Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Well, I’m a citizen and I have no history of terrorism in my family (for which they’d be thrown in an American prison), so I’m sorry to disappoint you. Great post. 

Interesting, since citizens have already been deported.  You really struggle with your bigotry.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think this is being framed wrong, largely because of the way the admin communicates. But at its heart, deportation or removal is not a punishment or punitive proceeding. That is well established for decades, as is the principle that the standard is not the same as criminal proceedings.

Assuming things are as reported, here is the logic tree:

1. An administrative stay of removal is just that, administrative. It in no way implies a broader right to remain in the U.S. and does not foreshadow a favorable decision on the claim. 

2. The father has clearly demonstrated that his claim to asylum is invalid and not in the interests of the United States.

3. Under the law, any dependents attached to his claim are decided in lines with the principal applicant. 
 

4. People with denied asylum claims are either removed expeditiously or referred to an immigration court for removal. 
 

To be very blunt: The argument any of these dependents has a right to stay is the one that needs to be made. Legally, the case is far more easily made that they should be removed. 

It's not punitive in itself, but it becomes so if you, say, deport the family to Trump's personal El Salvadorian prison instead of their home country, but seeing as that won't happen here, your assessment is essentially correct.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s exactly how it works. Are you high?

Ok pal. Another great post. 

Guilty until proven innocent and collective punishment are not features of our justice system. They are antithetical to our system of justice generally. 

Posted
Just now, Rex Kramer said:

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the status of this family. 

I don't care. Your statement is offensive and wrong. Whether it is legal to deport or them or not is irrelevant. Your reasoning is bad even if the conclusion is legally ok. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't care. Your statement is offensive and wrong. Whether it is legal to deport or them or not is irrelevant. Your reasoning is bad even if the conclusion is legally ok. 

Ok, would you like to see the family get to stay here?  Is that the point? 

Posted

Are the family members legal immigrants?  Or are they US citizens?  If they aren’t citizens but are here legally, I don’t have a problem with revoking their legal status and deporting them back to their country of origin in the case of a family member engaged in terrorism w/harm.

Being a legal immigrant means you and your family are guests here.  You aren’t a US citizen and you shouldn’t expect all such rights.  If I invite a family of four into my house and the dad drops his pants and shit’s on the rug, I’m gonna kick them all out.  Does that make me the asshole for not wanting to break bread with the rest of them anymore?

If the family are US citizens, then it’s a different story entirely.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, huge said:

Ok, would you like to see the family get to stay here?  Is that the point? 

If the family is legally entitled to stay here, they shouldn't get kicked out because another member of the family did something terrible. If the family is not legally entitled to stay here, I have no issue with them being deported. I just believe it is fundamentally offensive to say they should be deported because of the actions of someone else. We don't punish people for the actions of someone else. We don't presume guilt (as Rex said we should do). Jettisoning values for people we decide we don't like is an assault on the values themselves. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
51 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but Greek fire, whatever it was, wasn't used to attack random civilians. Unlike Molotov cocktails.

It was used (among many applications) to raze cities, as were almost all subsequent incendiary devices.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

The only time I have ever opined on deportations on this board is with very specific regard to this particular family. You need to calm the fuck down. 

And your specific post in this specific thread on this specific family was problematic. As I said, your conclusion (they should be deported) may be fine. I just don't believe it is ever a good idea to frame the reasoning as "how do we know they are innocent?". That's a very dangerous precedent and way of thinking. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

With their purported asylum-seeking, guest status combined with the fact that their principal just committed a terror attack, not only is it good reasoning, but it’s a “dangerous precedent” to not expedite their removal. You’re WAY off on this. 

No, I'm not. I'm very comfortable being on the other side of this issue from you. You can justify deportation a dozen different ways that aren't based on presuming guilt by association. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

You’re off. Your mentality would make US less safe. Your mentality led to the current President. I couldn’t disagree with you more vociferously, and I know you’re quite content with that. The smugness and self-assuredness with which you comport yourself is a major problem, because you're so wrong, and are clueless. 

Again, I ask you, why must you justify deportation based upon a legally problematic ground? So long as you're not invoking collective punishment or presumed guilt, I'm good. I have no idea why that is difficult for you or why on earth it would be important to make those the basis of for the reason of deportation. Shit like that quite literally led to the holocaust. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Because they are guests without any legal right to be here, and the immediate family principal is a terrorist. Your argument is laughable. 

