Trump's Immigration Reform

[GrantDawg]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pix11.c...-ice-raid/amp/

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news...rsey-business/

[Lathum]

Don't worry guys, a certain poster here has assured us all this will be cleared up in courts.

[Brian Swartz]

Yeah, when something is actually blatantly unconstitutional, it matters not a whit if we don't like the person who said it. It's still blatantly unconstitutional, and any judge who doesn't say so isn't doing the job for which they swore an oath.

What we think the policy should or shouldn't be is irrelevant.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Bottom-line. Sometimes, the President needs to "ready, shoot, aim" to get things done and challenge laws, including constitutional principles just as long as the process is played out

No they don't. They are literally violating their oath of office every single time they do.

Originally Posted by Edward64

See below list of "10 most important executive orders". Where would we be without executive orders.

Strawman alert!! Not wanting blatant overreach by POTUS is not the same as saying all executive orders are bad.

Congress being dysfunctional etc. is a literal expression of the will of the people. This sort of nonsense continues the process of undermining the institutions we have. Some people don't like those institutions, and there are arguably good reasons for that, but that's not the point. As said, if you don't like the system, change it using the established system in place for doing so. If you can't succeed doing that because too many of the people (you know, the ones who are supposed to have the power) don't support that agenda, welp that's 'democracy' in action.

What we have now is a pendulum swinging further and further every time there's a change of power. Thankfully Biden resisted some temptations to push it further, but if you keep making it swing more something critical breaks eventually. In a lot of ways, it's not dissimilar to Julius Caesar. When he pushed up against the institutions of the Roman Republic and found mostly nothing pushing back, well ... there goes the neighborhood.

If you want anarchy/chaos/a major change in our system regardless of what the price is to get it, go for it. If you don't want that, follow the rules like a responsible citizen.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Because I believe the constitution is a living document and the challenges (resulting in clarification, reconfirmation, precedence etc.) to its parts should be continuous (aka in my line of work, there is a concept called "continuous improvement").

If the constitution is 'living' to the point where it means nothing objective and only what those in power say it means, then it means nothing and serves no useful purpose. Either the constitution governs us and we are bound to live by what it says whether we like those things or not until they are changed in the appropriate manner, or we are in a lawless society.

Choose .

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yeah, when something is actually blatantly unconstitutional, it matters not a whit if we don't like the person who said it. It's still blatantly unconstitutional, and any judge who doesn't say so isn't doing the job for which they swore an oath.

What we think the policy should or shouldn't be is irrelevant.

What if you buy their Mom a house?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yeah, when something is actually blatantly unconstitutional, it matters not a whit if we don't like the person who said it. It's still blatantly unconstitutional, and any judge who doesn't say so isn't doing the job for which they swore an oath.

What we think the policy should or shouldn't be is irrelevant.

As I've previously stated ...

Presidents should be able to dispute the legal boundaries ... just as long as there is a timely process to resolve the dispute (e.g. all the way to SCOTUS or leading Congress to write/amend laws etc).

I look forward to all the lawsuits regarding Trump's national emergency, illegal immigration etc. executive orders and their execution. Rooting for Trump on illegal immigration policies but definitely understand if SCOTUS believes some/all of it are an overreach.

There will be mistakes for sure. I'll let it play out.

But out of curiosity, what do you believe is "blatantly unconstitutional"? Is it the (1) raid without the warrant (2) detainment of illegals or (3) detainment of US citizen or something else?

Full text of article below for reference purposes. I frankly don't think there is enough info to make that definitive statement right now.

Immigration agents "raided" a business in Newark on Thursday, according to the city's mayor.

Mayor Ras Baraka said the agents detained multiple people, including United States citizens, a U.S. military veteran and undocumented individuals. According to Baraka, the agents did not produce a warrant.

In a statement, Baraka said in part, "This egregious act is in plain violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees 'the right of the people be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'"

The statement continued, "Newark will not stand by idly while people are being unlawfully terrorized."

A spokesperson for ICE said in a statement:

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may encounter U.S. citizens while conducting field work and may request identification to establish an individual's identity as was the case during a targeted enforcement operation at a worksite today in Newark, New Jersey. This is an active investigation and, per ICE policy, we cannot discuss ongoing investigations."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No they don't. They are literally violating their oath of office every single time they do.

