Trump's Immigration Reform

[Passacaglia]

So this article is saying the courts are powerless -- but that doesn't mean the administration is powerless. That feels like an important distinction.

[QuikSand]

I interpret that to mean there's a normal legal process where the courts of one nation contact those of another nation for extradition or, in this case, formally requested return. But for whatever legal reason, that doesn't apply here. (Out of my depth)

So, sure, this Administration could "do something." Send in a SEAL team, I don't know what else the Executive Branch could do. Pass an Executive Order directing El Salvador to do something? Apply diplomatic pressure? But we know they are feckless and heartless, so I suspect they have adopted the "courts cannot do it" as the all purpose explanation for inaction.

[Passacaglia]

That feels like overcomplicating it. Can't the administration just tell El Salvador "hey we need that guy back" if they *wanted* to?

Also -- is El Salvador our closest ally now?

[RainMaker]

They could just demand them send him back immediately. I know America is on this humiliation kink with letting small countries push us around, but this shouldn't be a hard one.

[GrantDawg]

I'm pretty sure if this person was white they could get them back. But then, getting rid of brown people is really the whole point. This is more a feature than a bug.

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Do we still have a state department or did Elons flying monkeys cut that also.

[RainMaker]

They're a little busy scouring the web to make sure no student liked a tweet critical of Israel.

[QuikSand]

A bit more digging into this story suggests, to me, it’s not as fully sympathetic as it seems in the anti-Trump portrayal, no shock. This is a guy that the Administration actively doesn’t want back.

[QuikSand]

And I need to GTFO of politics threads

[JPhillips]

Border crossings in Washington State from Canada were down 40% from this March to March 2024. Again, what are we getting from blowing up this relationship?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Border crossings in Washington State from Canada were down 40% from this March to March 2024. Again, what are we getting from blowing up this relationship?

Less people driving slow in the left hand lane.

[Lathum]

I heard a story the other day about how tourism in Maine is really going to suffer this summer because a large portion of their summer business is Canadiens.

[GrantDawg]

Bookings down like down 70% if I remember correctly. I wish I had the money, because I have always wanted to go there and it sounds like there might be some deals.

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Short term tourism will hurt but long term it'll be the enormous brain drain that will hurt the most. No scientists, teachers, or anyone with talent is going to risk coming here now. Toss that in with defunding all the science grants with DOGE, and many of our scientists will be fleeing for better countries.

I guess they're trying to emulate Israel or Hungary at this point, but who fucking knows.

[Lathum]

I realized it is a lot less contentious around here and saw Edward hasn't been on in 11 days. Hope he is OK.

[GrantDawg]

Is he traveling? He might be out of the country. I noticed he hadn't posted but i didn't realize it had been that long.

[Ghost Econ]

This is like a Candyman situation. no one else speak the name.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It was not supposed to be up to 30,000 total. It was 30,000 total a month across the four countries when it was revised to include Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua (the CHN of the program). Venezuela had its own program before that and that was based on the parole program created for Ukraine. 541,150 people was vetted and authorized for travel and 531,690 people actually traveled and entered lawfully. The breakdown of that last group is as follows:

You are right. I saw this quote and assumed 30k total and didn't mention "monthly".

On January 5, 2023, the Biden administration announced its intent to provide “safe and orderly pathways to the United States” for up to 30,000 nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The new program, formally known as the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV), allows certain people from these four countries who have a sponsor in the U.S. and who pass a background check to come to the U.S. for a period of two years to live and work lawfully, using a legal mechanism known as “humanitarian parole.”

The creation of this new parole program, however, was coupled with restricted access to asylum at the U.S./Mexico border for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Starting in January 2023, the government of Mexico agreed to allow the U.S. to expel up to 30,000 migrants from those countries to Mexico each month—preventing them from requesting asylum under U.S. immigration law. With the expiration of the Title 42 order in May 2023, the U.S. announced that it would formally deport some migrants from these countries to Mexico instead of to their home countries.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Nice try with the legalese. I specifically avoided the word "admitted" or "admission" because of what those words mean in the immigration sphere. What I said was that prior to this action, they were here legally. Full Stop. No need for any quotes. And as such, according to you, this would be a case where Americans would approve of this action. I look forward to the polling to see if this is the case.

I don't understand the distinction. Per your quote below, how can one be "immigrants that were in the country legally" if they were not "admitted/admission legally"?

I'm not saying you are incorrect but I need a couple examples. Give me a couple use-cases where they immigrants can be in the US legally if they were not admitted legally?

Originally Posted by miami_fan View Post
So...

