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
If he got sent to South Sudan, what exactly happened to him? And why is it fair to South Sudan, did they get something out of it or was this against their consent.Ironically Trump is now guilty of the crime he said Mexico was doing, emptying out their prisons and asylums (lol) to send us their criminals.—I looked it up and as suspected, South Sudan was not on board with the dep
The flight got redirected to djibouti, to a military base there.
What's your plan to deport people their original country don't want to take?
That guy was sentenced for murder (first degree) in 1999, by an american court.His permanent residency had expired in 2009.He is an alien criminal, and besides the fact it is morally horrific that he ever saw the outside of a prison after being convicted for murder, it's truly incredible that anyone would refuse the idea that he should be deported.Or that anyone would claim tha
Why are they sending anyone to South Sudan that isn’t South Sudanese? It’s obviously meant to be some disgraceful insult to the South Sudanese. “Haha you can’t do crap because you’re South Sudan”. Is this how we want the world to operate now?
Not gonna lie, Djibouti might just be my favourite country name. After Nipple and Button, of course. And Gyna is kinda cool too.
Why are they sending anyone to South Sudan that isn’t South Sudanese? It’s obviously meant to be some disgraceful insult to the South Sudanese. “Haha you can’t do crap because you’re South Sudan”. Is this how we want the world to operate now?
SCOTUS says they can (for now, litigation still pending), so it's legal.
As far as diplomatic elements are involved, i have no idea. I don't know if they discussed this with South Sudan authorities or not, neither i think you do. I do prefer the El Salvador setup with official agreement, but i think that only applies to people that have a sentence and have to be imprisoned (the vietnamese guy had just finished his own 25y stint for murder).
/
I think treating these people are bad as legally possible is the proper way to do it, as a deterrent. You need to make their lives as horrible as legally possible so fewer people try to live as illegals in the USA. And we should do the same in european countries ofc.
Sending them to conflict zones in dirty poor countries where they don't speak the language , if legal (and it appears to be legal per SCOTUS, for now) is brilliant.
It's a devastating outcome for them, and the more resonance that gets and the more illegals learn that could be their fate, the more illegals will self deport and the more illegals will avoid the USA in the future.
Literally everything legal they can do to make illegals be as miserable as possible is appropriate and just.
The flight got redirected to djibouti, to a military base there.
What's your plan to deport people their original country don't want to take?
The intent was to send them to countries like Libya and South Sudan, and they were ostensibly just given license to carry out this plan. So I’m not sure why it’s relevant that they are being temporarily held somewhere en route to the place they were originally being deported to.
The intent was to send them to countries like Libya and South Sudan, and they were ostensibly just given license to carry out this plan. So I’m not sure why it’s relevant that they are being temporarily held somewhere en route to the place they were originally being deported to.
Because it might have to do with S. Sudan refusal to take them in (i don't know, but information on this is scarce), and you had asked why S Sudan.
But i ask again: What's your plan to deport people their original country don't want to take? do you have a plan or is the plan to say "oh well, they are considered so horrible that even their home country doesn't want them, so i guess we are forced to keep them"?
The American term is called "credible fear", basically you get an interview to prove legitimate concern for grave harm or risk to your life if under threat of deportation. Since South Sudan pretty much always come in at the top three most dangerous countries in the world almost regardless of metric, such interviews seems like a prudent measure.
In this particular case, the "rushed fashion" of the proceedings was cited by the judge as reason it was "dangerously close to violating due process". Without being an expert at American law, I'm guessing most of their judges like to err on the side of caution when it comes to due process.
And like I said in my earlier post. It always easy to portray support for due process as "sympathy with murderers" (or worse). And that is how protections and rights erode. "Terrorists can't be allowed to say what they want", "Perverts can't be allowed to publish", "Radicals can't be allowed to assemble".
That guy was sentenced for murder (first degree) in 1999, by an american court.His permanent residency had expired in 2009.He is an alien criminal, and besides the fact it is morally horrific that he ever saw the outside of a prison after being convicted for murder, it's truly incredible that anyone would refuse the idea that he should be deported.Or that anyone would claim tha
So ironic that Lucy the Nazi doll does not realise the fact that his own country has been ruled by murderers and other criminals for literal decades now...