I don't think you understand what my argument is. You seem to think I'm saying they should stay. I'm not. 

At any rate, I don't think deporting them immediately is that good of an idea even if they ultimately should be deported. There is an investigation of a crime. It would make sense to keep the family in country where their involvement, if any, could be investigated. If they were involved, they should be prosecuted criminally here. It appears the judge and potentially the State Department now agree with me. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Surely the judge cited and provided evidence and documentation of what due process was being denied?

Yes. There was a tweet from White House saying the family would be deported today. Under due process, they get a hearing. They get access to their lawyers. That hadn't happened. The judge's order just gives time for the Constitutionally required due process to play out. Crazy idea, I know. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I think this is being framed wrong, largely because of the way the admin communicates. But at its heart, deportation or removal is not a punishment or punitive proceeding. That is well established for decades, as is the principle that the standard is not the same as criminal proceedings.

Assuming things are as reported, here is the logic tree:

1. An administrative stay of removal is just that, administrative. It in no way implies a broader right to remain in the U.S. and does not foreshadow a favorable decision on the claim. 

2. The father has clearly demonstrated that his claim to asylum is invalid and not in the interests of the United States.

3. Under the law, any dependents attached to his claim are decided in lines with the principal applicant. 
 

4. People with denied asylum claims are either removed expeditiously or referred to an immigration court for removal. 
 

To be very blunt: The argument any of these dependents has a right to stay is the one that needs to be made. Legally, the case is far more easily made that they should be removed. 

Quoting because this is a dispassionate and accurate statement of the situation and the legal mechanisms in play.  If you have any question about the legal mechanisms and standards in play, this is a great summary.

The TLDR version? 1) His family members have a right to argue that they should be able to stay, despite the father's radicalization and crimes.  2) That argument is an uphill climb, and is likely to ultimately fail.

1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Shocking to no one,  “judge” halts terrorist’s family deportation

 

🤡🤡🤡

Response to this post is correct:

46 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah, no fucking shit. They didn't commit any crimes and due process must be followed.

As I said earlier, if you want to make the argument that their asylum claim is invalid, that's fine, due process still must be followed. If you want to expedite the process, fine, due process still must be followed.

I don't understand why so many of you have just suddenly decided that due process doesn't matter at all, considering that every American's rights depend on the government not being able to just do whatever the fuck out wants, the law of the land be damned.

 

27 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Surely the judge cited and provided evidence and documentation ofwhat due process was being denied?

And again, response is correct.

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes. There was a tweet from White House saying the family would be deported today. Under due process, they get a hearing. They get access to their lawyers. That hadn't happened. The judge's order just gives time for the Constitutionally required due process to play out. Crazy idea, I know. 

The Rule of Law provides that the family gets a hearing, with access to counsel.  That process must be allowed to happen.  People who are very likely going to ultimately lose their case have a right to due process just like people who are very likely going to ultimately win their case have that right.  Because...and this is important...you can't know if a person deserves to win or lose a case until they actually have a chance to make their case.

After such process, they will probably lose, and be deported.  But, the Rule of Law -- which IS "process," by and large -- matters.  Or, it doesn't.  If it doesn't, just let the rest of us know, so we can stop acting like we're subject to it any longer.  Deal?

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted

The family first arrived in the US from Kuwait in August 2022, but were only allowed to stay until February 2023, the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday.

Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian national, filed for asylum a month after arriving, and listed his wife and their five children as dependents in Denver, according to the department.“

Do these not apply?

2. The father has clearly demonstrated that his claim to asylum is invalid and not in the interests of the United States.

3. Under the law, any dependents attached to his claim are decided in lines with the principal applicant. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Do these not apply?

 

2. The father has clearly demonstrated that his claim to asylum is invalid and not in the interests of the United States.

3. Under the law, any dependents attached to his claim are decided in lines with the principal applicant. 

Made the key words big, cuz they're big and important words.

"Are decided."  Things "are decided" by....a legal process.  Via that process, they will have the opportunity to argue if there are any exceptions, mitigating factors, etc. that should apply.  Again, they will PROBABLY lose.  But, the question at issue will be "decided"....via legally provided process and procedure.  That's really, really important.  Or, it's not.  Again, just tell us if the Rule of Law applies or not, so the rest of us can know how to comport ourselves.  Because if "law don't go around here," we might all want to alter our behavior.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The family first arrived in the US from Kuwait in August 2022, but were only allowed to stay until February 2023, the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday.

Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian national, filed for asylum a month after arriving, and listed his wife and their five children as dependents in Denver, according to the department.“

Do these not apply?

 

2. The father has clearly demonstrated that his claim to asylum is invalid and not in the interests of the United States.

3. Under the law, any dependents attached to his claim are decided in lines with the principal applicant. 

Do what apply? You still need a hearing to adjudicate those things. Did you read anything Brisket posted? 

Posted

Usually this would be via immigration court. A real judge has right to see this if there is a question. 
 

Announcing it all on Truth likely guarantees the intervention if anyone is tracking the real motivation here. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Usually this would be via immigration court. A real judge has right to see this if there is a question. 
 

Announcing it all on Truth likely guarantees the intervention if anyone is tracking the real motivation here. 

When a government official publicly states his intent to circumvent/violate the law, that does tend to establish a "case or controversy" for a court to adjudicate.  A smart government official would avoid doing that.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The family first arrived in the US from Kuwait in August 2022, but were only allowed to stay until February 2023, the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday.

Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian national, filed for asylum a month after arriving, and listed his wife and their five children as dependents in Denver, according to the department.“

Do these not apply?

 

2. The father has clearly demonstrated that his claim to asylum is invalid and not in the interests of the United States.

3. Under the law, any dependents attached to his claim are decided in lines with the principal applicant. 

Why are you so eager to deny them due process?

Posted
7 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Disagree. How do immigration officials know whether or not the family has been similarly radicalized?  Get them out of the US. 

Yeah. God or Allah forbid they have to live anywhere else in the world. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The bottom line is that this is an issue with a hell of a lot of gray that the majority of people seem to want to view as black and white.  And if you choose to view this issue as black and white, well it's pretty easy to get radicalized (in either direction).

We currently do not live in a world capable of handling complexity and nuance.

Yeah, @SL Xpress and I pretty much started our discussion that way. Though I'll admit this thread, aside from the usual suspects, has been doing a somewhat decent job so far of staying focused on the minutia and nuance which is really the only way to discuss the topic. Otherwise, it goes off the rails really quickly in more radicalized or political black and white talking points.

Posted
6 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

You’re off. Your mentality would make US less safe. Your mentality led to the current President. I couldn’t disagree with you more vociferously, and I know you’re quite content with that. The smugness and self-assuredness with which you comport yourself is a major problem, because you're so wrong, and are clueless. 

Dunning Kruger strikes again. Do us all a favor and read this sentence every time before you choose to post. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
15 hours ago, Chopper said:

They've had the past 6 months to look for him and people like him but focused instead kidnapping editorial authors, elementary kids with cancer were their primary concern, and making big shows at mexican restaurants to try to frighten everyone. 

right? like wtf isn't this guy supposed to be exactly the type they should have been after?? 😡

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, immamac said:

You know why. 

Yes. We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum. 
 

They should run for office if they want to change the law. 
 

The dependents of an asylum seeking terrorist have no legal right to remain in the country. 
 

billable hours. 
 

image.gif.e5dd13a8ce174e48db9ea6fc4605d044.gif

Edited by ChickenSandwich
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Yes. We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum. 
 

They should run for office if they want to change the law. 
 

The dependents of an asylum seeking terrorist have no legal right to remain in the country. 
 

billable hours. 
 

image.gif.e5dd13a8ce174e48db9ea6fc4605d044.gif

Either the law protects everybody, or it protects nobody. These are your only options.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
6 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Yes. We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum. 
 

They should run for office if they want to change the law. 
 

The dependents of an asylum seeking terrorist have no legal right to remain in the country. 
 

billable hours. 
 

image.gif.e5dd13a8ce174e48db9ea6fc4605d044.gif

It isn't about a judge isn't disagreeing with the law. It is about a judge applying it. Due process is important. Either everyone has it or no one does. Why is this so confusing? @Rex Kramer why are you liking this nonsense? Surely you understand the importance of rule of law? I know you're better than this. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Friendly reminder that the Due Process Clause applies to every person within the United States, including non-citizens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Anyone that continues to push the narrative that these people are not entitled to due process because they are not citizens is lying to you.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted (edited)

I strongly believe this country needs white men who perhaps have a GED and several white supremacist tattoos deciding what the law says and how it applies to everyone in the country. And if the elected, obese angry guy with dementia, 28 felonies, an 8th grade education, and caked on orange make-up base wants to intervene, who the hell are you to tell him no? Fuck the judges. In fact, kill all the judges.

