• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump confirms plan to declare national emergency and use military for deportations

This entire thread appears almost entirely like this:
Creed's Anagram said:
You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content
Creed's Anagram said:
You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content
Creed's Anagram said:
You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content
Creed's Anagram said:
You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content
Creed's Anagram said:
You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content
Creed's Anagram said:
You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content

In the unlikely event Mr. Anagram ever posts something intelligent or interesting, please quote without the 'Ignore' icon.
 
You can't go back to Constantinople, now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople...

Constantinople fell in 1453, but it took them almost half a millennium to change the official English-language name. (Though just as Thais refer to their capital as 'Krung Thep' rather than 'Bangkok', I guess 'Istanbul' was the vernacular name even long ago when the city was still in Christian* hands.) (* - Assuming the Greek "Christians" still count as "Christians": My subscription to the Bigots and other Idiots newsletter has lapsed.)

1453 is a very easy number for a bridge-player to memorize! -- the digits sum to 13. This is why I was annoyed when someone recently mentioned that date. Should I change my passwords?
 
SCOTUS will fully back him on defining migrants as a national emergency and using the military to meet the crisis. We're going to be seeing this in 9 weeks or so. The courts martial on all the generals who didn't kiss Trump's orange ass, who knows, late spring? Morale in the forces should just skyrocket. MFC, ever'body! (C = Christmas.)
I see three major problems here, even for a sociopathic Administratoin.

1) Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment. While SCOTUS will likely orgasm over ruling that illegals do not have constitutional protections, there is one minor flaw to using this as a basis for a mass deportation, the state should be required to prove that the person is an illegal. The State shouldn't be allowed to merely assert a person's legal standing in America, they should be required to demonstrate it. SCOTUS allowing them to shortcut this part is extremely dangerous. And this is ignoring the logistical problem of gathering. It is a lot easier to put migrants into detention facilities when they are just crossing the border.

2) Nation of origin. Operation Wetback dealt mainly with Mexicans. A large number of illegals these days are not Mexican. I do not believe there is any reason Mexico has to allow the deportation of Central Americans in to their country. So not only would the Government need to establish a nation of origin, they would need to be able to shift people to those nations. Time, money, logistics!

3) Money. The sheriffs in red rural areas would love to send them brown skins back to non-America. But the trouble is, illegals are everywhere, including areas where resources are somewhat limited and required to manage real issues. While some PDs might be sympathetic to this cause, they simply can lack the resources to prioritize this over actual public safety. It is possible he gets funding from a GOP controlled Congress, however, but it'd need to be substantial.

In the end, the Trump Admin could just put out a big net, and send people down to Mexico, just across the border or into Mexico... however, that is very complicated when using the US Military on Mexican soil. I doubt they want to just toss them across the river, because the US remains pretty darn close.
 
Well, the Newscorp investment looks to have done the job. Allowing people who can't vote into our country in order to help us in elections would be a pretty dumb idea. And generally, people have tendency to vote the pocket book than other reasons.
It's a longer term plan (illegals given a "path to citizenship" can eventually vote, as can their children due to misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment), even if it is a pretty dumb idea as the 2024 election showed. But you will often hear arguments that "browning" of America is a good thing for Democrats electorally. Before Trump made inroads with blacks and Hispanics, and even Muslims, you would often hear terms like "demography is destiny" and "permanent majority". Republican long term electoral chances were dismissed because they were all "male, pale and stale", not considering the sexism, racism and ageism inherent in that quip.
So no, the Democrats aren't allowing hoards of migrants into the US for electoral purposes. In general, they aren't letting in hoards to begin with.
Hordes, not hoards. And they certainly are.
Yes, many... let's just name two though.
Those two are examples.
Dude, the liberals are the ones that generally don't have the 'monolith' feel with ethnic groups. We know that some Hispanics are socially conservative. We understand that some Muslims can be socially conservative to even backwards. You keep repeating this like we never understood it.
You don't seem to. Whenever I discussed mass Muslim migration for example, my concerns about, e.g. 98% of Afghans being Sharia supporters, have always been dismissed.
Europe is doing worse in that regard, since they have been invaded by Muslims much harder in recent decades. Now there are protests in Hamburg by Muslims demanding a Caliphate.
islamisten-demo-hamburg-kalifat-102~768x432

A big problem with Muslim mass migration is also that they have huge birthrates and will outbreed Europeans.
US would be well-advised not to let the same happen to us.
"Muslim" is a religion, not a race. That said, what a disgusting thing to say. What horrible thing will happen? YOU won't be in the majority anymore? Oh the horror. You've enjoyed all that privilege and don't want to let it go? or are you afraid they may treat you the way you've treated them?

"Why do the leftists call them racist? It's so unfair!"
 