We'll agree to disagree on this

Strawman alert!! Not wanting blatant overreach by POTUS is not the same as saying all executive orders are bad.

Huh? I was responding to below. There are some actions that POTUS should take because "we can't do it the right way". I've provided you evidence of some executive orders that were done to bypass Congress.

It is far better to have laws not get passed/changed that we want, than just taking the 'we can't do it the right way, so we'll do it whatever way we can make work' approach.

Part of the President's job is to enforce the laws as they are. Not to enforce the laws they wish existed.

Your statement seemed pretty much on the assessment that all executive orders that bypass Congress are bad. If you agree that some executive orders are bad, and some executive orders are good (and ultimately, necessary) then we don't disagree.

Congress being dysfunctional etc. is a literal expression of the will of the people. This sort of nonsense continues the process of undermining the institutions we have. Some people don't like those institutions, and there are arguably good reasons for that, but that's not the point. As said, if you don't like the system, change it using the established system in place for doing so. If you can't succeed doing that because too many of the people (you know, the ones who are supposed to have the power) don't support that agenda, welp that's 'democracy' in action.

Presidential Executive Orders is part of the "established system". As far as I know, it's not been rules unconstitutional and has been accepted as part of Presidential powers. Sometimes, it goes through just fine, other times Congress/SCOTUS pushes back and that is the system also. Or in other words, this is (or one option of) the established system.

What we have now is a pendulum swinging further and further every time there's a change of power. Thankfully Biden resisted some temptations to push it further, but if you keep making it swing more something critical breaks eventually. In a lot of ways, it's not dissimilar to Julius Caesar. When he pushed up against the institutions of the Roman Republic and found mostly nothing pushing back, well ... there goes the neighborhood.

Yes, I agree there is risk of definite overreach. No doubt. Specifically, on illegal immigration, I'm willing to give Trump some leeway and see how it plays out in courts.

If the constitution is 'living' to the point where it means nothing objective and only what those in power say it means, then it means nothing and serves no useful purpose. Either the constitution governs us and we are bound to live by what it says whether we like those things or not until they are changed in the appropriate manner, or we are in a lawless society.

Choose .

I highlighted the section where I believe we have the disagreement.

Trump may say what he thinks it means. However, we still have Congress and SCOTUS that can push back.

Obviously, Trump is foremost in mind right now. But it's not as if there's been other Presidents that haven't proclaimed controversial executive orders.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We'll agree to disagree on this

It's like disagreeing that 2+2=4. POTUS has a mandate in the Constitution. There is an oath of office. It says specific things. Among them are "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not defend the parts I like and dispense with those I don't.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your statement seemed pretty much on the assessment that all executive orders that bypass Congress are bad. If you agree that some executive orders are bad, and some executive orders are good (and ultimately, necessary) then we don't disagree.

Not all executive orders bypass Congress. Some are actually within the appropriate powers of the President. Others are not.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump may say what he thinks it means. However, we still have Congress and SCOTUS that can push back.

Sure, but that's beside the point. That's just a tug of war between the branches. That's not what the constitution is supposed to be. It's a standard by which the actions of those branches are judged to be acceptable or not. If it isn't that, it's not a constitution.

Trump pushing and Congress/SCOTUS pushing back is just those various entities expressing their opinion. So if the 'majority view' becomes that every fourth American should be lined up and shot at random, then that's fine, that's what the constitution allows for, because that's what those people said it means.

Or, you have the alternative scenario where that kind of thing is just not acceptable no matter how many politicians think it is, unless you actually amend the Constitution, because we've previously established by appropriate democratic processes that this is not acceptable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news...rsey-business/

Precisely what I'm worried about.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's like disagreeing that 2+2=4. POTUS has a mandate in the Constitution. There is an oath of office. It says specific things. Among them are "will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not defend the parts I like and dispense with those I don't.

Just like anything else, there are differences of opinion/definition/interpretations of what some articles/amendments of constitution means.

