ADVERTISEMENT

Seriously, how can anyone support this?

WapPride said:
ICE stopped him after he left work and picked up his son from his grandmother's house. They told him his immigration status changed and then sent him to a detainment center in Texas as part of that big El Salvador plane photo op last month. His wife filed a lawsuit which made its way up to the SC who eventually ruled in her favor. The administration admitted it ****ed up, but refuse to facilitate his return, which is why the DoJ was just held in contempt of court yesterday.

It's theorized the reason El Salvador and the admin won't/can't return Abrego is because he's dead. CECOT is essentially a death camp, and he was housed with the same gang that threatened his life back in 2011 which led to his flight to the US.
Click to expand...
That’s troubling to say the least. I would think both sides could learn something here. That should never happen but quite frankly we shouldn’t have ever been in a position where ICE is charged with rounding up millions of people that aren’t supposed to be here. It’s tragic all around.

Edit: im not excusing anything. Just making an observation as to how we got to that point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Allornothing
MTTiger19 said:
If this is a constitutional argument and that’s what’s important, it appears any type of gun control or regulation is also unconstitutional.
You good with that?
I seem to remember all sorts of common sense approaches to make sure this right isn’t being taken but not abused, that not a better solution?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...
I'm not a gun control fan because of that very thing. Are you a fan of gun control? Because I know PLENTY of folks that think exactly that. Because that's what the constitution says. I get that there's some sort of common sense involved... Yelling fire in a crowded theater for instance. But by and large when the constitution is clear on something, that's the law of the land. Period. It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. For instance, the birth right citizenship. I don't necessarily LIKE it. But it's the law of the land.

And as near as I can tell, that's the primary difference between us. To me the law and our rights are for everyone. And that includes your Lord and Savior Trump AND all the libs you love to hate. I don't have to like it. You on the other hand seem to be FINE with folks you don't like being held accountable and rules you like being enforced. But when it doesn't suit you, you are all about breaking/ignoring the rules.
 
Last edited:
I
hopefultiger13 said:
I'm not a gun control fan because of that very thing. Are you a fan of gun control? Because I know PLENTY of folks that think exactly that. Because that's what the constitution says.
Click to expand...
I own many guns and consider myself an advocate for firearms. I think if you are a citizen in good standing (not a criminal) you should be able to possess a firearm 100%. But there also needs to be common sense involved. We don’t want people to have tanks or military grade weaponry BUT if you’re going down the constitutional absolutist path you can’t have any gun control. So the folks in here screaming that everyone gets due process need to also be against any form of gun control to be consistent, and they won’t be, they contradict themselves. My point in both scenarios is it’s very complicated, and to try and squeeze it all into one place is unrealistic. Each individual instance is different.

TLDR: you can’t claim one amendment is to be followed verbatim and another isn’t.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hopefultiger13

MTTiger19 said:
I

I own many guns and consider myself an advocate for firearms. I think if you are a citizen in good standing (not a criminal) you should be able to possess a firearm 100%. But there also needs to be common sense involved. We don’t want people to have tanks or military grade weaponry BUT if you’re going down the constitutional absolutist path you can’t have any gun control. So the folks in here screaming that everyone gets due process need to also be against any form of gun control to be consistent, and they won’t be, they contradict themselves. My point in both scenarios is it’s very complicated, and to try and squeeze it all into one place is unrealistic. Each individual instance is different.
Click to expand...

Fir some more common ground, I am also a gun owner and agree with gun rights. I am fine,with putting logical restrictions around it such as age,drivers license check,etc. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than a drivers license. Both are potential dangers to society.

I feel the same about immigration, but I also recognize that when someone followed the process, is doing the right things, they should not be picked up off the street and sent to a foreign concentration camp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy and MTTiger19
TigerGrowls said:
The commie dems lets millions of illegal aliens in the nation and used stolen taxpayer funds via NGO scams to pay for it and none of yall cared at all. Now that law is being restored and they have the huge task of removing some of the millions here you guys want to nit pick every case and whine about due process? What a joke if it wasnt so sad!!! What about the due process of the millions of American citizens being severely adversely affected by this commie dem cluster fv*k??
Click to expand...
Whine about due process is downplaying it to hell. That’s called the literal rule of law.