Not to Trump and most of MAGA. Have you already forgotten about his promise to deport the Haitians in Springfield who are here legally
They are on a temporary protected status. They were never meant to stay here long-term.
I think the Biden administration has abused the program by keeping extending it with no apparent plan to ever end it.
Sending anyone back to Haiti - a perfect example of a violent, dangerous shithole - should be considered a crime against human decency. The Haitians in the USA under this protected status as a group are productive members of their communities that posed no real threats or problems until some bigot spread a vicious lie that ignited a fire under white nationalist assholes.
 
Let's just hope in the rush and zeal to deport all the illegal or criminal immigrants, legal law-abiding immigrants are not swept up and sent out.
Why would you expect this? Haven't you heard the talk about "denaturalization"?
Denaturalization would be a legal quagmire. But hey, I say try it out on Melanie first. She might not even fight it.
 
Please list all the steps required to migrate legally and become a US citizen. The ways you gloss over the process makes it sound simple. I hope I'm not making any unwarranted assumptions here.
It is not simple. But why should it be? US is still an attractive destination for legal migration. There is no reason to have to allow illegal migration (incl. abuse of the asylum system!) or not be selective in what migrants we admit (e.g. no Islamists and other extremists).
You're an immigrant, you've seen the system. What is the path for those guys to apply legally?
 
"First they came for the migrants, and I did not speak out, because I was not a migrant..."
Illegal migrants. There is a difference between legal and illegal migration.

I think Trump's approach, if he actually does this, is too heavy-handed. But surveys show that immigration was one of the top issues for the voters, and Dems failed to connect to the voters on this. It certainly did not help that so many Dem-run jurisdictions have become "sanctuary cities" and even "sanctuary states" for illegals. Neither does it help that people like AOC, who e.g. thinks that ICE should be disbanded, has become a prominent face of the party. And it certainly does not help that during the primary debates in 2019 the Dem candidates were one-uping each other over who will be more permissive toward illegal immigration.
And how do you propose to find all those illegals? And what do you do if their country doesn't want them back?
 
You don't seem to. Whenever I discussed mass Muslim migration for example, my concerns about, e.g. 98% of Afghans being Sharia supporters, have always been dismissed.
Europe is doing worse in that regard, since they have been invaded by Muslims much harder in recent decades. Now there are protests in Hamburg by Muslims demanding a Caliphate.
islamisten-demo-hamburg-kalifat-102~768x432

A big problem with Muslim mass migration is also that they have huge birthrates and will outbreed Europeans.
US would be well-advised not to let the same happen to us.
"Muslim" is a religion, not a race. That said, what a disgusting thing to say. What horrible thing will happen? YOU won't be in the majority anymore? Oh the horror. You've enjoyed all that privilege and don't want to let it go? or are you afraid they may treat you the way you've treated them?
A caliphate would be about as bad as what The Felon is going for. Moderate Islam is fine, radical Islam is not.
 
Let's just hope in the rush and zeal to deport all the illegal or criminal immigrants, legal law-abiding immigrants are not swept up and sent out.
Why would you expect this? Haven't you heard the talk about "denaturalization"?
Denaturalization would be a legal quagmire. But hey, I say try it out on Melanie first. She might not even fight it.
Why do you think he's going to let the law limit him? His pet judges will do what he says.
 
Let's just hope in the rush and zeal to deport all the illegal or criminal immigrants, legal law-abiding immigrants are not swept up and sent out.
Why would you expect this? Haven't you heard the talk about "denaturalization"?
Denaturalization would be a legal quagmire. But hey, I say try it out on Melanie first. She might not even fight it.
Why do you think he's going to let the law limit him? His pet judges will do what he says.
There are not that many pet judges.
 
And how do you propose to find all those illegals?
It would be easier if illegals did not have access to things like driver's licenses and employment.
And in many cases the government knows where they are hamstrung by various things. For example, ICE knew where felonious illegal José Zárate (who later murdered Kate Steinle even though he got away with it) was and they had issued a detainer but San Francisco Sheriff's Department refused to honor it because it is a "sanctuary" jurisdiction.
And what do you do if their country doesn't want them back?
Make any aid conditional on taking back their people.
 
Sending anyone back to Haiti - a perfect example of a violent, dangerous shithole - should be considered a crime against human decency.
Anyone? Even those who have e.g. committed violent crimes on US soil?
The Haitians in the USA under this protected status as a group are productive members of their communities that posed no real threats or problems until some bigot spread a vicious lie that ignited a fire under white nationalist assholes.
The "they are eating the pets" line was a lie. That does not mean that there aren't problems with the concept of turning a temporary protected status into a vehicle for large-scale permanent migration.
Just like there is a problem into turning the asylum system into a vehicle for large-scale economic migration.
 
Back
Top Bottom