Take the 2A. Clearly, there are differences of opinion on the constitutional limits (or not) on that. This predates Trump and has been going on since at least the 80's. Some Presidents think limiting 2A is "defending the constitution of the US" and some other Presidents think not limiting 2A does the same.

Who makes that call? Who's to say what's right. Who's to say which President is "violating their oath"? Presidents do what they believe is right (e.g. sometimes with executive orders) but ultimately, Congress and/or SCOTUS that decides.

Not all executive orders bypass Congress. Some are actually within the appropriate powers of the President. Others are not.

I think it comes down to definition of "bypass". Executive Orders does not require Congressional approval. IMO this essentially bypasses Congress regardless if Congress agrees with it.

Sure, but that's beside the point. That's just a tug of war between the branches. That's not what the constitution is supposed to be. It's a standard by which the actions of those branches are judged to be acceptable or not. If it isn't that, it's not a constitution.

I'm not saying that's what the constitution is supposed to be. I am saying this constant tug of war, tension, pull-push etc. is part of what you called, the "established process", and that's okay assuming there is a process to resolve it.

Trump pushing and Congress/SCOTUS pushing back is just those various entities expressing their opinion. So if the 'majority view' becomes that every fourth American should be lined up and shot at random, then that's fine, that's what the constitution allows for, because that's what those people said it means.

Or, you have the alternative scenario where that kind of thing is just not acceptable no matter how many politicians think it is, unless you actually amend the Constitution, because we've previously established by appropriate democratic processes that this is not acceptable.

Obviously, this is an extreme (and unrealistic) example.

But yes, if (1) President (2) Congress and (3) ultimately SCOTUS approve of every fourth American should be shot at random, that's what's "lawful".

The reality is if this was to happen, there would be civil war, anarchy etc. and the US will cease to exist. And that's why we have the 2A as to push back on this overreach. Maybe use a different example?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Just like anything else, there are differences of opinion/definition/interpretations of what some articles/amendments of constitution means.

Sure, but the point here is that doesn't apply to most things. Differences of opinion are not a blank check; most issues there are clearly established boundaries. The point is that POTUS is mandated to stay within those boundaries whether they agree with them or not.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not saying that's what the constitution is supposed to be. I am saying this constant tug of war, tension, pull-push etc. is part of what you called, the "established process", and that's okay assuming there is a process to resolve it.

It is not part of the established process for Presidents to disregard what they know the Constitution says. That's a violation of the process. You are right that it predates Trump. That's irrelevant. My argument isn't against Trump. It's against this idea that's ok for POTUS to act as if they don't care what established constitutional principles are.

Originally Posted by Edward64

But yes, if (1) President (2) Congress and (3) ultimately SCOTUS approve of every fourth American should be shot at random, that's what's "lawful".

Then the point is made; the Constitution has no power. It shouldn't be used at all, and we should just go by what politicians want to do, since that's going to be the end result anyway.

[Brian Swartz]

This all comes back to what the foundation of the system is. It only works if you believe in the system more than your pet causes. To the issue that miami_fan and Rainmaker were discussing, if what you care about most is having your side win (another example here in your preference for certain changes to immigration policy) then there is no such thing as any meaningful protection against authoritarianism. There has to be a consensus in the country that things like the rule of law, democracy/pluralism, whatever terms or principles you want to mention, have greater importance and value than getting your policy agenda in place.

I agree with them that we don't have that consensus right now. And what that means is that the Republic is living on borrowed time. Statesmanlike restraint is the only thing keeping it from collapsing. An increasing number of people want it to collapse. And I think it inevitably will, probably in my lifetime.

:shrug:

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Sure, but the point here is that doesn't apply to most things. Differences of opinion are not a blank check; most issues there are clearly established boundaries. The point is that POTUS is mandated to stay within those boundaries whether they agree with them or not.

Agree that most, but not all, have "clearly established boundaries". And, I suspect for the more important things, there is more disagreement on the boundaries.

I've proposed 2A as the most contemporary situation where POTUS (and Congress) on both sides have differing opinions (aka boundaries) over the years.

In other words, you and I disagree on "clearly established boundaries". I believe there is room for (re)interpretation/challenge especially for older laws (e.g. 2A, birthright in 1800s) over time. It may result in it being overturned, updated or reconfirmed, and that's a good thing.

