President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Whether the guy in El Salvador is actually MS13 is almost beside the immediate point. The government's lawyers admitted that his initial deportation was a **** up. Stephen Miller's after the fact argument to the contrary is not for serious people. The same is true of the administration's purported deference to El Salvador's sovereignty.
This has nothing to do with El Salvador's sovereignty. Everyone knows that if Trump called Bukele and said, "hey we ****ed up when we deported this guy," Bukele would facilitate his return.
Whether the guy in El Salvador is actually MS13 is almost beside the immediate point. The government's lawyers admitted that his initial deportation was a **** up. Stephen Miller's after the fact argument to the contrary is not for serious people. The same is true of the administration's purported deference to El Salvador's sovereignty. This has nothing to do with El Salvado
We don't know that he's alive and we don't know that he wasn't just shaved and thrown in the pit with no record, so we don't know that he could be returned just like that.
My point is more that people keep talking about this one person like there was just one or two mistakes. It's not like that. They did not try to find gang members and make a couple mistakes. That's not how they chose people to deport. I suspect they just picked people who were most convenient, like they checked in for some court required appointment or something.
Whether the guy in El Salvador is actually MS13 is almost beside the immediate point. The government's lawyers admitted that his initial deportation was a **** up. Stephen Miller's after the fact argument to the contrary is not for serious people. The same is true of the administration's purported deference to El Salvador's sovereignty. This has nothing to do with El Salvado
I tend to disagree, I think it's necessary to push back against the right's narrative that they are only deporting criminals and terrorists. For those who are politically aware and terminally online your points make sense.
What about the average Joe who is being told by this administration that Garcia is some kingpin gangbanger who is trafficking children? They may think, who cares, he was a "bad hombre" as Biff would say.
I believe it's imperative that normies fully understand the peril of losing due process. If they can do it to asylum seekers everyone is in danger of being disappeared extrajudicially with absolutely no recourse.
Apparently Trump has asked El Sal tyrant to build 5 more prisons cos he wants to deport the 'home grown' next.
Outsourcing your death camps is so Donnie.
So due process out the window, bye bye
Apparently Trump has asked El Sal tyrant to build 5 more prisons cos he wants to deport the 'home grown' next.
Outsourcing your death camps is so Donnie.
So due process out the window, bye bye
Bro that was a joke. It’s funny to joke about throwing people in jail to die. TDS much?
I tend to disagree, I think it's necessary to push back against the right's narrative that they are only deporting criminals and terrorists. For those who are politically aware and terminally online your points make sense. What about the average Joe who is being told by this administration that Garcia is some kingpin gangbanger who is trafficking children? They may think, who c
I didn't say anything to suggest that people should accept a narrative. Nor did I suggest that people should refrain from pointing out that the government offered no evidence in court to support the administration's statement that this guy was MS13.
My point was that due process matters whether the guy is a member of MS13 or not. Thus, you should be in favor of bringing him back (assuming he is alive), regardless of how you feel about immigration and deportation generally.
I didn't say anything to suggest that people should accept a narrative. Nor did I suggest that people should refrain from pointing out that the government offered no evidence in court to support the administration's statement that this guy was MS13. My point was that due process matters whether the guy is a member of MS13 or not. Thus, you should be in favor of bringing him b
Ok but the law that suspends due process for aliens during a war or invasion was used 3 times before and wasn't considered unconstitutional. And that doesn't require the guy to be a member of MS13
This is a ridiculous perspective. Courts order parties to use their "best efforts" all the time in situations where it is not entirely clear what is possible and what is not possible. --Plaintiffs moves to compel production of X category of documents.--Defendant: X documents were stored on servers that were damaged by a fire.--Court: Have you done everything you can to retr
Ok and if the answer is "servers are in a *foreign country* and the leader of the foreign country refuses to help us", isn't that enough? or you have to attempt to bribe that leader to show your good effort?
