• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

JayUtah said:
I agree, but we live in a world where Pres. Trump can successfully sue media organizations on such flimsy grounds as allegations that someone else's interview might have been selectively edited. Trump is in a position to pose an existential threat to anyone who does the unthinkable and exposes his ignorance or dishonesty.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point, but you'll forgive me if I can't muster any sympathy for multi-billion dollar companies afraid to do what's right because it might impact their bottom line. A news organization should be willing to go to the mat in defense of journalistic integrity or they aren't really a news organization.
 
johnny karate said:
This is a fair point, but you'll forgive me if I can't muster any sympathy for multi-billion dollar companies afraid to do what's right because it might impact their bottom line. A news organization should be willing to go to the mat in defense of journalistic integrity or they
aren't really a news organization.
Click to expand...
Nope. In saving their bottom line they are ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ the rest of us.
 
Another judge fixin' to get arrested.

- Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi was released from U.S. immigration custody on Wednesday, after a judge ruled he should be free on bail to challenge the Trump administration's efforts to deport him over his participation in pro-Palestinian protests.
Click to expand...

After two weeks in detention, Mahdawi walked out of the federal courthouse in Burlington, Vermont, following U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford order that he be released at a court hearing on Wednesday.
In his ruling, Crawford said Mahdawi did not pose a danger to the public and was not a flight risk. The judge drew parallels between the current political climate and the Red Scare and McCarthyism eras of the last century when thousands of people were targeted for deportation due to their political views.
Mahdawi's release marked a setback for the Trump administration's efforts to deport pro-Palestinian foreign university students, though other students remain in jail.
Click to expand...
 
Resume said:
Which makes one wonder why the discovery was stayed in the first place.
Click to expand...
Generally it's stayed pending appeal. The government is appealing the discovery order, likely because they don't want to have to disclose the actual terms of the agreement with El Salvador. The suspicion is that the agreement might provide for the return of prisoners upon request, which would mean the government has no legal basis for not ordering Abrego Garcia's return, and no basis for disobeying the court's order to do so.

Discovery is a no-going-back condition. When something is disclosed in discovery, it can't be undisclosed. Therefore when there is a credible basis for disputing a discovery motion, the discovery itself is stayed while the dispute is pending. Apparently there was a hearing today that included arguments in the discovery dispute, and as a result the stay on discovery will not be extended. This would suggest that discovery can now proceed.
 
Here's a question, to which I really don't quite know the answer. We have heard that a few children who are citizens of the US have been deported along with their parents who are not. My question here is what is meant by "deported," and how that was done.

I ask this because unlike some dictatorial regimes, at least so far, it is possible for an American citizen simply to leave the country without any procedure at all, and come back later if they so choose, and not to come back ever if they so choose. So if a person's parents are being deported, and parents are generally considered to be in charge of their children, why can't they just take their children with them, citizenship intact? This is, of course, assuming that nobody else has a superior claim to their custody.

So I guess my question is, are these children being deported in some official way, and if so, why would the government bother? Couldn't they just say "If you want your kids with you, you'll take them along." Of course this would leave them free to come back when they grow up.

Obviously it would be nice, and humane and all that stuff, if the parents of citizen children were not deported, out of deference for the children - especially in the egregious case of one who suffers from cancer and was apparently sent off without any consideration for treatment and without medication - but for the moment stipulating that the parents are going to be deported, what, other than vindictiveness and a thirst for illegality, is gained by submitting the children to any procedure at all?
 
bruto said:
I ask this because unlike some dictatorial regimes, at least so far, it is possible for an American citizen simply to leave the country without any procedure at all, and come back later if they so choose, and not to come back ever if they so choose.
Click to expand...
For now, a U.S. citizen has an inalienable, absolute right to re-enter the United States.

bruto said:
So if a person's parents are being deported, and parents are generally considered to be in charge of their children, why can't they just take their children with them, citizenship intact?
Click to expand...
In theory, that is what has been done. However, it will be problematic to re-enter the United States without a U.S. passport, which is what proves your citizenship to the border guards.

bruto said:
So I guess my question is, are these children being deported in some official way...
Click to expand...
U.S. citizens are non-removable, so no such way presently exists. As it stands, if the children are later able to produce American birth certificates, they are eligible to re-enter the country.

There is some talk that this is a sinister way to do something about birthright citizenship, which the Trump administration does not wish to honor. There is presently a case (or maybe several) pending over the lawfulness of Pres. Trump's EO purporting to ignore birthright citizenship. If that fails and the children can be stripped of their citizenship, they may be barred from entry into the United States.
 
