T master Posted April 2 Posted April 2 On 4/1/2025 at 10:22 AM, Roundybout said: Vance is evil, sadistic, and completely wrong. First, who was president in 2019? Second, the man was NOT an MS-13 member. This was alleged by ICE and found to be false. Third, he had protected status under the law. Fourth, and the most obvious part you’re ignoring, is THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS ADMITTED THEY MADE A MISTAKE. You are wrong and should delete this thread before you look like more of a racist idiot than usual. UM !! 🤔 where I live in 2019 Trump was president, I mean I could be wrong, I know I'm old so I checked google and it said that he was president so it must be true . Who was president in 2019 where you live ??
The Frankish Reich Posted April 2 Posted April 2 3 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: How does a judge rule that a known gang member from another country has the right to stay in the US? Why does he get protection from returning to his country of origin? how evil do you have to be to defend the violent criminals right to avoid being held accountable by the people they violated? The last question is not to you Frankish I understand your point. I'll answer the first question because it's a serious one. There's a process. ICE arrests the alien, usually because he's committed a crime, sometimes because they have other information that he's a gang member. He's detained by ICE. He's not getting out unless HE (the burden here is on the alien; it's not a criminal case) can show that he's NOT a danger to the community. The judge takes evidence from both sides, and then decides whether the alien has met his burden. From what I've seen here, the judge said no, he hasn't met his burden of showing that he's NOT a danger to the community. So he stays in custody until his case is done. The alien can then say o.k., you got me on that (but I reserve my right to appeal the thing about being a gang member). But if you send me back to El Salvador, the government (or other gang members acting without the government doing anything to stop them) will torture me. Again, both sides - the alien and the ICE prosecutor - put on evidence. The alien's testimony is key, but isn't the only thing. The judge then decides whether the alien has me HIS burden of showing that it's more likely he'd be persecuted/tortured if returned to El Salvador. The judge here found it was. I don't know the case so I won't comment on whether that seems a a fair decision given the evidence. Suffice to say that a lot of appeals courts have said that yes, this is a real thing in El Salvador, at least at the time of his case (2019 I think). OK, so ICE can appeal if they think the judge was just flat-out wrong. Apparently they didn't. So there he is, in custody, with the judge having ordered him deported but also saying ICE isn't allowed to deport him to El Salvador. So ICE can go looking for another country. Maybe his grandmother was from Mexico and Mexico will take him. If so, he can be deported there right away. Or any other country. But in reality no other country wants him. The Supreme Court said they can't keep him detained forever; in fact, barring really special circumstances, they can't keep him detained more than 180 days. This was because before that Supreme Court decision aliens like the Marielitos from Cuba were detained for years at a time because Cuba or any other country wouldn't take them. ICE called them "lifers." Somebody sued and the Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional to detain someone forever just because no country will accept him That's how we got here in this an many cases. I actually applaud Trump's efforts to get tough with other countries to start accepting their people back (the Marielito situation), or with other friendly countries to start taking our former "lifers" if we can't send them back to their homes (El Salvador) because of a judge's proper order. People's opinions may differ, but that's the law and how it works, or sometimes fails us. Fix the law, don't break the law.
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 3 Posted April 3 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: I'll answer the first question because it's a serious one. There's a process. ICE arrests the alien, usually because he's committed a crime, sometimes because they have other information that he's a gang member. He's detained by ICE. He's not getting out unless HE (the burden here is on the alien; it's not a criminal case) can show that he's NOT a danger to the community. The judge takes evidence from both sides, and then decides whether the alien has met his burden. From what I've seen here, the judge said no, he hasn't met his burden of showing that he's NOT a danger to the community. So he stays in custody until his case is done. The alien can then say o.k., you got me on that (but I reserve my right to appeal the thing about being a gang member). But if you send me back to El Salvador, the government (or other gang members acting without the government doing anything to stop them) will torture me. Again, both sides - the alien and the ICE prosecutor - put on evidence. The alien's testimony is key, but isn't the only thing. The judge then decides whether the alien has me HIS burden of showing that it's more likely he'd be persecuted/tortured if returned to El Salvador. The judge here found it was. I don't know the case so I won't comment on whether that seems a a fair decision given the evidence. Suffice to say that a lot of appeals courts have said that yes, this is a real thing in El Salvador, at least at the time of his case (2019 I think). OK, so ICE can appeal if they think the judge was just flat-out wrong. Apparently they didn't. So there he is, in custody, with the judge having ordered him deported but also saying ICE isn't allowed to deport him to El Salvador. So ICE can go looking for another country. Maybe his grandmother was from Mexico and Mexico will take him. If so, he can be deported there right away. Or any other country. But in reality no other country wants him. The Supreme Court said they can't keep him detained forever; in fact, barring really special circumstances, they can't keep him detained more than 180 days. This was because before that Supreme Court decision aliens like the Marielitos from Cuba were detained for years at a time because Cuba or any other country wouldn't take them. ICE called them "lifers." Somebody sued and the Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional to detain someone forever just because no country will accept him That's how we got here in this an many cases. I actually applaud Trump's efforts to get tough with other countries to start accepting their people back (the Marielito situation), or with other friendly countries to start taking our former "lifers" if we can't send them back to their homes (El Salvador) because of a judge's proper order. People's opinions may differ, but that's the law and how it works, or sometimes fails us. Fix the law, don't break the law. I am not blasting you because I know it is not your choice or fault, but any legal process that required we need to prove an illegal is a gang member in order to get rid of them is insane. Also any judge that deems someone a gang member but does not want to send them back is evil. I further don't need anymore history lesson, I actually understand too much stupidity of the courts at this point, but honestly think that some judges are happy to allow evil as long as they retain power. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 3 Posted April 3 9 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: but does not want to send them back is evil It's not about "want." Every judge takes an oath to be faithful to the constitution and laws of the United States. Sometimes the law compels a result.
