporting them correctly but if they do that then I won't like the law but I'll accept it. I'm not sure the law should allow the methods used with the Tufts lady. 28 minutes ago, vikas83 said: I mean the ultimate SCOTUS ruling. Wherever they come down, we have to live with it. The administration should respect the District Court rulings in the meantime. Maga needs to also think of the future lol They will definitely have a tantrum when all of these loopholes they're using gets turned on them when the other side has the power Though maga looks to be trying to prevent the other side from ever getting power again...
March 31Mar 31 6 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: They will definitely have a tantrum when all of these loopholes they're using gets turned on them when the other side has the power They've been going back and forth with this issue now for some time. Each time one wins they double down and do more stupid sheet and then it comes back to haunt them every single time.
March 31Mar 31 1 hour ago, vikas83 said: 2. Rounding up people and sending them to a foreign prison -- This is 100% illegal IMO as the Alien Enemies Act doesn't cover this (and also is generally viewed as an abhorrent piece of legislation that helped cost Adams a 2nd term) because we are not at war with a gang, despite the White House statement (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/). You can't incarcerate people based off tattoos with no due process. Agreed. I've never even remotely said I'm ok with this. It's Orwellian.
March 31Mar 31 2 hours ago, DrPhilly said: I'll back halfway down on the free speech / visa aspect as this seems to be unsettled law according to the NYT article. My bad there (hand up) though all the info out there suggested otherwise until this article came out. I imagine we will get a SCOTUS ruling at some point. The other part is due process. I'm not sure what the law is there but I wouldn't think a person can legally be shipped halfway across the continent and held in detention in a jail indefinitely without a judge's ruling. I imagine we will learn more about that aspect as well as things go forward. The other example we haven't discussed is the shipment of people directly into the El Salvadoran hell hole prison without any due process. You won't convince me that is legal. We are not at war. Yeah the detaining thing is not ok, I was just talking about revoking her visa.
March 31Mar 31 1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said: And people of Japanese descent were put in internment camps during WW2. Just because our country has acted like a 3rd world banana republic in the past doesn't mean we should allow it to happen currently or in the future. Allow is an interesting phrase. We will be lucky if we can prevent a 3rd term, let alone prevent any of this. I feel pretty helpless about all of it. I don't know about you.
March 31Mar 31 2 hours ago, Gannan said: Allow is an interesting phrase. We will be lucky if we can prevent a 3rd term, let alone prevent any of this. I feel pretty helpless about all of it. I don't know about you. The 3rd term isn't happening. He uses that as a bone to throw the media when he's getting killed on something else he wants to stop talking about. He does it every time.
March 31Mar 31 4 hours ago, Mike030270 said: Maga needs to also think of the future lol They will definitely have a tantrum when all of these loopholes they're using gets turned on them when the other side has the power. Because if they don't use the "loop holes" they'd never be used against them. 🙄 4 hours ago, Mike030270 said: Though maga looks to be trying to prevent the other side from ever getting power again... They've done more to hurt themselves than Trump could ever hope to manage. Than said I remember "Republicans will never hold nation power again" being tossed around not too long ago.
March 31Mar 31 20 minutes ago, lynched1 said: Because if they don't use the "loop holes" they'd never be used against them. 🙄 They've done more to hurt themselves than Trump could ever hope to manage. Than said I remember "Republicans will never hold nation power again" being tossed around not too long ago. You'd be throwing a tantrum if Biden was ignoring the judges
March 31Mar 31 12 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: You'd be throwing a tantrum if Biden was ignoring the judges I've seen Biden, he was ignoring everyone. In fact I remember throwing several tantrums. There were so many tantrums being thrown by so many people that Trump got re-elected. "His overall approval rating has ticked down just a point from last month and is a few points lower than at the start of his term, though it remains above what he got at any point during his first term."
April 1Apr 1 I’m fine with people getting deported for speaking out against Israel. They can go back to their Dallas country and protest the American-funded genocide.
April 1Apr 1 39 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Ahhh…I remember when the US was a model for human rights. Now we look worse than China. How delightful.
Create an account or sign in to comment