SCOTUS rules 7-2 to stop the Trump administration from deporting a class of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act

[TheTexan]

Unlimited pie economists will tell you that Unlimited immigration will just create Unlimited pie.

A Nobel prize winning economist who coined the phrase there is no such thing as a free lunch said that unlimited migration in America post 1914 would eventually make everyone in America equally poor.

Lol unlimited pie. That's a good way of describing how retarded it is.

 

[TheTexan]

Never mind all that...what is the solution?

The solution is we hold hands around the campfire singing songs of open borders and free trade and then the NAP fairy will ride out with us on unicorns and we'll live happily ever after.

 

[unknown]

They're deporting legal residents.

But deporting people who are here illegally is an issue? Since when?

Or is this really about condemning people to a life sentence?

Not that the Supreme Fraud ever GAF about principles of freedom or liberty.

 

[Swordsmyth]

.

Said every tyrant… ever.

Carry on.

The judges are the tyrants.
You would call the Founders tyrants for taking action against Parliament and the King.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Kind of underlines the importance of Habeas within the judicial context, doesn't it? Without Habeas, there is no check against executive power over the individual, and you're subject to the whims of a tyrant.


Had Biden attempted to declare that January 6th constituted a case of rebellion (in the same fashion that Trump evidently is attempting to declare illegal immigration to be a case of invasion), and then denied habeas to the J6 defendants, I'm fairly certain that the Supreme Court would have acted just as quickly.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I blah blah blah

"I support globalism, and the great replacement."
"I also support one party communist rule through importing voters"

 

[nobody's_hero]

What gets me about these arguments, is that, if the illegals had been stopped from entering at the border (like they were supposed to have been), that would've been the end of it, right then and there.

Now it's a long, drawn-out legal process with judges and executive branches fighting over something that shouldn't even be an issue.

Keep in mind that none of these judges are arguing over whether these people should be here in the first place. They'd lose that argument before the judge could barely declare court is in session, and the embarrassment would be insufferable. They're arguing over whether they should be sent back.

They entered illegally, send them back. Move on.

 

[TheTexan]

Now it's a long, drawn-out legal process with judges and executive branches fighting over something that shouldn't even be an issue.

Most people who make an issue of this don't want them deported at all, and are just using whatever excuse they can find.

They oppose the MAAA (Make America America Again) agenda with every fiber of their being.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Most people who make an issue of this don't want them deported at all, and are just using whatever excuse they can find.

They oppose the MAAA (Make America America Again) agenda with every fiber of their being.

More importantly, they support the Great Replacement and White Genocide.
They want to destroy America and liberty, no matter what lies they tell about their motives.

 

[Invisible Man]

Remember back when this site was young and things like the PATRIOT Act, the various iterations of NDAA, the Gitmo prison, etc., were the things that most galvanized Ron Paul supporters, and site members would have unanimously castigated any SCOTUS that *didn't* rule against those things?

 

[Snowball]

We don't know yet how long the lower court will outline in its procedures for the detained to make arguments and provide evidence.

This may be a non-issue if it is a reasonable and clear process. 24 hours is not long enough to gather/request documents and evidences.

Perhaps a month would work. But if this becomes another lawfare matter, there will be another ruling, and the court will flip.

 

[nikcers]

Remember back when this site was young and things like the PATRIOT Act, the various iterations of NDAA, the Gitmo prison, etc., were the things that most galvanized Ron Paul supporters, and site members would have unanimously castigated any SCOTUS that *didn't* rule against those things?

I didn't like the patriot act because I wanted the right to privacy. Not that I didnt want the government to go after terrorists.

I liked the idea that we live in a country where we the people had the power and we could in fact elect someone like a Ron Paul for president who could restore the 4th amendment and if they ran on that issue and won the election that they could change the long standing status quo because they would be using the power technically held by the people.

Now we have a president who was elected to deport illegal immigrants and dangerous alien enemies who hurt the American people. He ran on that issue and got elected to do that.

So technically I want the president to be able to carry out his policy he was elected for, for the same reason why I wanted Ron Paul to be able to carry out a policy he got elected for if he became president.

What is the point of having elections if judges can cancel the policy of the people who elect the government?

We aren't supposed to be an autocracy where judges hold all the power and the people are powerless because the people we elect can't do what the people elected them to do.

 

[Invisible Man]

I didn't like the patriot act because I wanted the right to privacy. Not that I didnt want the government to go after terrorists.