Habeas corpus? Eh, who needs it. Several hundred plus years of legal tradition tossed aside for nothing. And I remain in favor of deporting illegals after that’s satisfied. Trump is driving the nail through anybody who wants to take a logical position on immigration; we’ll get lumped in with him sending people to a concentration camp in El Salvador

Due process applies to our enemies, or it applies to no one at all. I’ll gladly take the former
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheValley91, UrHuckleberry, WapPride and 1 other person
MTTiger19 said:
I

I own many guns and consider myself an advocate for firearms. I think if you are a citizen in good standing (not a criminal) you should be able to possess a firearm 100%. But there also needs to be common sense involved. We don’t want people to have tanks or military grade weaponry BUT if you’re going down the constitutional absolutist path you can’t have any gun control. So the folks in here screaming that everyone gets due process need to also be against any form of gun control to be consistent, and they won’t be, they contradict themselves. My point in both scenarios is it’s very complicated, and to try and squeeze it all into one place is unrealistic. Each individual instance is different.

TLDR: you can’t claim one amendment is to be followed verbatim and another isn’t.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of this and disagree with other parts. First of all, it IS complicated and I think a lot of problems in our country are due to people trying to make a complex situation or problem simple by picking an absolutist position.

I personally don't believe in an absolutist view on gun control or free speech for instance. IMHO, it's pretty obvious that in the case of the 1st amendment, that this is referring to people's interaction with the government, not just being able to say or do anything you want. That's for people and the press. The 2nd amendment is less clear to me. One could make an argument that this refers to militias (National Guard), but I'm cautiously in favor of individual freedom on this one as well.

The 14th amendment is even more clear than the 1st amendment and the intention is pretty darn clear. In this case the amendment mentions citizens twice in the first 2 sentences. THEN it switches up and says that "no person" shall be deprived of... That's pretty specific and it seems to be unlikely that the amendment was not worded specifically that way for a reason. It would have been much more natural to say that no citizen shall be deprived of... IF that were the intent. Now you can certainly make a argument that this should go away, and I'm not necessarily against it. But the process to do that is also clear, and the solution is NOT by executive order. Don't get me wrong, I'm OK with a person who is illegally in the US being deported. If they are here illegally, that means to me that due process means showing that they are NOT here legally (not a high bar), then off they go. IF they are here legally, then they are entitled to some protection/due process, not simple deportation b/c the government "says so".

The 22nd amendment is the clearest of all. No person shall be elected POTUS more than twice. Period. Then there's a bunch of clarifying statements on partial terms and what that means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu said:
Whine about due process is downplaying it to hell. That’s called the literal rule of law.

Habeas corpus? Eh, who needs it. Several hundred plus years of legal tradition tossed aside for nothing. And I remain in favor of deporting illegals after that’s satisfied. Trump is driving the nail through anybody who wants to take a logical position on immigration; we’ll get lumped in with him sending people to a concentration camp in El Salvador

Due process applies to our enemies, or it applies to no one at all. I’ll gladly take the former
Click to expand...

You guys have lost your giblets. Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to address the large gangs that came in and started operations in the US. They are removed promptly via military operations. This act was created by the founders and has been upheld by scotus more than once. All other illegals under normal conditions will be processed normally. Quit whining guys.
 
Rahskie said:
I am going to weigh in again on this. Not replying to anyone specifically, just want to get a feel for where people stand on this.

1. Should we deport illegals, yes or no?
2. If yes, do you think it is even possible to give them all due process? And before you answer this question, consider this.
There are an estimated 15M illegals in the country. If each has a 1 hour due process court proceeding that is 15M hours. Divide 15M by 24 hours and you get 625,000 days, 625,000 days divided by 365 days (1 year) and you get 1,712 years of court time. Even if you had 500 judges doing this 24 hours a day it would take 300+ years.​
3. If you answered yes and want to give them due process, can you at least acknowledge that is not feasible?
4. If you answered no, then I guess we know that you are onboard with Biden's plans to import and give citizenship to illegals. I know many of you say asylum, asylum, asylum, but lets be honest and recognize that nothing like what happened under Biden had ever happened before. In my opinion, It was planned and executed.
Click to expand...
TRUTH!!! The illegals were allowed in under treasonous lack of any vetting by the govt in control so that should remove a lot of any due process. President Trump also rightfully declared a national emergency at the border which gives him more ability to proceed faster.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: yoshi121374
Human trafficking also.