JayUtah said:
For now, a U.S. citizen has an inalienable, absolute right to re-enter the United States.


In theory, that is what has been done. However, it will be problematic to re-enter the United States without a U.S. passport, which is what proves your citizenship to the border guards.


U.S. citizens are non-removable, so no such way presently exists. As it stands, if the children are later able to produce American birth certificates, they are eligible to re-enter the country.

There is some talk that this is a sinister way to do something about birthright citizenship, which the Trump administration does not wish to honor. There is presently a case (or maybe several) pending over the lawfulness of Pres. Trump's EO purporting to ignore birthright citizenship. If that fails and the children can be stripped of their citizenship, they may be barred from entry into the United States.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. So it would appear the deportations cited are sort-of and sort-of-not, thrown out but not technically deported, but if the parents are wise enough to make sure the kids have their birth certificates, and presuming that they are not confiscated or something, the kids, though they shouldn't have to leave, might at least return in better times, perhaps through the agency of other citizens, or through an embassy or consulate.

I brought this up mainly because, bad and shameful and shabby as the whole business is, if the kids are not being officially deported, saying they're deported invites the usual conservative "not exactly literally" excuse for why everything else you say is suspect.
 
It was a budget bill. The wording is not to allow ICE to do it, but also blocking will not happen.
One amendment introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal, the Democrat from Washington state, sought to make clear Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot detain or deport U.S. citizens under any circumstances.

However, GOP lawmakers killed the amendment.
Click to expand...
www.newsweek.com

Republicans vote against move to stop ICE deporting US citizens

One Democrat lawmaker called the situation "bats**t crazy."
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Andy_Ross said:
RubIo: "We are actively searching for other countries to take people from third countries. Not just El Salvador. We are working with other countries to say, 'We want to send some of the most despicable to your countries. Will you do that as a favor to us?' And the further from the US the better."
Click to expand...
I wonder where they will send their kz victims when Bukele gets ◊◊◊◊◊◊ out of life? Because the only reason why he's sucking up to Trampy is that he's deathly worried his head is soon for the chopping block.
 
JayUtah said:
I agree, but we live in a world where Pres. Trump can successfully sue media organizations on such flimsy grounds as allegations that someone else's interview might have been selectively edited. Trump is in a position to pose an existential threat to anyone who does the unthinkable and exposes his ignorance or dishonesty.


It may very well be, but interpret it also as a sign of insecurity. He really, really wants to make sure everyone knows he was right about the photograph.


This has always been the case in American policing and prosecution. Tattoos often do have symbolic meaning to those who wear them. Once you've accepted that a tattoo can have a symbolic meaning, you can throw out the overt meaning—if there is one—and argue whatever hidden meaning you want.

But yes, especially among older conservatives, tattoos of any kind are bad news. Only sketchy people have tattoos, as they reckon.
Click to expand...
Trampy is only successfully sueing because the company owners want him to win. Every case is settled well before court no matter how meritless.
 
bruto said:
Thanks for the clarification. So it would appear the deportations cited are sort-of and sort-of-not, thrown out but not technically deported, but if the parents are wise enough to make sure the kids have their birth certificates, and presuming that they are not confiscated or something, the kids, though they shouldn't have to leave, might at least return in better times, perhaps through the agency of other citizens, or through an embassy or consulate.

I brought this up mainly because, bad and shameful and shabby as the whole business is, if the kids are not being officially deported, saying they're deported invites the usual conservative "not exactly literally" excuse for why everything else you say is suspect.
Click to expand...
They are similar to the "preventative" detentions the nazis placed their political enemies into, to stop them committing crimes the nazis "knew" they were going to commit. There is no legal procedure, structure or legislation to them and they are being carried out by people whose loyalty is not to the state but the führer and the party.

The only difference is that the deportations have no real purpose as those being deported are no meaningful threat to the führer and party, and are, in fact, necessary to the system the state runs on.
 
I wasn't the only one who underestimated Trump's stupidity--Matt Dillahunty posted an "I was wrong" video which also goes into the growing problem of what we can believe:
I Was Wrong
 
brittainforsenate
Trump advisor Stephen Miller has sued Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to try to gain control of SCOTUS. No, I'm not joking. Legal Karen wants to speak to the manager of Rule of Law.
www.threads.com

Craig R. Brittain (@brittainforsenate) on Threads

Trump advisor Stephen Miller has sued Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to try to gain control of SCOTUS. No, I'm not joking. Legal Karen wants to speak to the manager of Rule of Law.
www.threads.com www.threads.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom