President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#28,001
#28,001
LouderVol said:
you think ICE has been operating with warrants on any of these arrests/detainments?

this is part of the reason I have had a big issue with HOW they have been going about their business. They have already got the Supreme Court to go along with with a reduced deportation process. they have already shown they are willing to physically deport someone without letting them talk to a lawyer first, or get in front of a judge.

but I get it, you want to trust the federal government while it uses its power to an unprecedented level just because "nothing" bad has happened yet.

you all have much more trust in the government than I ever will. willing to bet dollars vs donuts you wouldn't be this accepting if it was Kamala or Biden in office.
Click to expand...

This board would absolutely be on fire right now if the letter of the admin flipped from R to D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, swampfoxfan, BernardKingGOAT and 1 other person
#28,002
#28,002
LouderVol said:
how is it a poor decision to NOT carry around your passport, social security card, or birth certificate in the US if you are a US citizen?

we are supposed to be the land of the free. not the home of Documented and Tracked.

yall really don't care about rights, you just care about how much power Trump can give himself.

it is ENTIRELY the fault of the system that the default is that citizens have to prove their innocence to remain un-detained.
Click to expand...

The we're becoming Nazis "where are your papers?" joke hits a little different now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#28,004
#28,004
LouderVol said:
I mean there is a video of SOMETHING happening. if you, or others, have doubts its up to you to refute the video. even a video of the ICE agents refuting the story would do.

its crazy the level of discrepancy between what yall will accept as far as proof based on what side is presenting it.
Click to expand...
No that's my point exactly. He's saying this is what happened. I'm offering a likely explanation. All we know is his brother was arrested and he was detained until his document were confirmed and then released.
 
#28,006
#28,006
McDad said:
Incorrect take, at least where I am concerned.

I don't care about Trump. I care about staying out of the fray. Staying out of a situation which disrupts my life. I want to be prepared to have the least level of engagement as possible.

It's exactly analogous for those at risk of being stopped about questionable citizenship to carry their "papers" as it was for you and me to carry ours when in a foreign country.
Click to expand...
questionable citizenship based on what?
looking latino?
working a job site or any manual labor?
eating tamales?

come on dude, seriously, what reasonably makes someone "questionable citizenship"?

your live and let step all over your rights doesn't fly with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan, EasternVol and n_huffhines
#28,007
#28,007
OrangeTsar said:
Of course the irony of leftists complaining about having to “show your papers” is that they were the exact same people demanding that I carry around my proof of vaccination card during Covid before I could enter businesses or get on a plane
Click to expand...
I can assure you neither myself nor louder were in favor of vaccine cards.

Mcdad wants convenience over forcing LE to know and follow the law. Ok I guess but that only makes it more likely they abuse authority in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, EasternVol and n_huffhines
#28,008
#28,008
McDad said:
It's exactly analogous for those at risk of being stopped about questionable citizenship to carry their "papers" as it was for you and me to carry ours when in a foreign country.
Click to expand...
What are their laws about presenting ID to LE when requested? Unless they are the same as the US then it's not exactly analogous
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#28,009
#28,009
hog88 said:
Ok, you're going to have to show your work on "they have already shown they are willing to physically deport someone without letting them talk to a lawyer first, or get in front of a judge". Once you can show me proof this is happening then we can discuss the rest of your post because without proof that these people are not being afforded any due process the rest of your post is just a childish rant.
Click to expand...
dude its been covered. we have already argued about it. They just had to bring that one guy back so that he could actually face trial. There was the college kid who was a legal resident that they tried to deport and didn't let talk to a lawyer, or even get in front of a judge. Its why the Supreme Court stepped in and said ICE had to let people have their day in court. I guess in your world the Supreme Court was just repeating the law just because?

www.democracydocket.com

SCOTUS Says Trump Violated Venezuelan Migrants’ Rights With Attempted Removals

Read more here.
www.democracydocket.com www.democracydocket.com

"The Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling Friday said the Trump administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelan migrants in its rushed effort to remove them from the U.S. last month using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a 1798 wartime law."

you didn't change then when you were presented with facts you assumed couldn't happen, why would I expect you change now? If you aren't even paying attention to the Supreme Court you really have jumped the shark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#28,010
#28,010
LouderVol said:
dude its been covered. we have already argued about it. They just had to bring that one guy back so that he could actually face trial. There was the college kid who was a legal resident that they tried to deport and didn't let talk to a lawyer, or even get in front of a judge. Its why the Supreme Court stepped in and said ICE had to let people have their day in court. I guess in your world the Supreme Court was just repeating the law just because?

www.democracydocket.com

SCOTUS Says Trump Violated Venezuelan Migrants’ Rights With Attempted Removals

Read more here.
www.democracydocket.com www.democracydocket.com

"The Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling Friday said the Trump administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelan migrants in its rushed effort to remove them from the U.S. last month using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a 1798 wartime law."

you didn't change then when you were presented with facts you assumed couldn't happen, why would I expect you change now? If you aren't even paying attention to the Supreme Court you really have jumped the shark.
Click to expand...

Ok, show me in that article that they were not given the opportunity to talk to a lawyer or go in front of a judge.

A lot of these people being deported have had standing deportation orders, that means they had an opportunity to go in front of a judge and talk to a lawyer. Are we supposed to let them go through the process again before deporting them?
 
#28,011
#28,011
KB5252 said:
No that's my point exactly. He's saying this is what happened. I'm offering a likely explanation. All we know is his brother was arrested and he was detained until his document were confirmed and then released.
Click to expand...
so then at least you can admit its not a "5 second process" to prove your citizenship? everyone on your side has been up in arms this whole time sayings its easy and foolproof. and here is a case where it wasn't.
 
