Trump wants to bypass immigration courts. Experts warn it's a 'slippery slope.'

[Deluge]

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. You calling a Federal Judge's order bullshit just means YOU'RE LYING.

2. Sure it will, right after Trump exits and all his "orders" are rescinded.

3. YOU'RE not gonna do JACK SHIT. Cause BULL is the only kind of shit you do and you're really bad at it. LMAO

1. Stop crying. Your judges are activist trash. They all need to be arrested and thrown in the slammer. 

2. Your aliens are going bye-bye.  

3. Sure we are. We're going to deport illegal aliens and we may even get a few of you traitors thrown in the slammer. 

[User]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

And Bukele will not allow him ANY ACCESS because Trump is PAYING HIM NOT TO.

Are you that IGNORANT or just a DESPICABLE INHUMAN BEING?

This is not true. The deal Trump has to house the other violent criminal illegal aliens is not part of Garcia at all. This was already demonstrated by Trump in court. 

 

[Nationalist]

A judge has just upheld Trump's ability to deport illegals.

https://nypost.com/2025/05/14/us-news/pennsylvania-judge-stephanie-haines-upholds-trumps-authority-to-deport-criminal-migrants-under-alien-enemies-act/

Time to clean house.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

A judge has just upheld Trump's ability to deport illegals.

https://nypost.com/2025/05/14/us-news/pennsylvania-judge-stephanie-haines-upholds-trumps-authority-to-deport-criminal-migrants-under-alien-enemies-act/

Time to clean house.

Not like it seemed he was holding back before or anything, but i suspect this will kick it into high gear. 

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Not like it seemed he was holding back before or anything, but i suspect this will kick it into high gear. 

As it needs to be. We need that strength in Canada.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

A judge has just upheld Trump's ability to deport illegals.

https://nypost.com/2025/05/14/us-news/pennsylvania-judge-stephanie-haines-upholds-trumps-authority-to-deport-criminal-migrants-under-alien-enemies-act/

Time to clean house.

The ruling appears to have also said Trump's administration...

...has not given adequate prior notice to those subject to removal, before those deportations can take place, which would allow possible due process and habeas legal challenges.

[Nationalist]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

The ruling appears to have also said Trump's administration...

...has not given adequate prior notice to those subject to removal, before those deportations can take place, which would allow possible due process and habeas legal challenges.

No problem. Any deportee who wants to appeal...can do so from the country they've been returned to.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No problem. Any deportee who wants to appeal...can do so from the country they've been returned to.

That's not what the judge says, but who cares what they think?

[Deluge]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's not what the judge says, but who cares what they think?

Good Americans sure as f*ck don't care. Those a$$holes need to be charged with treason.

We just want the illegal aliens OUT. Once that happens, they can do whatever the hell they want online or at a POE. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

That's not what the judge says, but who cares what they think?

That is what the judge said actually

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That is what the judge said actually

Read much? The judge said...

before those deportations can take place

Not after, like Deluge said and that you're trying to reiterate.

I know you didn't fail to read what the judge said but I guess the need to deny anything a lefty says is just so strong you'll happily debase yourselves to avoid being seen in agreement.

This is how dictatorships blossom, not from apathy or stupidity but due to the deliberate willingness of people to put partisanship above all else, to the point where even your own self worth is subject to your derision.

It's phenomenal.

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Read much? The judge said...

before those deportations can take place

Not after, like Deluge said and that you're trying to reiterate.

I know you didn't fail to read what the judge said but I guess the need to deny anything a lefty says is just so strong you'll happily debase yourselves to avoid being seen in agreement.

This is how dictatorships blossom, not from apathy or stupidity but due to the deliberate willingness of people to put partisanship above all else, to the point where even your own self worth is subject to your derision.

It's phenomenal.

Read more than you apparently. 

What the judge said was that trump was justified in removing them, but that the method didn't give them time to exercise POSSIBLE legal remedy BEFORE they were deported. It did not say that it HAD to, and it allows entirely for them to challenge it AFTER they're deported.  The judge did NOT say that deporting them ended their ability to conduct a legal challenge. 

So the judge did not say they had a right to do that BEFORE they left, he only noted that the method probably didn't allow for it. 

It was your confirmation bias that caused you to believe that what it says is that he was SUPPOSED To give them the time or that they couldn't complain from outside the country.

What he did was legal, they can exercise their recourse outside of the country, the method he's chosen would not reasonably allow for them to exercise it inside the country.

Maybe don't lecture other people on their reading skills until you learn to read yourself   

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What the judge said was that trump was justified in removing them, but that the method didn't give them time to exercise POSSIBLE legal remedy BEFORE they were deported.

If you think she's saying the administration doesn't need to allow for adequate warning to deportees or time for due process before deportations, you're quite wrong.

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

...and it allows entirely for them to challenge it AFTER they're deported.

It'll have to be a judge higher up the chain of command that makes it clear that is their only option. Maybe she didn't have the balls to.

What she said is that deportations were legal but with a caveat...ie due process.

"Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote.

Her ruling has SC challenge written all over it.

Edited Thursday at 10:57 PM by eyeball

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If you think she's saying the administration doesn't need to allow for adequate warning to deportees or time for due process before deportations, you're quite wrong.

Except she didn't say it. 

Quote

It'll have to be a judge higher up the chain of command that makes it clear that is their only option. Maybe she didn't have the balls to.

Sure, most judges are afraid to give clear judgements.  🙄  (smak!)  what's wrong with you?

Quote

What she said is that deportations were legal but with a caveat...ie due process.

There is no such thing as 'legal with a caveate'. something is lawful or it is not. 

What she said as you point out is:

"Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote.