It is not part of the established process for Presidents to disregard what they know the Constitution says. That's a violation of the process. You are right that it predates Trump. That's irrelevant. My argument isn't against Trump. It's against this idea that's ok for POTUS to act as if they don't care what established constitutional principles are.

re: the first bolded section, I've used 2A as an example several times now of when multiple Presidents, since the 80s at least, have had their own/differing "interpretation" of the constitution. I don't think I can give you a better example of differing opinions, interpretations on "know(ing) what the constitution says".

re: second bolded section. They care. Presidents care about their interpretation of what the established constitutional principles are (e.g. 2A).

To sum up. IMO executive orders have been normal course of the process for decades. It's accepted as part of Presidential powers to bypass/ignore what Congress has to say, with the understanding that it can be ultimately overridden by Congress or SCOTUS if it is too egregious. If it's as you say, "not part of the established process", then (1) why hasn't it been successfully challenged, struck down by SCOTUS and (2) both parties still using it when convenient to them?

Then the point is made; the Constitution has no power. It shouldn't be used at all, and we should just go by what politicians want to do, since that's going to be the end result anyway.

In your extreme example if it happens, then yes, the Constitution has no power and IMO the country is no more. But your example is not realistic. I suggest using a less extreme and more applicable/real scenario.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Precisely what I'm worried about.

Quoting the worst bit:

Mayor Ras Baraka said the agents detained multiple people, including United States citizens, a U.S. military veteran and undocumented individuals. According to Baraka, the agents did not produce a warrant.

No warrant, and detained actual U.S. citizens on (given ICE's remit) immigration/citizenship suspicions. This is literal police state stuff.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In your extreme example if it happens, then yes, the Constitution has no power and IMO the country is no more. But your example is not realistic. I suggest using a less extreme and more applicable/real scenario.

The rest was impressive goalpost-shifting, but we've reached the point where you and everyone else who may be reading knows what I mean, or else I'm not capable of explaining it in a way that they will be able to understand it, and the difference is immaterial.

On this, of course it's an extreme example, on purpose. But the content of the example is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if it was about some extremely minor nuance of civil law. The issue is how we treat the constitution, not what the specific application is.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The rest was impressive goalpost-shifting

I feel I've been very consistent in my position and stance.

But if you do believe there's been goalpost shifting, feel free to explicitly prove your argument with 1-2-3 bullets (with you said, then you said etc.) and connect the dots by quoting me. It shouldn't be that hard?

[Atocep]

The boundaries of the constitution have been well established over the past 100+ years. Trying to weaken it every so often by testing SCOTUS just undermines and weakens every other part of the constitution. You either accept it and 100+ years of legal precedent or get rid of it.

[Lathum]

My cousin is a teacher in a district that has a heavy Latino population. They received a FAQ today about what to do if ICE attempts to take kids from school or approach anyone on school grounds. I own real estate in this community and the people are lovely, hard working folks just trying to make a living for their family.

We are rapidly entering Nazi Germany.

[miked]

On Fox news, everyone is convinced this is 4D chess and the only reason Trump wrote the EO was to get it to the Supreme Court where suddenly, unlike the second amendment, this one is now open to new interpretation.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

My cousin is a teacher in a district that has a heavy Latino population. They received a FAQ today about what to do if ICE attempts to take kids from school or approach anyone on school grounds. I own real estate in this community and the people are lovely, hard working folks just trying to make a living for their family.

We are rapidly entering Nazi Germany.

Very likely because of what happened in Chicago today.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Very likely because of what happened in Chicago today.

Part of the internal communication was hat to do is a kid shows up for school and tells a teacher their parents have been detained.

The lack of humanity is staggering.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Part of the internal communication was hat to do is a kid shows up for school and tells a teacher their parents have been detained.

The lack of humanity is staggering.

Feature; not a bug. Americans have already given too much humanity. This is 'murica, everyone else needs to give MORE!!!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The boundaries of the constitution have been well established over the past 100+ years. Trying to weaken it every so often by testing SCOTUS just undermines and weakens every other part of the constitution. You either accept it and 100+ years of legal precedent or get rid of it.