MARYLAND MAN: If I was caught transporting 7 illegals in a truck without a valid driver's license I can't imagine the highway patrol just letting me go. But that's exactly what Biden's FBI ordered the Tennessee Highway Patrol to do when they detained Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The FBI told the police officers to take photos of each of them and of the contents in the truck and then release them. Why wasn't Garcia arrested? Why wasn't the truck impounded? None of this makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allornothing and fatpiggy
TigerGrowls said:
I want to personally thank the libs on this thread that upgraded my career from working in the chicken plant to being the night security guy.
Click to expand...
Lol funny enough I was confused about this too. Not that it matters, and I truly mean this and don't answer if you don't want to, but are either true or what 3rd shift do you actually work (and if you don't want to disclose ofc, don't). Just curious
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
tigres88 said:
Lol funny enough I was confused about this too. Not that it matters, and I truly mean this and don't answer if you don't want to, but are either true or what 3rd shift do you actually work (and if you don't want to disclose ofc, don't). Just curious
Click to expand...
I work in the telecommunications field on the IT side and I do work overnight. I am blessed and my wife and I have raised a family and have a nice lifestyle with what I do. The night hours are not bad the vast majority of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73, UrHuckleberry, fatpiggy and 2 others
Activist judges trying to work all angles.



Stunning to watch the ACLU and Jeb Boasberg ignore the Supreme Court--who is in contempt now?--and advance the Alien Enemies Act lawsuit despite SCOTUS vacating Boasberg's two temporary restraining orders banning the removal of illegal Venezuelans covered by the president's AEA proclamation.

After the SCOTUS decision, Boasberg brazenly asked the ACLU to "file a notice indicating whether they believe that they still have a basis to proceed on their Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this Court." It was due yesterday, the same day Boasberg issued his contempt finding against the Trump adm.

The ACLU, despite SCOTUS determining DC was the improper jurisdiction, just filed ANOTHER motion seeking a new temp restraining order on behalf of the illegals. The ACLU argued Boasberg still has jurisdiction in the matter.

Here is what the ACLU is seeking--and Boasberg just set a briefing schedule on the latest proposed TRO with a hearing set for Monday.

"To provide notice to each class member that they have been designated as an 'alien enemy' under the Alien Enemies Act at least 30 days prior to any attempt to remove that class member from the United States under the AEA. The notice must be in both English and Spanish, and must clearly state that the class member has the right to contact an attorney and to challenge their designation and removal in court. For each class member, this notice must be provided to the class member, class counsel in this case, and the class member’s immigration attorney of record, if they have one and to facilitate each class member’s ability to communicate with family members and counsel, by providing regular access to confidential phone calls, and to in-person meetings if an attorney requests it."

(BTW I was assured by some "legal experts" the ACLU would not pursue this course and if they did, Boasberg would not allow it.)

===

The second written TRO issued by Boasberg on the evening of March 15 converted the initial five unnamed illegals covered by the AEA into a class wide lawsuit protecting ALL potential AEA subjects in US custody from deportation.

Despite what SCOTUS said (on the left), the ACLU--now apparently with Boasberg's consent--claims the Supreme Court did not vacate the part of Boasberg's TRO that addressed the class wide determination. (On right)

Regardless, the ACLU argues, Boasberg can reissue classwide status AND include illegals NOT in custody, which would expand the class from his original order.
 
MTTiger19 said:
Yea, don’t feel bad. Apparently being in sales is frowned upon as well. I’m kinda proud of what I do lol.
Click to expand...

Nobody has frowned on what any of you guys do. Just curious since some on here are experts in specific fields. Those, for me do get some additional respect when they speak on this topics.