That is plain English. What she says in no unequivocal terms is that currently his actions are allowed by law. They are not guaranteed the right to challenge deportation before being deported and they can challenge it after they've been deported and nothing prevents that.  She goes on to say that the voters will have to decide whether or not this law is acceptable or they want to change in the laws or the people who make them.

In other words this is legal, and if you don't like it you're going to have to hire someone else who will change the law or enact policy that reflects something different. Because currently this is the way the law is

And fair enough, that is an accurate statement. If people don't like the law then the solution is to change the law and that may involve changing the lawmakers or at least convincing the current ones to do things differently

But right now the people can still challenge the deportation outside of the country and can apply for permission to be in the country from outside the country.

We can discuss if the law should change, but we can't really say that the current law isn't the current law .

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Except she didn't say it. 

She sure as hell didn't say what you guys say, 'deport their asses and worry about due process after deportations'.

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure, most judges are afraid to give clear judgements.  🙄  (smak!)  what's wrong with you?

Nothing, but then I'm not the one who feels a deep compulsion to hang my hat on the interpretation you're supporting here.

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

She goes on to say that the voters will have to decide whether or not this law is acceptable or they want to change in the laws or the people who make them.

She's saying it's up to the people to determine if her ruling is acceptable. It's a challenge to keep habeas corpus or shrug it off in the case of the law Trump is using.

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But right now the people can still challenge the deportation outside of the country and can apply for permission to be in the country from outside the country.

Sure, but Hains is clearly saying the administration didn't allow for adequate warning or time for deportees to avail themselves of due process before deportations. There's simply no way to interpret that to mean Trump's administration wasn't required to allow or give time and warning. That wasn't the question she was asked. She was simply asked if deporting people is legal which of course it is...and....

It's like she left the words and or but unsaid.

She seems to be saying the law Trump is using is not complete as opposed to wrong.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

She sure as hell didn't say what you guys say, 'deport their asses and worry about due process after deportations'.

Actually she did. Or to be more precise she said that the government is well within its rights to do that legally speaking. Should her statements indicate that there is nothing preventing the government from choosing to have policies which allow for more time for someone to make a possible habeas argument, but that the law doesn't require it and it doesn't require that they be given time to make that argument before they are  deported

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nothing,

I think you'll find that's an inaccurate statement   I can get a white board out if you need further clarification  

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

then I'm not the one who feels a deep compulsion to hang my hat on the interpretation you're supporting here

There's no interpretation. As I said this is plain English. You are feeling a deep compulsion to twist the words out of shape to try and fit a narrative. I on the other hand I'm simply reading out loud.

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

She's saying it's up to the people to determine if her ruling is acceptable.

Yes. The current law is thus and trump is following the current law. If they want the law changed the people will have to speak out in one fashion or another

Quote

It's a challenge to keep habeas corpus or shrug it off in the case of the law Trump is using.

No, it will be a moral discussion as to whether or not habeas corpus applies in this specific circumstance which by tradition and law it does not. Habeus Corpus does not apply in every single legal circumstance, nor should it. The country will have to have a discussion as to whether or not it should apply here or whether it's preferable to deport those who are in the country without lawful reason first and let them seek redress from outside of the country if they feel they should be allowed in. 

This isn't a question of keeping habeas corpus in general as you appear to be pretending. 

42 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, but Hains is clearly saying the administration didn't allow for adequate warning or time for deportees to avail themselves of due process before deportations.

Yes, but Hains is also clearly saying there is no legal requirement to do so. 

Your claim this means that trump had to is just absolutely unsupported 100 percent. 

The judge is clear, they do not allow enough time for a possible habius claim, they are not required to do so under current law, if people don't like that then they'll have to use their democratic options to pressure the current gov't to change it's policy or the law or elect those who will. 

Period full stop. That's what the judge says.  No where at all does the judge say there's a requirement or that a law or the person's rights were violated or anything remotely close to that. 

"this is how the law is, they acted within the law, their current policy does not allow for habeus in these cases and if you want to change that the people will have to exercise their options to bring about change. "

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yes. The current law is thus and trump is following the current law. If they want the law changed the people will have to speak out in one fashion or another

The only avenue they seem to have is an appeal to the only branch of their government still standing. The other branch looks like it's given up the fight.

The dark side is easier I guess. The orange side I guess I should say.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The only avenue they seem to have is an appeal to the only branch of their government still standing. The other branch looks like it's given up the fight.

The dark side is easier I guess. The orange side I guess I should say.

You've been spending too much time with Myata   

The law is what the law is, and realistically speaking deportation should happen when people who are in the country cannot prove that they have a right to be there to the authorities. Dragging the issue to court is an effort to delay things unreasonably. Either you're here legally and you can produce documentation which says so or you're not.

If they're not in the country legally then they should be out of the country. And too many illegals make use of the court systems to drag out their illegal stay in the country

If the bad guys know they will be kicked out the moment they're found in the country and they know that there are going to be more problems getting into the country to begin with then fewer bad guys will try And that appears to be the goal of the trump government.

A lot of Americans are completely on board with that goal and why wouldn't they be? So if this is the way to achieve it then so be it. If left-leaning people and democrats wanted it differently than they should have friday and effective rules when they were in charge. And they didn't. Even the ones they proposed wouldn't have solved any problems.

They refused to solve the problem, so now trump is doing it the way he thinks is best. There's a lesson in there

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A lot of Americans are completely on board with that goal and why wouldn't they be?

The question is why they shouldn't be on board and the answer is in their constitution.

If that's up for amendment then so be it but there's a process for that too and I doubt an executive order will cut it.

I expect the SC will probably kick the can towards the legislative branch. What else can they do?

Edited Friday at 01:44 AM by eyeball