Not sure why someone would need a criminal record *in the USA* to be a member of a gang that has it's basis in a foreign country, nor why a criminal record anywhere would be necessary to be part of a gang.
You can certainly be a mafioso even with no criminal record, why should it be different for gangs?
Ah, we are still on the 'its a joke' defense despite all the 'jokes' trump makes eventually are attempted in some form or another.
For the purpose of the narrative, I also think it is important to remember that there is a enormous middle area between "full fledged member of a criminal gang" and "not a single point of contact with anyone who is in a criminal gang," especially if you live in a community where gangs are more prevalent.
And in the context of a deportation proceeding, it is relatively easy to spin those points of contacts as more or less meaningful depending on what outcome you are trying to achieve.
Not sure why someone would need a criminal record *in the USA* to be a member of a gang that has it's basis in a foreign country, nor why a criminal record anywhere would be necessary to be part of a gang.
You can certainly be a mafioso even with no criminal record, why should it be different for gangs?
So everyone is in a gang if the administration says so! That's. The. Point. . .
Ok and if the answer is "servers are in a *foreign country* and the leader of the foreign country refuses to help us", isn't that enough? or you have to attempt to bribe that leader to show your good effort?
No court ordered the government to bribe anyone or to do anything illegal. If the guy was/is alive, and Trump wanted him to be returned, all he had to do was ask Bukele. Any argument that Bukele would have refused such a request is risible.
For the purpose of the narrative, I also think it is important to remember that there is a enormous middle area between "full fledged member of a criminal gang" and "not a single point of contact with anyone who is in a criminal gang," especially if you live in a community where gangs are more prevalent.And in the context of a deportation proceeding, it is relatively easy to sp
For the purpose of the narrative, in the context of a deportation proceeding that allows the gvmnt do kick anyone they want outside of the country, i think the *only thing that matters is if the AEA can be used through the provision of "invasion" being ongoing or not".
If it can , Trump can send away to El Salvador or anywhere else as many non citizens as he wants including those legally in the country, without due process.
If there is no invasion and/or Trump has no authority to determine if an invasion is ongoing, then he can't.
If he can kick away whomever he wants i am pretty sure that "better safe than sorry" is the proper approach in a model of the world where only american citizens have human value and immigrants, legal or not, just have a privilege to currently be in the USA that can be taken back at any time and should be taken back everytime it's in the interest of citizens to do so (as determined by their elected leaders).
Any even vague possibility someone is associated with a criminal gang of significant size and power is much more than enough to morally justify deportations, under that approach.
People who give inherent value to non citizens and so on will ofc disagree.
But legally, it's whether the AEA can be invoked under the pretext of an "invasion" being ongoing. And there isn't enough discussion about that. I think it's a big stretch to allow "invasion" to be used here, but on the other hand how many millions undesired people criminally in the country are enough to use the word invasion, legally? maybe even 100M wouldn't be an invasion because invasion meant something else in late 18th century.
But certainly for tens of millions of americans, using invasion to define the presence of 10 or more millions of illegals is semantically proper (in the present).
So here originalism could actually allow to stop Trump more than other judicial philosophies could.
No court ordered the government to bribe anyone or to do anything illegal. If the guy was/is alive, and Trump wanted him to be returned, all he had to do was ask Bukele. Any argument that Bukele would have refused such a request is risible.
Bukele was interviewed claiming that he has no intention to "smuggle back" a M13 gang member (which is how he considers the guy).
Do you really think that they can't just fake the theater of "official request" and "official denial" if that is enough to put the matter to rest? if that happens, has Trump satisfied the conditions of the order yes/no?
"judge we are sorry to inform you president Trump officially kindly asked president Bukele to give us the guy back, and Bukele answered no, because he thinks he is a M13 member".
How do you prove that's intentionally misleading?
Take that to Congress which wrote the AEA and never repealed it, and to courts that in the centuries that passed never treated that law as unconstitutional.