We have guys who work in loans and mortgages, we have guys who are lawyers, we have people in management of all sorts of businesses. When we discuss gas or energy, I decr to our poster who is a lawyer in that field. He obviously knows more than I do and deserves some respect for that expertise.

I respect anyone who works hard to provide for himself and his loved ones. No job shaming from me. I'm just an old kitchen guys at heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTTiger19
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu said:
Whine about due process is downplaying it to hell. That’s called the literal rule of law.

Habeas corpus? Eh, who needs it. Several hundred plus years of legal tradition tossed aside for nothing. And I remain in favor of deporting illegals after that’s satisfied. Trump is driving the nail through anybody who wants to take a logical position on immigration; we’ll get lumped in with him sending people to a concentration camp in El Salvador

Due process applies to our enemies, or it applies to no one at all. I’ll gladly take the former
Click to expand...
I was reading “confronting the presidents” today and Habeus Corpus has been suspended, at a minimum, twice before by previous presidents.

Edit: 4 times


Your argument of tradition being thrown out the window is not valid.

Yes, **habeas corpus** has been suspended by U.S. presidents in extraordinary circumstances, primarily during times of war or national emergency. Below are the key instances:

1. **Abraham Lincoln (1861–1863, Civil War)**
- **Reason**: During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress rebellion and maintain Union control, particularly in areas with Confederate sympathizers. He aimed to detain suspected rebels, spies, or those aiding the Confederacy without immediate trial.
- **Details**: Lincoln first suspended habeas corpus in 1861 along the route between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., due to riots and threats to Union supply lines. In 1862, he expanded the suspension nationwide for cases involving military arrests. The Supreme Court questioned his authority in *Ex parte Merryman* (1861), but Lincoln justified it under his war powers, arguing necessity to preserve the Union. Congress later ratified the suspension via the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863.
- **Duration**: The suspension lasted intermittently from 1861 until the end of the Civil War in 1865, though its application varied by region and was lifted in some areas earlier.
- **Impact**: Thousands were detained without trial, including suspected deserters, draft dodgers, and political opponents, though exact numbers are debated.

2. **Ulysses S. Grant (1871, Reconstruction Era)**
- **Reason**: Grant suspended habeas corpus in parts of South Carolina to combat the Ku Klux Klan’s violent campaign against Black citizens and Reconstruction governments.
- **Details**: Under the Enforcement Act of 1871 (also called the Ku Klux Klan Act), Congress authorized the suspension to allow federal troops to arrest and detain Klan members without immediate judicial review. This targeted white supremacist violence in nine South Carolina counties.
- **Duration**: The suspension was limited to specific counties and lasted from October 1871 to mid-1872, when conditions stabilized.
- **Impact**: Hundreds of suspected Klan members were arrested, weakening the organization’s influence in the region.

3. **Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941–1945, World War II)**
- **Reason**: Habeas corpus was effectively suspended in Hawaii after the Pearl Harbor attack under martial law to maintain order and security.
- **Details**: Following the December 7, 1941, attack, Hawaii’s territorial governor, with FDR’s approval, declared martial law. Military authorities detained suspected subversives, including Japanese-American citizens, without habeas corpus. The Supreme Court upheld martial law in *Duncan v. Kahanamoku* (1946) but ruled after the war that civilian courts should have retained jurisdiction.
- **Duration**: The suspension lasted from December 1941 until October 1944, when martial law was lifted in Hawaii.
- **Impact**: Thousands were detained, and military tribunals replaced civilian courts for many cases.

4. **George W. Bush (Post-9/11, 2001–2008)**
- **Reason**: While not a formal suspension of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens, the Bush administration’s policies after 9/11 effectively denied habeas rights to “enemy combatants” detained at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere during the War on Terror.
- **Details**: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 attempted to strip habeas corpus rights from non-citizen detainees. The Supreme Court, in *Boumediene v. Bush* (2008), ruled that Guantanamo detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus, as the base was under U.S. control. For U.S. citizens like José Padilla, habeas rights were initially restricted but later restored through court challenges.
- **Duration**: The effective suspension for non-citizens lasted from 2001 until the 2008 ruling, though legal battles continued. For citizens, restrictions were case-specific and typically overturned by courts within a few years.
- **Impact**: Hundreds of detainees, mostly non-citizens, were held without access to courts for years, prompting significant legal and human rights debates.