#28,012
#28,012
hog88 said:
Ok, show me in that article that they were not given the opportunity to talk to a lawyer or go in front of a judge.

A lot of these people being deported have had standing deportation orders, that means they had an opportunity to go in front of a judge and talk to a lawyer. Are we supposed to let them go through the process again before deporting them?
Click to expand...
you aren't willing to accept the Supreme Court saying their right to due process was violated?

I don't even know what level of proof would even work if the Supreme Court isn't enough.
 
#28,014
#28,014
LouderVol said:
you aren't willing to accept the Supreme Court saying their right to due process was violated?

I don't even know what level of proof would even work if the Supreme Court isn't enough.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm willing to accept that but that article in no way backs up your claim that the weren't allowed to talk to an attorney or go in front of a judge. Read your own link.

Instead, it asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether Trump’s proclamation of the AEA was legal and how much notice is due to those targeted by the act.

In an overnight ruling last month, SCOTUS halted the Trump administration from using the AEA to remove Venezuelans held in an immigration facility in northern Texas “until further order of this court.”

The court’s ruling was in response to an emergency appeal from the ACLU after the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Venezuelan migrants’ request for a temporary injunction against AEA removals.

In Friday’s order, the Supreme Court said the Fifth Circuit “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

“The District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”

While granting the migrants’ appeal, the Supreme Court also rebuked the Trump administration for not complying with its previous order on removals using the wartime act. In that order, SCOTUS said that those subject to removals must be given an adequate amount of notice and a change to challenge.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the court said.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he believes the matter should not be sent back to the lower courts to decide.

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” Kavanaugh said. “At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”
Click to expand...
 
#28,015
#28,015
OrangeTsar said:
Of course the irony of leftists complaining about having to “show your papers” is that they were the exact same people demanding that I carry around my proof of vaccination card during Covid before I could enter businesses or get on a plane
Click to expand...

You talking about people on VN? Who? Name them?

Let's be real, a vaccination card for certain travel privileges and having to carry ID just so you're not illegally detained are two very different Americas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#28,018
#28,018
LouderVol said:
questionable citizenship based on what?
looking latino?
working a job site or any manual labor?
eating tamales?

come on dude, seriously, what reasonably makes someone "questionable citizenship"?

your live and let step all over your rights doesn't fly with me.
Click to expand...
Yes. Even though it may upset one's delicate sensibilities, people are profiled. Profiling is why you and I avoid going into neighborhoods that look sketchy. Or passing by the bar with the all Harleys parked outside. It's why that one poster gets nervous when a brown person gets on an airplane.

So, yes. There are people who fit the profile of an immigrant. That profile raises questions about their status and they get questioned. I hope 'questionable citizenship' makes more sense to you now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush, whodeycin85 and hog88
#28,021
#28,021
LouderVol said:
questionable citizenship based on what?
looking latino?
working a job site or any manual labor?
eating tamales?

come on dude, seriously, what reasonably makes someone "questionable citizenship"?

your live and let step all over your rights doesn't fly with me.
Click to expand...
I think there's a gap between these two points. On one hand you have your take which has merit. In the complete absence of "articulable reasonable suspicion" nobody should ever be just stopped and checked outside of very set aside contexts. (entering sensitive areas is one everyone is familiar where there's practically carte blanche to check everyone to at least some degree)

But you ask the question "based on what" and it's a fair question. The problem is there might be an answer to which we aren't privy? It's like the rampant (both sides mind you) affinity for showing chopped videos with little to no context that suits their pov. How many examples are there where there is no actual articulable reasonable suspicion? How many incidences where there was but are falsely portrayed as just "being brown was all it took" anyway? I don't know and, to be brutally honest, I think it difficult to obtain particularly reliable information on the matter. Upshot is there, in fact, exists a zone where it gets quite murky. I knew a guy that was pulled over in, let's just say "emphatic" style, because his vehicle matched the description of one reported to have just been in a hit and run incident shortly before. The only thing my friend did was match a description but I don't know what else LEO could possibly do other than stop and verify in that situation.

I think it would be nice if there were some very clear guidelines about what exactly is the criteria for detainment but if there is I'm not aware. Anybody else know?
 
#28,022
#28,022
utvolpj said:
What are their laws about presenting ID to LE when requested? Unless they are the same as the US then it's not exactly analogous
Click to expand...
It is. I am talking about carrying the documentation for the same reason. Not about the laws being the same.
 
#28,024
#28,024
McDad said:
It is. I am talking about carrying the documentation for the same reason. Not about the laws being the same.
Click to expand...
But the law would have to be the same. If in country A it's required to produce papers when requested by LE but country B requires there to be an actionable reason then they are not the same. In country A I need to bring my ID to home depot while in country b there is no need
 
#28,025
#28,025
utvolpj said:
But the law would have to be the same. If in country A it's required to produce papers when requested by LE but country B requires there to be an actionable reason then they are not the same.
Click to expand...
I carry my passport in another country so that I can avoid unnecessary entanglements and delays. It expedites those officials knowing who I am if the need arises. It is the same here for people who are going to fit the profile. Yes, you can avoid the "showing of papers" because this is america. and you can get dragged into a holding cell and lose a few hours of your life. If that's you idea of best use of your time, go for it. But it isn't mine.
It reminds me of the convo I had with my son about consenting to a vehicle search if he is stopped by the police. He can refuse. It is his right. By that refusal has consequences of time and delay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr, 82_VOL_83, TrumpedUpVol and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top