Edited by Chopper
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m still waiting for a response to your change in argument. His comment was correct. You have issue distinguishing between law for citizens and law for non-citizens. 

I didn't change my argument. I was clear from the beginning, my issue was your reasoning, not the conclusion. 

Why is his argument correct? Citizen or non-citizen, both are entitled to a hearing by a judge as part of due process. That's all the judge's order does, ensures the process is followed. They may lose any argument they have, but they do get to make one. You should want that. Everyone should. I don't understand why you're confused by this.  I don't understand why you want that process skipped. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand why you're confused by this.  I don't understand why you want that process skipped. 

You know why.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Either the law protects everybody, or it protects nobody. These are your only options.

Bolded etc. for emphasis.  There are two options.  And only two options.  

The argument of "but it's a waste of time to give guilty people due process" begs the question....it assumes that guilt (a term that can only be applied AFTER a procedure to determine same) applies.

Applying due process to people who 99% of us know will eventually be adjudicated guilty, not entitled to asylum, what have you, is what tells us that due process is available for THE REST OF US.  If you say "well, but no due process for guilty people," and then allow an extra-judicial determination of guilt to make that dividing line....then you've just ended due process.  For everyone. 

Because I, local director of an ICE office, just decided that Chicken Sandwich is a member of Tren de Aragua, or he doesn't like jews, or he eats funny-sounding foreign foods, and therefore he has no legal status in the US.  What's that, Chicken Sandwich says "wait!  I'm a US citizen, let me prove it!"?  Fuck that, that's just what the terrorist gang members want, to gum up our system with their bullshit defenses. Onto the plane you go, non-stop to El Salvador, terrorist! 

43 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Whoever said I wanted that process skipped?  You presume way too much. 

Chicken Sandwich wants it skipped.  Because when we "know" someone is guilty/not entitled to asylum, we can skip all that law and rights and shit.

Of course, I know that Chicken Sandwich is a secret member of Tren de Aragua.  His name and ID?  Those are all fake, a ruse to allow him to infiltrate our beloved country and commit his terrorist acts of depravity.  I am protecting us all when I nab him, shove him in the back of a van, and have him on a flight to El Salvador to rot in prison that same day.  Why should he get any chance to prove his claims of US citizenship?  Why are you siding with a terrorist gang member?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Because I, local director of an ICE office, just decided that Chicken Sandwich is a member of Tren de Aragua, or he doesn't like jews, or he eats funny-sounding foreign foods, and therefore he has no legal status in the US.  What's that, Chicken Sandwich says "wait!  I'm a US citizen, let me prove it!"?  Fuck that, that's just what the terrorist gang members want, to gum up our system with their bullshit defenses. Onto the plane you go, non-stop to El Salvador, terrorist! 

 

I saw him eating a sándwich de pollo.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Whoever said I wanted that process skipped?  You presume way too much. 

You did by saying @ChickenSandwich's comment was correct. That is exactly what he was asking for. I didn't presume anything. I think you're not reading these posts very carefully or critically and are just responding emotionally. Just slow down a bit. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You did by saying @ChickenSandwich's comment was correct. That is exactly what he was asking for. I didn't presume anything. I think you're not reading these posts very carefully or critically and are just responding emotionally. Just slow down a bit. 

I don't think Rex wants due process to be skipped, he just wants them deported. I think maybe he doesn't understand that ChickenSandwich actually does want due process to be skipped.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not the one responding emotionally. Nothing Chicken Sandwich posted even suggested ignoring due process. 

Then you need to re-read that post. Here is the quote:

"We need to waste tax payer dollars because an unelected non immigration judge disagrees with a black and white immigration law regarding asylum."

The government was trying to deport without the family having the ability to speak to a lawyer or have a hearing before a judge.  All the judge did was say, hold up, you can't deport immediately and asked for a status conference. Chicken believes that because the law may ultimately result in the family's deportation, that we can just skip the "waste of tax payer dollars" of having a hearing. You agreed with that. This is cut and dry. I'm glad that you don't actually believe that and that you misunderstood his post.

Quote

And you absolutely have changed your argument.

What do you think my original argument was? Where did I ever say "the family shouldn't ever be deported"? I said the particular argument you were making was problematic and dangerous. And I said there were other non-problematic arguments that reach the same conclusion and suggested that you should use those.  I haven't changed my position on that. 

  • Hook 'Em 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...