Why are they sending anyone to South Sudan that isn’t South Sudanese? It’s obviously meant to be some disgraceful insult to the South Sudanese. “Haha you can’t do crap because you’re South Sudan”. Is this how we want the world to operate now?
SCOTUS says they can (for now, litigation still pending), so it's legal.As far as diplomatic elements are involved, i have no idea. I don'
You are a freaking abomination of a human being.
+1 to deport them to Italy, might as well.
The American term is called "credible fear", basically you get an interview to prove legitimate concern for grave harm or risk to your life if under threat of deportation. Since South Sudan pretty much always come in at the top three most dangerous countries in the world almost regardless of metric, such interviews seems like a prudent measure.
Are you aware that SCOTUS just gave the green light to keep deporting like that , over riding the determination of that judge?
Are you also aware of the fact that , unlike the right to assembly and the right to free speech, there is no right to be kept outside of a potentially dangerous country as an alien? the "protection and rights" you want to upheld here aren't constitutional rights.
They are (imho, this is subjective ofc) terrible mistakes many first world countries did, that should be canceled immediatly, because those protections are structurally and systematically used to impede deportations. And that's why european countries basically very rarely deport people. And it's an atrocious outcome, that actually erodes the protections and rights OF ALL CITIZENS, because that's what happens if citizens are forced to cohabitate with people they democratically decided shouldn't be there.
If you think it is a good idea to give 10M people a chance to try to convince a judge they are at risk in their home country (or in a third country they get sent to), to protect them from danger (why should the USA care about the wellbeing of aliens in general to begin with??? where in the constitution is that explicitly a right aliens have????), what you actually mean is you DO NOT WANT MASS DEPORTATION TO BE LEGALLY ALLOWED.
So there is absolutely no constitutional right at stake here, other than the attempt by the left (even with it's judges) to make it technically impossible to apply the law, because they don't like that law.
Are you aware that SCOTUS just gave the green light to keep deporting like that , over riding the determination of that judge?Are you also aware of the fact that , unlike the right to assembly and the right to free speech, there is no right to be kept outside of a potentially dangerous country as an alien? the "protection and rights" you want to upheld here aren't constitutiona
Soooo many words just to say "I have no empathy at all and I hate brown people with a passion!!"
Are you aware that SCOTUS just gave the green light to keep deporting like that , over riding the determination of that judge?Are you also aware of the fact that , unlike the right to assembly and the right to free speech, there is no right to be kept outside of a potentially dangerous country as an alien? the "protection and rights" you want to upheld here aren't constitutiona
I greatly enjoy the fact that pretty much every time you speculate on my motivations, you invariably fail to identify my actual political views.
Other than that, no I don't think government should jump hoops over simple protections just because it is inconvenient or because it might occasionally do a favor to unsympathetic people we don't like.
In case you haven't understood it yet, I'm not a person who is particularly enamored with government power. I respect its occasional necessity, but I do despise it. Especially when wielded by people who do not respect that it always comes with a price.
I realize that this is difficult to grasp for you, as your posting history indicates a person who is legitimately scared by the concept of personal liberty and the protections that ensure it.
Stop hiding behind this legal bs.
You don't treat other countries like your own garbage disposal.
I greatly enjoy the fact that pretty much every time you speculate on my motivations, you invariably fail to identify my actual political views.Other than that, no I don't think government should jump hoops over simple protections just because it is inconvenient or because it might occasionally do a favor to unsympathetic people we don't like. In case you haven't understood it
the you was generic, referred to anyone who thinks a system that requires every single deportee to be heard to discuss his fears is sensible.
That is not a "simple protection". It's a system that makes it impossible to deport large quantities of people. And it's not a constitutional protection, it's a stupid recent invention that can be canceled at any time.
the you was generic, referred to anyone who thinks a system that requires every single deportee to be heard to discuss his fears is sensible.
That is not a "simple protection". It's a system that makes it impossible to deport large quantities of people. And it's not a constitutional protection, it's a stupid recent invention that can be canceled at any time.
Do I think a systems ala "credible fears" is necessary in my own country? Yeah, I think it is. I have seen what actual persecution and actual disregard for human life is, and not the nice kind of being slightly inconvenienced on social media. If we take people in to begin with, then we need a fail-safe to not send potential victims back to such places. And yes, that will occasionally include people we don't necessarily like.