Btw the point is that under the AEA, *if it can be applied with the president claiming there is an invasion*, Trump can deport any non citizen without having to prove anything to anyone.
You think that's an absurd power to give to Potus? change the law. You think AEA is unconstitutional? challenge it in court? you think the AEA is constitutional but what is an invasion can't be decided by potus alone? challenge it in court.
Bukele was interviewed claiming that he has no intention to "smuggle back" a M13 gang member (which is how he considers the guy).Do you really think that they can't just fake the theater of "official request" and "official denial" if that is enough to put the matter to rest? if that happens, has Trump satisfied the conditions of the order yes/no?"judge we are sorry to inform yo
How about they actually do it and the court / the public can see what it looks like?
Your argument is they would fake it anyways so why even bother?
For the purpose of the narrative, in the context of a deportation proceeding that allows the gvmnt do kick anyone they want outside of the country, i think the *only thing that matters is if the AEA can be used through the provision of "invasion" being ongoing or not".
The AEA has never been used in this way except in wartime, and even those instances are among the most shameful in the nation's history.
Expanding the concept of an invasion in the way you are describing has little historical basis.
How about they actually do it and the court / the public can see what it looks like?
Your argument is they would fake it anyways so why even bother?
My argument is more broad, it's about an order should only be given if it is 100% clear to everyone exactly what needs to happen for it to be fulfilled, and that has to be 100% within the power of the ordered entity.
Ordering to "do your best effort for" is absurd, insane. Any provision should be crystal clear executable and verifiable ex post in a perfect manner. Imagine you ORDER ME to "try my best" at remembering something, what the hell would that imply or mean?
Orders should never have any ambiguity, it should be absolutely automatic to verify if the order has been executed. "return that thing you now have to that person" is a legitimate order. "try your best to recover the documents" is insane as an order.
People are saying there is a constitutional crisis brewing because Trump is defying an order from a court. How can that be claimed if the order is ambiguous and undefined? it's truly insane.
Bukele was interviewed claiming that he has no intention to "smuggle back" a M13 gang member (which is how he considers the guy).Do you really think that they can't just fake the theater of "official request" and "official denial" if that is enough to put the matter to rest? if that happens, has Trump satisfied the conditions of the order yes/no?"judge we are sorry to inform yo
If your point is that Trump almost certainly will get away with this bullshit theater, I guess that I agree. But don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending like this is anything other than bullshit theater.
The AEA has never been used in this way except in wartime, and even those instances are among the most shameful in the nation's history.
Expanding the concept of an invasion in the way you are describing has little historical basis.
Yes which is why it could be challenged in court, and that should be the conversation.
Where is the lawsuit claiming Trump can't just claim there is an invasion and thus use the AEA? shouldn't that be the relevant topic?
People are saying there is a constitutional crisis brewing because Trump is defying an order from a court. How can that be claimed if the order is ambiguous and undefined? it's truly insane.
We don't have to rely on this incident to prove that Trump is willing to defy court orders.
Yes which is why it could be challenged in court, and that should be the conversation.
Where is the lawsuit claiming Trump can't just claim there is an invasion and thus use the AEA? shouldn't that be the relevant topic?
What makes you think that the president has the unilateral authority to interpret words in statutes in whatever way he sees fit, however tenuous that interpretation might be. That isn't how it works in this country.
If your point is that Trump almost certainly will get away with this bullshit theater, I guess that I agree. But don't insult everyone's intelligence by pretending like this is anything other than bullshit theater.
It's either legal or not. Remember the claim here is of a "constitutional crisis" because Trump is purportedly refusing to comply to an order. If bullshit theater is legal, that's it.
You should always start from the idea that anyone in power will do everything he can to achieve it's preferred outcomes, you can't treat that approach as something "morally wrong" lol. Now if what he does is illegal, you have a different point.
But is it illegal? very unclear.