I understand this specific discussion topic is running long, and if you do not wish to engage, no problem.

Here's my response to your above ...



I really don't understand this. We have 27 amendments, the first 10 came with the bathwater, so 17 more had been created to reconfirm, clarify, change the Constitution. In other words, some/most/all of the new amendments in its own way, tested the Constitution or the current interpretation of it at that time.

Examples of "boundaries" not well established (at least for some people) and changed ...

I've used the 2A as an example of how people, Presidents, Congress, SCOTUS justices can interpret it differently since at least the 80s (and likely prior). There's been continuous challenges from whatever party is in vogue at the time by passing bills to strengthen or chip away at it. In this case, SCOTUS has confirmed the right to own weapons as it stands now, but anti-gun lawmakers want to change/restrict it even more ... isn't that good?

Take the 15A as an example of where the Constitution had to be "reconfirm, clarify, change" (and toss in 19A Women's rights, and 26A Age 18 also). For context, see below. In other words, this testing of the Constitution has been occurring over time, there may have been some misses but overall, good for the country.

Voting Rights: A Short History | Voting | Carnegie Corporation of New York

The struggle over voting rights in the United States dates all the way back to the founding of the nation. The original U.S. Constitution did not define voting rights for citizens, and until 1870, only white men were allowed to vote. Two constitutional amendments changed that. The Fifteenth Amendment (ratified in 1870) extended voting rights to men of all races. However, this amendment was not enough because African Americans were still denied the right to vote by state constitutions and laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, the “grandfather clause,” and outright intimidation. The Twenty-fourth Amendment (ratified in 1964) partly addressed this injustice by prohibiting the use of poll taxes in federal elections. In addition to these constitutional amendments, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 secured voting rights for adult citizens of all races and genders in the form of federal laws that enforced the amendments.

So take it FWIW. You say this "undermines and weakens" the Constitution, and I can see some truth in that. But I believe the much bigger pro is to "reconfirm, clarify, change" the Constitution as IMO it is a living document and should be tested & changed over time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I feel I've been very consistent in my position and stance.

Haha, good one.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Haha, good one.

As always, feel free to accept the challenge ...

... if you do believe there's been goalpost shifting (or inconsistency), feel free to explicitly prove your argument with 1-2-3 bullets (with you said, then you said etc.) and connect the dots by quoting me. It shouldn't be that hard?

[Atocep]

What makes the constitution a living document is the legal process to amend it. Not Presidents testing the waters on which way SCOTUS is blowing on any given day.

[Edward64]

Not a constitutional scholar so can't really gauge how valid below is, but it did make me wonder and look forward to the SCOTUS reasoning either way.

The key phrase of the 14A (passed in 1866) is ...

Birthright citizenship clause too many forget, but Trump is right to question | Fox News

It says that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of "universal" birthright citizenship.

The anti-birthright argument is ...

... because the sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment made it clear that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. means owing your political allegiance to the U.S., and not to another country.

Congress didn’t intend birthright citizenship to apply to the U.S.-born children of those who owed only a limited allegiance to the United States.

And this is the interesting part ...

Even modern proponents of "universal birthright citizenship" admit that the children born on U.S. soil to diplomats or tribally affiliated Native Americans don’t obtain birthright citizenship. In fact, they and their children were only made citizens through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 — legislation that wouldn’t have been necessary if the Fourteenth Amendment adopted common law rules of universal birthright citizenship.

If the 14th is as plain as "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", then why not diplomats or native Americans (prior to 1924).

Couple additional quotes

The first time the nation’s highest court opined on the meaning of the Citizenship Clause — in the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872 — it stated that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

The Court confirmed this understanding in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, denying birthright citizenship to an American Indian because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe and not the United States.

[RainMaker]

If they are not subject to jurisdiction, they are not subject to our laws at all. I guess sovereign citizens but legal.

The people who wrote the Amendment did speak about what they meant so we dont need a court to parse it. It's mostly up to the court to decide if they want to change the meaning of the Amendment.

[Atocep]

United States v Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v Doe has already established this. This isn't a new question. Trump didn't come up with a new case that no one has thought of in the past 200 years.