That's the problem. When you give the executive branch a blank check to violate anyone's rights they want to violate as long as they first declare that they believe they're a terrorist without having to prove it, then it will be done to people who aren't really terrorists.

 

[TheTexan]

That's the problem. When you give the executive branch a blank check to violate anyone's rights they want to violate as long as they first declare that they believe they're a terrorist without having to prove it, then it will be done to people who aren't really terrorists.

Is that a problem, or a solution?

 

[nikcers]

That's the problem. When you give the executive branch a blank check to violate anyone's rights they want to violate as long as they first declare that they believe they're a terrorist without having to prove it, then it will be done to people who aren't really terrorists.

So it's the peoples power to deport that the government is using not the governments. Its the peoples power to remove dangerous aliens from our country.

We exercise our power through our government. Its self government.

Your argument is basically the government shouldn't have guns because what if they decide to use them on us.

In our country the people have the guns.

 

[oyarde]

Remember back when this site was young and things like the PATRIOT Act, the various iterations of NDAA, the Gitmo prison, etc., were the things that most galvanized Ron Paul supporters, and site members would have unanimously castigated any SCOTUS that *didn't* rule against those things?

By 1961 I guess American decline was becoming evident . CIA couldnt even take Bay of Pigs w/ 6 battalions of 233 Cubans ea. I mean seriously , pretty crappy recruiting , training and execution.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Invisible Man]

So it's the peoples power to deport that the government is using not the governments. Its the peoples power to remove dangerous aliens from our country.

We exercise our power through our government. Its self government.

Your argument is basically the government shouldn't have guns because what if they decide to use them on us.

In our country the people have the guns.

The government doesn't, can't, and never has, really represented the people. The entire purpose of having a government is for there to be a double standard where it is allowed to do things the people aren't permitted to do.

But that's beside the point. Just because you are part of the group you call "the people," that doesn't give you a right to remove from the country anyone you want simply by calling them a dangerous alien without having to prove they actually are one. And as you have no such right, nor can you delegate that right to the government to do on your behalf.

 

[Voluntarist]

How many peaceful people?

Is there any number that would be enough for you to say, "Ok, enough. There are now so many of you, the US has changed into something totally different than what you came here for"?

I'd allow the opportunities available here be the throttle to regulate the entry of new people. When the opportunities aren't there, new migrants tend to stop coming (as during the Covid time period - when they were self-deporting). The exception to that "opportunity" rule seems to be those those cases in which the government meddles to bring in people and provide then with support (private charity does a much better job of that than does the government). The perspective you seem to be espousing is the same one the Know-Nothings used against the Irish "race", then the German "race", etc. (French, Italian, Chinese) - that they couldn't be assimilated. I fear them less that the "citizens" that are already here and who advocate that the President can unilaterally decide when Habeas and Due Process can be suspended and to whom based upon some redefinition of "Invasion" and "Rebellion".

But you didn't address that possible solution I proposed to what you consider to be the problem - the proposal being to pursue those employers who violate the law by providing jobs to those who are not legally eligible to work in the US - doing more than giving them a slap on the wrist, and actually fining them and/or imprisoning them. Cut the head off the snake. The laws for that are already on the books - just enforce them. By doing that, employers violating the law learn - that takes away the employment opportunity for those not authorized to work in the US. When all you do is go after and remove an unauthorized worker, all you've done is vacate that job positions which thereby opens the position up for the next unauthorized worker ... rinse, repeat. Why aren't they going after the employers? It's seems like entrapment to me - the employer offers the undocumented guy a job and then ICE arrests the employee rather than the employer (and then the employer turns around and hired another undocumented guy).

And in Nashville last week, the employers were telling their undocumented workers to go home because ICE was active in the area and the workers might be apprehended. How is that any different from the case of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested for shepherding an undocumented immigrant out a back door in an attempt to avoid ICE.

 

[Invisible Man]

But you didn't address that possible solution I proposed to what you consider to be the problem - the proposal being to pursue those employers who violate the law by providing jobs to those who are not legally eligible to work in the US - doing more than giving them a slap on the wrist, and actually fining them and/or imprisoning them. Cut the head off the snake. The laws for that are already on the books - just enforce them. By doing that, employers violating the law learn - that takes away the employment opportunity for those not authorized to work in the US. When all you do is go after and remove an unauthorized worker, all you've done is vacate that job positions which thereby opens the position up for the next unauthorized worker ... rinse, repeat.

Not to butt in here, but I don't see that as a solution. That is the problem. The government has no right to tell us who we can and can't hire.