I have no particular opinion on exactly how the system should work in the US, but I do think that it is self-evident that being deported to South Sudan, given the current status of the country, should be grounds to be heard on "credible fears". This is a country that per today pops up in pretty much every published travel guidance world-wide as "do not travel", and for good reason.
Now, immigration systems are complex beasts with plenty of failures. Especially when politicians get involved with issuing exemptions or special accommodations. As is the nature with these things, it can take a while for the problems that causes to manifest. This tends to cause a lot of knee-jerk reactions and political maneuvering, and the usual outcome is to try and rectify past mistakes by making new ones.
Do I think a systems ala "credible fears" is necessary in my own country? Yeah, I think it is. I have seen what actual persecution and actual disregard for human life is, and not the nice kind of being slightly inconvenienced on social media. If we take people in to begin with, then we need a fail-safe to not send potential victims back to such places. And yes, that will oc
So basically if people from south sudan or any other country you think is really shitty manage to arrive in the first world you think it's proper that taxpayers there subsidize their lives in perpetuity.
And presumably you are even against stopping their attempt to enter in international waters.
So you want a mandate to take charge of every individual who has a shitty life, worldwide, forever.
Well voters in most countries don't actually agree.
the you was generic, referred to anyone who thinks a system that requires every single deportee to be heard to discuss his fears is sensible.
That is not a "simple protection". It's a system that makes it impossible to deport large quantities of people. And it's not a constitutional protection, it's a stupid recent invention that can be canceled at any time.
That IS supposed to be the system. It’s literally the rules that the government and courts came to over decades of deporting people in various situations. It’s been around for decades. The process is incredibly minimal compared to being charged with a crime.
And it obviously does not prevent large quantities of deportations when Obama followed the rules and is still the all time record holder for kicking people out.
What data do you have to support the position that allowing credible fear interviews stops mass deportations?
So basically if people from south sudan or any other country you think is really shitty manage to arrive in the first world you think it's proper that taxpayers there subsidize their lives in perpetuity.And presumably you are even against stopping their attempt to enter in international waters.So you want a mandate to take charge of every individual who has a shitty life, world
I mean, this is just a rehearsed argument you carried out with your imagination as the opponent. I can't answer to that.
If you want to read and address what I write, feel free to do so.
I mean, this is just a rehearsed argument you carried out with your imagination as the opponent. I can't answer to that.
If you want to read and address what I write, feel free to do so.
The automatic consequences we already have proof of, of a policy, are part of the policy itself. You can't handwave them because "on first principles" you want that policy anyway.
You want to give all aliens a right not to be deported if their country of origin is in a "bad enough" situation, that's what you wrote about south sudan. Which for european countries in particular also means a right to access local welfare in perpetuity.
That IS supposed to be the system. It’s literally the rules that the government and courts came to over decades of deporting people in various situations. It’s been around for decades. The process is incredibly minimal compared to being charged with a crime. And it obviously does not prevent large quantities of deportations when Obama followed the rules and is stil
Why would the courts get to have a say about which rules should determine who gets deported and why?
As for the bold, jfc? march 2025
Millions of immigration cases waiting
Across the country, 3.7 million cases are currently backlogged in U.S. immigration courts, according to TRAC, a data research organization at Syracuse University.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigat...
Nearly 2 million of the cases are people seeking asylum in the U.S. who say they’re fleeing violence, war, hunger, pain, or persecution.
Every day these people are in the USA at taxpayer expenses, every minute of time a government employee spends because they are in the USA, is a violation of the rights of american citizens and legal residents who are being expropriated money to pay for this nonsense.
There are literally 3.7M people the government knows about who should all have been deported the day they are found as illegal in the country, which can't be deported because of the system that is in place.
wrt the "educated people choose better" myth
The automatic consequences we already have proof of, of a policy, are part of the policy itself. You can't handwave them because "on first principles" you want that policy anyway.You want to give all aliens a right not to be deported if their country of origin is in a "bad enough" situation, that's what you wrote about south sudan. Which for european countries in particular als
What I wrote was that I think it is self-evident that deportation to South Sudan should be grounds for an assessment of credible fears, simply due to the current situation in the country.
But no, I don't think the outcome of such an assessment is given.
Other than that, at this point you are just posting
responses. If you don't have anything of substance to add, feel free to find an open border proponent and you guys can yell at each other for the next 2-3 hours and feel good about yourselves for having solved all the world's problems.
