3 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

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.

No. I think the idea of a hearing for all of them is absurd. I went 15 rounds with people here over it. However, that is the law. Trump has control of both chambers of congress. Change the law. Once we accept that the president can pick and choose which laws he feels like following and which ones he doesn't...the republic is gone.

In the case of this guy, it's a bit different. A judge specifically granted him legal status. The white house doesn't have the authority to overturn the courts by tweet.

1 minute ago, TEW said:

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.

It was a stupid point then and a stupid point now. "I can shoot people to get my way" is middle school logic at best, and the logic of a sociopath at worst.

Just now, Gannan said:

It was a stupid point then and a stupid point now. "I can shoot people to get my way" is middle school logic at best, and the logic of a sociopath at worst.

LMFAO — it was a great point and completely defeated the statement to which I was responding:

"There’s nothing the US can do to stop illegal crossings.”

"Wrong — we could do many things ranging from shoot people on sight to taking away their ability to operate on the economy, each with degrading effectiveness relative to the amount of force being applied.”

Do you disagree?

It's obvious that Trump supporters lack the critical thinking to see what a slippery slope this case presents. I mean they did vote for Trump 3 times after all.

32 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

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

Exactly, you are wrong

9 minutes ago, Gannan said:

No. I think the idea of a hearing for all of them is absurd. I went 15 rounds with people here over it. However, that is the law. Trump has control of both chambers of congress. Change the law. Once we accept that the president can pick and choose which laws he feels like following and which ones he doesn't...the republic is gone.

In the case of this guy, it's a bit different. A judge specifically granted him legal status. The white house doesn't have the authority to overturn the courts by tweet.

Any legal solution will be fought on political grounds, any pragmatic solution will be fought on grounds of principle, any malicious subversion of sovereignty will be championed on technical grounds.

And then you wonder why you get Trump and why no one gives a damn about the law; when the law is a weapon against the will of the people in a democracy, at what point does the law lose the consent of the governed?

4 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Oh well. Trump "tried" and they said no.

my understanding is that the father from Baltimore is not a "MS-13 gang member" (since that's the latest dogwhistle to make you scared of foreigners)

4 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Which gives him the ability to do what he is doing because it wasn't clear cut. Again, it's going to be argued more in court, but if someone asks how I feel that he is clearly disobeying SCOTUS I'm going to disagree.

because you're full of ish. there will always be some way for you and the other sycophants to rationalize how what Trump is doing isn't technically running afoul of the law.

just like he's technically not a criminal rapist because he was "only" convicted of rape in civil court.

17 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Exactly, you are wrong

No, I'm not, but going round and round isn't going to change anything but waste our time. It was a constitutional crisis under Biden and you can say the team colors of Dallas are orange and red and it won't make it true ;)

4 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Good luck enforcing that. We just saw it play out on TV. It's done and SCOTUS can't do crap unless Roberts wants to enforce it to quote Jackson. I haven't seen any rulings in the last 30 minutes, though.

the entire job of the executive is to enforce the law as interpreted and laid down by SCOTUS.

Trump is (again) breaking his oath to the Constitution if he dares to defy SCOTUS rulings.

he's turning us into a banana republic and you morons are cheering it on to own the libs.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

because you're full of ish. there will always be some way for you and the other sycophants to rationalize how what Trump is doing isn't technically running afoul of the law.

just like he's technically not a criminal rapist because he was "only" convicted of rape in civil court.

Hey Snow. Cool story. Gosh, you will be apoplectic when you find out the guy is over rainbow bridge.

3 hours ago, TEW said:

Makes sense. From what I’ve read these El Salvador prisons are about 30% cheaper than American prisons.

Good move all around — cheaper and a greater fear inspiring deterrent.

GFY fascist.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

the entire job of the executive is to enforce the law as interpreted and laid down by SCOTUS.

Trump is (again) breaking his oath to the Constitution if he dares to defy SCOTUS rulings.

he's turning us into a banana republic and you morons are cheering it on to own the libs.

Cool, you don't know what the ruling really said. Love it.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

GFY fascist.

Calm down he's not in a prison.

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

No, I'm not, but going round and round isn't going to change anything but waste our time. It was a constitutional crisis under Biden and you can say the team colors of Dallas are orange and red and it won't make it true ;)

Yeah, cool story bro. Alas, you are wrong. You seem to enjoy being wrong.

Just now, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, cool story bro. Alas, you are wrong. You seem to enjoy being wrong.

You seem to enjoy thinking it. I'm good with leaving it there even if I disagree.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

GFY fascist.

I hope you’ve been brushing up on your Spanish! We’re going to declare the Democratic Party and its voters part of a terrorist organization soon!

51 minutes 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.

43 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

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.

yes, they need a hearing. because due process is required, regardless of their citizenship status.

this was what the immigration law that Republicans rejected would have done, expanded the court's ability to process these cases.

instead you have a crisis manufactured by "both side" with Dems being complicit in weaker border crossing deterrence and Republicans defunding the judicial system charged with adjudicating these cases in a timely manner.

14 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Hey Snow. Cool story. Gosh, you will be apoplectic when you find out the guy is over rainbow bridge.

the guy is in a prison, not dead.

Bukele is full of ish. he could easily produce him. this is a choice they're making.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

the guy is in a prison, not dead.

Bukele is full of ish. he could easily produce him. this is a choice they're making.

Some people on here suggested that today and I think they are right. And yeah, it's his choice and he's like nope. So too bad.

15 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Cool, you don't know what the ruling really said. Love it.

I know exactly what it said. you're the one deciding it means something different.

what exactly do you think the fascists mean when they say "they're going for the homegrown ones next"?

10 minutes ago, TEW said:

I hope you’ve been brushing up on your Spanish! We’re going to declare the Democratic Party and its voters part of a terrorist organization soon!

fascists gonna fascist.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

I know exactly what it said. you're the one deciding it means something different.

what exactly do you think the fascists mean when they say "they're going for the homegrown ones next"?

LOL no, TDS folk losing their crap once again are trying to change the text. "Facilitate his release" doesn't say and facilitate his return. First, they know they can't tell him he must return him because that's foreign affairs, second, if they were going to try there would be no need to say facilitate his release because facilitating his return would cover that as well.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

You seem to enjoy thinking it. I'm good with leaving it there even if I dis

15 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You seem to enjoy thinking it.

It seems to be a regular occurrence and is somewhat enjoyable, yes.