16 minutes ago, toolg said:

WTF are you guys even talking about? Abrego Garcia came to America when he was a teenager to reunite with his brother, because they were being harassed by gangs in El Salvador. He was granted "withholding of removal" status by an immigration judge because it was ruled he would be persecuted if deported. And it appears just that, he was deported to El Salvador and is being persecuted. His deportation to El Salvador was blocked by law by an immigration judge. Trump sent him away anyway without due process. I understand if you two nitwits are confused because this status is not granted often. So here it is Trump is acting against the wishes and interests of Abrego Garcia, his family, the people, and the law.

He came here illegally and then was granted that, yeah.

15 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I mean yeah we know that.

However, there isn't anything to disagree about regarding the level of crisis. The Trump team is right that they own immigration and you agree with that 1000%. Biden had the same ownership is his term. There was a crisis for sure with WAY too many illegal aliens but it wasn't a Constitutional crisis.

We disagree there too.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

I was legitimately curious. I couldn't find anywhere where it said he was convicted of a crime.

"Sure he was here illegally but was he actually convicted of a crime? Genuinely curious."

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

He committed a crime the moment he came here illegally, so spin the wheel again.

So your position is anyone who crossed into the country illegally deserves El Salvadore prison? Even Stephen Miller might say that's a bit harsh.

Just now, Kz! said:

"Sure he was here illegally but was he actually convicted of a crime? Genuinely curious."

Ok, so that's where we are. Anyone here illegally gets El Salvadore prison. Isn't crossing illegally a misdemeanor?

He was given legal status, so I guess that part doesn't count.

Just now, Gannan said:

So your position is anyone who crossed into the country illegally deserves El Salvadore prison? Even Stephen Miller might say that's a bit harsh.

What happens to them after they get tossed isn't my concern. Getting them out is.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

We disagree there too.

I mean, you can say the Eagles colors are red and yellow if you want but you'd be wrong about that too.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

I mean, you can say the Eagles colors are red and yellow if you want but you'd be wrong about that too.

Sounds great.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

What happens to them after they get tossed isn't my concern. Getting them out is.

Maybe we could just herd them into gas chambers if they are here illegally.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Sounds great.

The dude's entire definition of a "constitutional crisis" is literally just what the tv is telling him in that moment, and he wants to debate you about it.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

Maybe we could just herd them into gas chambers if they are here illegally.

Tossing the adults from planes over the ocean a compromise?

3 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Sounds great.

Ok, so we agree you are wrong. Thank the lord that is settled.

23 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

@TEW

I agree 100% with PTerp here. You are completely abandoning the position you have taken for a couple decades in this forum. You've always laid claim to being the most principled person in here and yet here we are...

TEW: I should have the right to own automatic and nuclear weapons because the constitution says so.

Also TEW: The constitution doesn't matter if it interferes with Der Fuhrer's wishes.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Ok, so we agree you are wrong. Thank the lord that is settled.

We agree you want to push that point and I'm not engaging.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Tossing the adults from planes over the ocean a compromise?

@TEW once famously suggested that the military just shoot them if they approach the border. He included women and children in this equation. He thought the idea that this would be considered a crime against humanity was "absurd".

You guys should go bowling!

19 minutes ago, TEW said:

Due process includes expedited removal.

Yes, it would be different if he were an American citizen holds water. Lots of water. All the water. Oceans worth of water.

"They would just make up lies” is projection and a straw man.

Expedited removal only applies to

"1. Any noncitizen who arrived at a port of entry, at any time, and is determined to be inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lacking proper entry documents and  2. Any noncitizen who entered without inspection (by land or sea), was never admitted or paroled, is encountered anywhere in the United States, and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for the two years preceding the immigration officer’s determination that they are inadmissible for fraud or misrepresentation or lack of proper entry documents. "

There's an actual process for expedited removal, and Garcia was not given an expedited removal order. So your expedited removal point is moot as it does not apply to this case.

""They would just make up lies” is projection and a straw man."

How is it a projection when that's exactly what they've already done. They've already lied and said that Garcia is a member of MS-13. Basically your logic is "sure they've done this to people who had protected status or were here legally on visas, but they totally wouldn't do it to an American citizen".

Again, I'll remember this the next time a far left progressive says "we only want to ban assault weapons. This would never lead to anything more than that"

Just now, Gannan said:

@TEW once famously suggested that the military just shoot them if they approach the border. He included women and children in this equation. He thought the idea that this would be considered a crime against humanity was "absurd".

You guys should go bowling!

Never saw the post, but fine, we can toss one parachute out with them. No reserve.

A few thoughts on this...

They guy crossed illegally. He should have been deported years ago IMO.

However, he got a hearing, and a judge ruled he could stay here legally.

I don't agree with the idea of letting anyone who feels threatened by gangs in a foreign country stay in the US legally indefinitely. If we played this out, we could easily take in half the population of South America, which is over 200 million people. That said... a judge ruled he can stay, and the law should be followed. If the Trump administration wants to challenge the legal status of people like this, that is their right to do so, but they can't just unilaterally overturn rulings they don't agree with. That is banana republic type ish.

All that said, even if there was a process by which the Trump administration overturned legal status for these migrants, if their only crime is crossing the border, they should simply be deported. The El Salvadore ish is nuts. Suggesting that we send Americans there goes beyond nuts and crosses into fascism.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Your posts indicate you are defending the position. If that is not the case then may I suggest you make that clear so people can understand where your opinion stands.

My posts explicitly indicated the opposite, that it was not "good” and that it was not my opinion.

If explicit English isn’t clear enough for you, that’s your own failing.

All I have said is that this situation is predictable and described how and why. Democrats gamed the legal system to create a politically advantageous demographic structure for themselves, and now you see the equal and opposite force pushing back.

You all should unironically read notsee political theorist Carl Schmitt. Since I know none of you will actually read his work (learning from mustache man’s greatest juror would be tantamount to heresy for most of you) here is the relevant wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_exception

In short, we are in a state of exception. Illegal immigration has become a broad national security issue with popular backlash and Trump is using the tools at his disposal to bend legal outcomes without doing away with the legal system entirely.

That’s it. That’s my opinion. That it’s predictable given the legal and political dynamics of the US, has a century old political theory behind it by the 20th century’s greatest political philosopher, and that it is a pragmatic solution given the Democrat propensity of bad faith action in regards to immigration.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

A few thoughts on this...

They guy crossed illegally. He should have been deported years ago IMO.

However, he got a hearing, and a judge ruled he could stay here legally.

I don't agree with the idea of letting anyone who feels threatened by gangs in a foreign country stay in the US legally indefinitely. If we played this out, we could easily take in half the population of South America, which is over 200 million people. That said... a judge ruled he can stay, and the law should be followed. If the Trump administration wants to challenge the legal status of people like this, that is their right to do so, but they can't just unilaterally overturn rulings they don't agree with. That is banana republic type ish.

All that said, even if there was a process by which the Trump administration overturned legal status for these migrants, if their only crime is crossing the border, they should simply be deported. The El Salvadore ish is nuts. Suggesting that we send Americans there goes beyond nuts and crosses into fascism.

^^^ this.

9 minutes ago, Gannan said:

@TEW once famously suggested that the military just shoot them if they approach the border. He included women and children in this equation. He thought the idea that this would be considered a crime against humanity was "absurd".

You guys should go bowling!

What I suggested was that IF the military just shot everyone who crossed illegally, illegal crossings would dramatically diminish.

This was in response to someone who moronically said that there was nothing the US could do to stop illegal crossings.

Just now, TEW said:

What I suggested was that IF the military just shot everyone who crossed illegally, illegal crossings would dramatically diminish.

This was in response to someone who moronically said that there was nothing the US could do to stop illegal crossings.

Trump managed to do it without shooting anyone soooo yay?

I guess the takeaway is that I'd rather have Trump as president than you. So there's that.

Just now, Gannan said:

A few thoughts on this...

They guy crossed illegally. He should have been deported years ago IMO.

However, he got a hearing, and a judge ruled he could stay here legally.

I don't agree with the idea of letting anyone who feels threatened by gangs in a foreign country stay in the US legally indefinitely. If we played this out, we could easily take in half the population of South America, which is over 200 million people. That said... a judge ruled he can stay, and the law should be followed. If the Trump administration wants to challenge the legal status of people like this, that is their right to do so, but they can't just unilaterally overturn rulings they don't agree with. That is banana republic type ish.

All that said, even if there was a process by which the Trump administration overturned legal status for these migrants, if their only crime is crossing the border, they should simply be deported. The El Salvadore ish is nuts. Suggesting that we send Americans there goes beyond nuts and crosses into fascism.

So being serious you honestly believe all 20-30 million illegals need a hearing, which also means at least one appeal? Anyone who says yes doesn't want to actually fix the problem you know darn well that will take decades upon decades. It's just not practical. If some people end up in a prison or tossed who shouldn't be that sucks for them, but not worth allowing them to stay here. You might as well say you are in favor of granting them all status because you know the Dems will undue all this the next time they get in, which is exactly the point of these games. It's not hard to run SSN background checks that goes to a judge in a massive batch for review. No more asylum. If the box isn't checked that you are a US citizen you are tossed. The end. If you want to make it a panel of two judges to prevent this kind of mistake again, fine. It should take at most 24 hours and they are gone.

9 minutes ago, TEW said:

My posts explicitly indicated the opposite, that it was not "good” and that it was not my opinion.

You may very well have added in a note somewhere in several sentences of a post that I may have missed. If so, then fine and the main thing is that you've explained your position when I asked.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

Trump managed to do it without shooting anyone soooo yay?

I guess the takeaway is that I'd rather have Trump as president than you. So there's that.

Yes, and if you had the reading comprehension of a middle schooler, you’d realize that my entire point in the post you are referencing is that there are graduated levels of force that can be applied to change incentive structures.

In that same post, I outlined a myriad of them, including things like prosecuting employers who knowingly hired illegals, mandatory prison time, financial/banking constraints, and so on.

But you mouth breathers are so retarded that you read shoot people and lose all context, all meaning, all cognitive thought and just project whatever you want it to mean on to someone.

And yes, to answer your question, you’d rather have Trump than me. I’m far more ruthless, sophisticated and capable than he could ever hope to be.