[Lathum]

Stephen "Nosfaratu" Miller on CNN saying the floor for immigration arrests is 75/day. Now I am no math expert, but I feel like that falls considerably short of the numbers they would need to get rid of all the illegals...

[JPhillips]

3000 a day

every day

for 10 years

[Ksyrup]

If anyone knows anything about the floor, it would be that POS.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

3000 a day

every day

for 10 years

They were able to hit 1000 on Sunday by ignoring whether or not he person had a criminal record or not. Otherwise they've averaged very slightly more than what the Biden administration was averaging over the past year.

Trump is reportedly pissed they're not able to deport more and, as I mentioned earlier, Homann's own high end goal is around 1,500 per day.

[JPhillips]

This is bound to happen over and over and over again.

3 Puerto Ricans were detained in Milwaukee and taken to an immigration detention center, according to Telemundo.

The family members - a toddler, his mother, and his grandmother - were released after showing IDs, including birth certificates.

— BNO News Live (@BNODesk) January 29, 2025

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is bound to happen over and over and over again.

3 Puerto Ricans were detained in Milwaukee and taken to an immigration detention center, according to Telemundo.

The family members - a toddler, his mother, and his grandmother - were released after showing IDs, including birth certificates.

— BNO News Live (@BNODesk) January 29, 2025

MAGA will tell you it's just the price of doing business. It is fine with them if others are inconvenienced.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

MAGA will tell you it's just the price of doing business. It is fine with them if others are inconvenienced.

Price of doing business? It's intended. They're not white and not American.

[Edward64]

re: use of Guantanamo for illegals ...

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/29/trum...-migrants.html

Trump said there are thousands of beds in Guantanamo to “detain the worst criminal illegal aliens.”

“We don’t want them coming back,” Trump said. “So we’re going to send them out to Guantanamo.”

Full text is not out, so want to read the details. Article doesn't state what I read elsewhere that it will be for illegals where there's a problem sending them back (e.g. their country won't accept them). Sounds good to me.

We want people like him down in Guantanamo.

Twenty-five members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) were arrested by ICE on Monday, Jan. 28, 2025, according to a senior administration official. Photo obtained by ABC.

As for the others not-so-hardcore-criminals, Guantanamo has/is being used as migrant processing center pre-Trump (e.g. happened under Joe and prob under Obama), see below Sept 2024 article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/u...detention.html

Sept. 19, 2024

For decades, migrants intercepted at sea as they try to reach the United States have been sent to a facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a place better known for the U.S. prison camp for terror suspects.

Although migrants are kept in a separate space, they exist in a form of legal limbo, confined to a military base that operates outside of standard American immigration laws. The situation has always been opaque, with little public information about what happens there.

Now, internal government reports obtained by The New York Times, along with interviews with migrants and advocacy groups, have shed more light on the conditions on Guantánamo, including allegations that migrants have been forced to wear blackout goggles during transport through the base; that their calls with lawyers are monitored; and that some areas are unfit for habitation, with rats and overflowing toilets.

With that all said, no problem using it for the hardcore criminals if we can't get them back to their countries.

For all others, no problem holding them there but we do need to make sure it is livable and temporary while working to send them back.

[JPhillips]

We have a federal prison system. There's no point in taking people out of prion and transporting them to a much more expensive to operate prison.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We have a federal prison system. There's no point in taking people out of prion and transporting them to a much more expensive to operate prison.

Wrong priorities IMO. Do you really care where the worst illegals are held, especially those that are already in prison?

I'd be more concerned about the others that might end up there. No problem assuming they've address the issues per the NYT article. Needs to be temporary and livable while trying to get them back to their country.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Wrong priorities IMO. Do you really care where the worst illegals are held, especially those that are already in prison?

I'd be more concerned about the others that might end up there. No problem assuming they've address the issues per the NYT article. Needs to be temporary and livable while trying to get them back to their country.

Because you can't complain about government waste, the deficit, and spending while ignoring government waste.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Because you can't complain about government waste, the deficit, and spending while ignoring government waste.

If looking strictly at $, you may be right. But don't agree about "waste", consider ...

Trump is clearly sending a signal to the hardcore baddies (and the Dems). If this adds to the pile of "Trump is serious" and reduces illegal crossings, how much does that save?

