And this constitutes a legally valid argument ... why?
My case is that your beliefs are based on an incorrect reading of the law which you simply seemed to have assumed must be correct. No one is required to affirmatively refute claims based on scatterbrained assumptions.
If done without due process, it is exactly such a violation, for the reasons explained in the post you are quoting.
I believe you are projecting, if you believe people with refugees status have a "right" to be here.
No, it's as simple as that. You have no idea what rights are under the law or how the laws create, safeguard, and sometimes burden those rights.
Or Donald with his 13 Dolls. Insurrectionist, sex offender, and con-man.
I am suggesting it does not matter if they face death at home. We deport plenty of people who collaborated with us in our invasions of the Bush II era who face retribution.
i dont support that
They have no right to be here, get rid of them. You don't like the granting of Asylum or any of the other responses that nations implemented to try to pretend that now they care about genocide and the like.
No, I fully support our refugee program.
How do you plan to prevent this happening?
Just like what is happening now. Sue in Federal court.
What about those who don't have access to U.S. federal court?
How does one not have access to federal courts if they are in the USA?
You just don't think they should have a venue to plead their case. That would be the hatted due process.
How do you tell whether someone is a citizen?
Its 2025. Its not that difficult.
If they have been snatched off the street by the ICE and locked up to await deportation?
For example, you might have been unlawfully renditioned to a prison in a foreign country where you are forbidden any contact with the outside world.