Homelander Posted April 3 Posted April 3 48 minutes ago, B-Man said: Can you get material from those who are not paid by Putin? How right-wing podcaster from Chicago landed at center of federal probe into Russian meddling Tim Pool, a Chicago high school dropout who became an alt-right media superstar, was apparently paid $100,000 per episode by a covert propaganda campaign funded by Russia, according to a new federal indictment.
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted April 3 Posted April 3 9 hours ago, Homelander said: Can you get material from those who are not paid by Putin? How right-wing podcaster from Chicago landed at center of federal probe into Russian meddling Tim Pool, a Chicago high school dropout who became an alt-right media superstar, was apparently paid $100,000 per episode by a covert propaganda campaign funded by Russia, according to a new federal indictment. Is the cartoon wrong? Nothing stops you from posting anything anti trump. Pot meet kettle. 1
B-Man Posted April 3 Posted April 3 Media Lie About Deported ‘Maryland Father’s’ Legal Status, Downplay His Gang Ties In fact, the only real scandal here is that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was able to stay for as long as he did. by Brianna Lyman The propaganda press is once again distorting the truth — and in some cases, flat out lying — to discredit and undermine President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts. In the latest example, the media are painting an illegal alien — who is allegedly a gang member — as merely a “Maryland father” with “protected legal status” who was “mistakenly” swept up in a mass deportation. On Monday, The Atlantic’s Nick Miroff wrote that the Trump administration “mistakenly” sent a “Maryland father with protected legal status” to a Salvadoran prison due to an “administrative error.” “The case appears to be the first time the Trump administration has admitted to errors when it sent three planeloads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan deportees to El Salvador’s grim ‘Terrorism Confinement Center’ on March 15,” Miroff wrote. He later cited Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s attorney who, in Miroff’s words, “said he’s never seen a case in which the government knowingly deported someone who had already received protected legal status from an immigration judge.” Further down in the article, Miroff clarifies that a judge ordered Abrego Garcia not to be sent back to “his home country” — but that’s very different that having “protected legal status” that would shield Abrego Garcia from deportation entirely. Abrego Garcia illegally crossed the border in 2011 and was “detained in March 2019 and charged with removability.” He was denied bond in 2019 after an immigration judge concluded that evidence “show[ed] [Abrego Garcia] is a verified member of MS-13” and that Abrego Garcia did not prove “that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others.” The judge also found that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk, noting he had a “history of failing to appear for proceedings pertaining to his traffic violations.” As pointed out by Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article 3 Project, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Abrego Garcia’s appeal and “affirmed the immigration judge’s findings on dangerousness.” https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/02/media-lie-about-deported-maryland-fathers-legal-status-downplay-his-gang-ties/
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 3 Posted April 3 14 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: It's not about "want." Every judge takes an oath to be faithful to the constitution and laws of the United States. Sometimes the law compels a result. we are right now at a point where district judges are overruling the president based on very sketchy views of existing law. There is no constitutional law on any books anywhere in the country that says a judge is "required" to protect a violent criminal from extradition to the country they are from, they are choosing to protect the bad guys at the expense of the innocent. I understand the concept of judicial precedence and why we should follow it when appropriate but this is insane. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 3 Posted April 3 34 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: we are right now at a point where district judges are overruling the president based on very sketchy views of existing law. There is no constitutional law on any books anywhere in the country that says a judge is "required" to protect a violent criminal from extradition to the country they are from, they are choosing to protect the bad guys at the expense of the innocent. I understand the concept of judicial precedence and why we should follow it when appropriate but this is insane. The 5th Amendment.
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 3 Posted April 3 3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: The 5th Amendment. You truly believe a man who joins a gang in El Salvador, kills a dozen people, escaped thar country and came to the US illegally deserves 5th amendment protections? That is literal insanity, you are so inviting the worst people on the planet to get to the US if possible. how does someone educated actually believe that constitutional rights belong to people here illegally?
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 4 Posted April 4 Something that was truly appalling to me that I heard from a "constitutional scholar" is that people here illegally are given "some constitutional rights". That is on its face wrong and stupid, the Constitution is not ala carte, you have all or none. The government does not get to choose which rights you have once you qualify for any of them.
The Frankish Reich Posted April 4 Posted April 4 6 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: You truly believe a man who joins a gang in El Salvador, kills a dozen people, escaped thar country and came to the US illegally deserves 5th amendment protections? It's not about what I believe. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton - it's about what those guys believed.
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 4 Posted April 4 6 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: It's not about what I believe. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton - it's about what those guys believed. 9 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Something that was truly appalling to me that I heard from a "constitutional scholar" is that people here illegally are given "some constitutional rights". That is on its face wrong and stupid, the Constitution is not ala carte, you have all or none. The government does not get to choose which rights you have once you qualify for any of them.
The Frankish Reich Posted April 4 Posted April 4 4 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But yes, people here illegally do get "some" constitutional rights because of the way the Bill of Rights was written. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law (restricting freedom of speech)" - it's about what government is allowed/forbidden to do. No law, no hidden law, etc. The Supreme Court has allowed for certain exceptions (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, etc), but the way it's written it applies to everyone in the U.S.: citizen, legal visitor, illegal immigrant. Second Amendment: "The right of the people (to bear arms)" - it's about what the people have the right to do. In general, the Supreme Court has said "the (American) people" are our citizens and lawful permanent residents only. Not students, not visitors, not illegal entrants. So illegal aliens (as well as student visa holders, etc) have no right to own guns, and there are hundreds of federal prosecutions every year of aliens for unlawfully possessing a firearm. So yes, certain constitutional protections don't apply to illegal aliens. But certain ones do. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is phrased like the First Amendment, so it applies to everyone, legal or illegal.
Orlando Buffalo Posted April 4 Posted April 4 15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But yes, people here illegally do get "some" constitutional rights because of the way the Bill of Rights was written. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law (restricting freedom of speech)" - it's about what government is allowed/forbidden to do. No law, no hidden law, etc. The Supreme Court has allowed for certain exceptions (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, etc), but the way it's written it applies to everyone in the U.S.: citizen, legal visitor, illegal immigrant. Second Amendment: "The right of the people (to bear arms)" - it's about what the people have the right to do. In general, the Supreme Court has said "the (American) people" are our citizens and lawful permanent residents only. Not students, not visitors, not illegal entrants. So illegal aliens (as well as student visa holders, etc) have no right to own guns, and there are hundreds of federal prosecutions every year of aliens for unlawfully possessing a firearm. So yes, certain constitutional protections don't apply to illegal aliens. But certain ones do. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is phrased like the First Amendment, so it applies to everyone, legal or illegal. The Constitution is not ala carte, we can confer rights onto illegal citizens by a law but it is not by the Constitution. If you want to argue that someone is allowed some constitutional protections but not others then the government can remove them whenever they want. If you want to argue and illegal gets any constitutional protections you must give them all, any other argument makes the Constitution worthless. Illegals have rights, but not Constitutional rights 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 4 Posted April 4 7 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: The Constitution is not ala carte, we can confer rights onto illegal citizens by a law but it is not by the Constitution. If you want to argue that someone is allowed some constitutional protections but not others then the government can remove them whenever they want. If you want to argue and illegal gets any constitutional protections you must give them all, any other argument makes the Constitution worthless. Illegals have rights, but not Constitutional rights OK, this is just nonsense. I just explained to you - seriously, because I generally respect you as a poster here - that the structure of the constitution itself makes it clear that some provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to illegal aliens and some do not. You either didn't read or comprehend that. I don't know what else to say when someone repeats a jingoistic "the constitution is not an ala carte menu" without trying to understand.
Recommended Posts