And yes, there's been a drastic drop in illegal crossings already.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If looking strictly at $, you may be right. But don't agree about "waste", consider ...

Trump is clearly sending a signal to the hardcore baddies (and the Dems). If this adds to the pile of "Trump is serious" and reduces illegal crossings, how much does that save?

And yes, there's been a drastic drop in illegal crossings already.

If it's more expensive to ship someone to Guantanamo than put them in one of the many, many federal prisons we have here then it's waste. What's the difference in where they're held? If they're violent criminals I don't care about them being held but sending them to Guantanamo to send a message is waste and not something we've been willing to do to address other issues that are having a larger, negative impact on our society. Doing this to get media attention and send a message is 100% what waste is.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If it's more expensive to ship someone to Guantanamo than put them in one of the many, many federal prisons we have here then it's waste. What's the difference in where they're held? If they're violent criminals I don't care about them being held but sending them to Guantanamo to send a message is waste and not something we've been willing to do to address other issues that are having a larger, negative impact on our society. Doing this to get media attention and send a message is 100% what waste is.

I'd say sending the worst illegals to Guantanamo tells the worst baddies that they can't hang around their other bros in prison and do whatever frakked up things bad guys do in prison.

We're going to disagree whether its a waste (and that's okay, we come at it with different filters). Personally, specific to sending the worst to Guantanamo, I see minimal negative impact to our society. The ones that are in prison have preyed on others and have done real damage to our society.

I am concerned about the others. Those who came in illegally, didn't do anything else bad, were picked up, and their country doesn't want them back. I can see Trump going overboard with those.

[PilotMan]

How will we know that 'only the worst' are going there? Because trump said so? No, this will be for whoever he wants to go there. He can probably make his political enemies go there. He dreams of that sort of power.

[Edward64]

JPhillips scenario was ...

We have a federal prison system. There's no point in taking people out of prion and transporting them to a much more expensive to operate prison.

If they are in federal prison, I'd classify them (at least the majority) as worst.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'd say sending the worst illegals to Guantanamo tells the worst baddies that they can't hang around their other bros in prison and do whatever frakked up things bad guys do in prison.

If you're intending to hold up to 30,000 people they're going to make new friends. I don't know what your expectations are but we've never held more than around 800 people there and that was at a cost of about $500 million per year.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If you're intending to hold up to 30,000 people they're going to make new friends. I don't know what your expectations are but we've never held more than around 800 people there and that was at a cost of about $500 million per year.

I'm only worried about the worst making new friends. Those should certainly NOT co-mingle with the crossed-illegal-but-didn't-do-anything-else crowd, some will likely end up there.

I don't know how much housing all of them will really cost, but I am pretty sure the reduction in illegal border crossing, over the long term, will more than make up for it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Haven't seen this in MSM but ... FAFO. Didn't want to compromise with Joe as lesser of 2 evils? You'll figure it out pretty quick. Looking forward to your TikTok posts decrying this fascism.

Trump launches anti-Semitism crackdown as he orders deportation of pro-Hamas students who terrorized campuses | Daily Mail Online

The order has been signed. See ...

Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism – The White House

The relevant passage is

(e) In addition to identifying relevant authorities to curb or combat anti-Semitism generally required by this section, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with each other, shall include in their reports recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)

Googling that section is below, under 2 broad groups

Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3), an alien may be inadmissible if they are involved in terrorist activity or activities that could have serious foreign policy consequences.

Terrorist activity (lots of bullets but highlighted 3 I think Trump may use e.g. they are pretty broad)

• Threatening to kill, injure, or detain someone to force a third party to act in a certain way
• Violently attacking an internationally protected person
• Attempting, threatening, or conspiring to commit any of the above

Foreign policy consequences (generic catch all)

• The Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe the alien's entry or activities could have serious adverse foreign policy consequences

... so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds and for ensuring that such reports about aliens lead, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.

I'm sure the Universities will push back and this will go to the courts. But yeah, any non-US student organizers of the protests should be really worried right now. Foreign student participants should be sweating a little. Lots of videos around.

[JPhillips]

Less than 20000 people total are in high-security federal prisons.