### Notes:
- **Legal Basis**: The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9) allows suspension of habeas corpus “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Presidents have relied on this clause or congressional approval, though Lincoln’s unilateral action sparked controversy.
- **Congressional Role**: In most cases, Congress either authorized or retroactively approved suspensions, except during parts of Lincoln’s presidency.
- **Modern Context**: No president has formally suspended habeas corpus since World War II, though post-9/11 policies raised similar concerns. Recent discussions on X and web sources suggest ongoing debates about habeas corpus in the context of national security, but no new suspensions have occurred as of April 17, 2025.

If you want more details on a specific case or related legal precedents, let me know!
 
Last edited:
dbjork6317 said:
We’re not even talking about illegals anymore. They literally arrested a dude who was here legally, has been here legally for a decade, and was on the cusp of being granted citizenship - they’ve said over and over again that they just want immigrants to do it “the right way” and this dude has and they’ve arrested him for the sole purpose of him using speech they don’t like. They aren’t even hiding it.

They deported someone “by accident” who was here legally, sent him to a prison in a foreign country, and despite an order from the Supreme Court they refuse to return him.

They’re removing people here legally due to speech, they’re ignoring court orders, they’re openly talking about sending American Citizens to foreign prisons, they have masked men arresting people for speech. There is no way any sane, rational person can look at this and not see that this is pure out and out Fascism.

If people would just admit that Fascism is what they want, then I’d have more respect for them. But that’s what this is. Pure authoritarianism out in the open.
Click to expand...
Part of the current cult is never admitting out loud what you are going to do. So they will never admit it's fascism. In fact they have no clue what's about to happen. They just know and hope they are winning.
 
dbjork6317 said:
Only a matter of time before this starts happening to American citizens. Somehow I imagine the usual suspects here will rush to defend it with some other adjustment to the goal posts.

We are literally watching Fascist authoritarianism take hold of our country in real time.
Click to expand...
God you’re one dumb SOB
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
yoshi121374 said:
Who doesn't?

Now how about a poll asking about those who are in America legally and then deported to foreign jails.
Click to expand...
If a person was given asylum status based on false information and not vetted properly you still want that to override obvious reality?
 
yoshi121374 said:
Who doesn't?

Now how about a poll asking about those who are in America legally and then deported to foreign jails.
Click to expand...
The poll said they want ALL illegals deported whether in a gang or not so no yoshi they would not change their mind based on that.

It's obvious that you do not want the United States of America to remson sovereign in its current constitutional form based on your viewpoints.
 
TigerGrowls said:
The poll said they want ALL illegals deported whether in a gang or not so no yoshi they would not change their mind based on that.

It's obvious that you do not want the United States of America to remson sovereign in its current constitutional form based on your viewpoints.
Click to expand...

Illegal immigrants are not the same as all immigrants.
 
yoshi121374 said:
Illegal immigrants are not the same as all immigrants.
Click to expand...
Yoshi almost all the immigrants are illegal. They broke the law by crossing the border. Spouting a fake story taught to them by NGO reps does not change reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Larry_Williams

****Jeremiah Smith ... pretty wild

Replies
40
Views
4K
The West Zone
acwill07
acwill07
Cris_Ard

Shedeur Sanders slides to 3rd day of 2025 NFL Draft: 'I'm shocked it's this bad ... this seems personal'

Replies
81
Views
3K
The West Zone
Tiger Guru
Tiger Guru
Lot2Tiger

The SEC distributes $52.5 million check to each member

Replies
32
Views
3K
The West Zone
cuandcofcfan
C
Cris_Ard

**** Florida State AD

Replies
4
Views
1K
The West Zone
stigers91
stigers91
Cris_Ard

CFP format in limbo as powers punt on seeding changes

Replies
3
Views
496
The West Zone
Dabofan
Dabofan
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back