The people affected by this action by the administration were immigrants that were in the country legally, correct?

And they are now being treated in the same manner as the immigrants who are in the country illegally, correct?

Interesting.

This case is an example of why I say there is no distinction.

You may not see the distinction. However, with my caveat there is not perfect poll/survey, I have provided plenty of evidence that the US public (which is what we were talking about, not specifically Trump) views legal & illegal immigrants differently.

My challenge to you still stands ...

... and my ask of you still stands

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I realized it is a lot less contentious around here and saw Edward hasn't been on in 11 days. Hope he is OK.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Is he traveling? He might be out of the country. I noticed he hadn't posted but i didn't realize it had been that long.

See the Fun Travels thread. Still alive!

Enjoying life and then Apr 2 hit.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

BREAKING: A Russian scientist who opposed Putin’s war, fled Russia & found work at Harvard was detained at Logan Airport returning from a French academic conference and has been sent to an immigration detention center in Louisiana for deportation to Russia

Kseniia Petrova was arrested after she failed to declare biological specimens (frog embryos) in her luggage. If she is deported, she will be sent to France, not Russia.

And from another article ...

“A subsequent K9 inspection uncovered undeclared Petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits," the spokesperson said. "Messages found on her phone revealed she planned to smuggle the materials through customs without declaring them. She knowingly broke the law and took deliberate steps to evade it," the spokesperson said.”

If true, my quote below stands

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post

But no, not going to spend much time worrying about (name). There are more worthy illegals & legal non-citizens to worry about. Spend more time worrying about the below (other) situation ...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

lol

Just a moment...

As I've said, I can accept Israel influences our immigration policy re: Palestine and Lebanon.

No, you didn't say "centered around Israel" previously. You claimed of "full control of our immigration policies", and that is la-la-land. It's a big world out there.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

ICE detained a graduate student at my daughter's college and have told the admin the student visa is being revoked. Not clear yet what the issue is.

The U.S. government claims on Reyes Mota’s I-213 form, a document the Department of Homeland Security uses to support that someone is deportable, that he “may be a Tren de Aragua associate.”

I agree that these 2 cases look like overreach to me. I haven't found anything extra/bad.

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
But no, not going to spend much time worrying about (name). There are more worthy illegals & legal non-citizens to worry about. Spend more time worrying about the below situation ...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just like with migrant families last time, they have no concern as to whether they are brutalizing innocent people.

Originally Posted by Lathum

But according to Edward he can just let the legal process play out and all will be good. Until the administration tells you they can't do anything about it now, which is of course a lie.

re: Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia

I dug a little deeper and seems like a bad guy who knows how to play the legal system.

Media Lie About Deported 'Maryland Father's' Legal Status

Abrego Garcia illegally crossed the border in 2011 and was “detained in March 2019 and charged with removability.” He was denied bond in 2019 after an immigration judge concluded that evidence “show[ed] [Abrego Garcia] is a verified member of MS-13” and that Abrego Garcia did not prove “that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others.”

The judge also found that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk, noting he had a “history of failing to appear for proceedings pertaining to his traffic violations.” As pointed out by Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article 3 Project,

the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Abrego Garcia’s appeal and “affirmed the immigration judge’s findings on dangerousness.”

Six months later, Abrego Garcia filed a new claim, this time for asylum, “withholding of removal to El Salvador,” and “protection under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture,”

The judge “found Abrego Garcia’s account ‘credible,’” Chamberlain explained,
:
Abrego Garcia was granted a withholding of removal to El Salvador.

But that’s not the same as a legal right to stay in the United States — it just means that he has a legal right not to be removed to one specific country.

Whether Abrego Garcia shouldn’t have been deported specifically to El Salvador doesn’t change the fact that he nonetheless should have been removed from this country years ago.

Bottom-line. Not innocent per Immigration judges. Should have been deported. But should not have been deported to El Salvador. That's the administrative mistake that Trump Admin conceded.

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That feels like overcomplicating it. Can't the administration just tell El Salvador "hey we need that guy back" if they *wanted* to?

Also -- is El Salvador our closest ally now?

And yes, it's BS that Trump can't get him back. The reality is he does not want him back regardless of the admin "mistake"

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't understand the distinction. Per your quote below, how can one be "immigrants that were in the country legally" if they were not "admitted/admission legally"?

I'm not saying you are incorrect but I need a couple examples. Give me a couple use-cases where they immigrants can be in the US legally if they were not admitted legally?

Here is the over-simplified answer.

Under immigration law, admission is basically represented by the visa program. You are admitted into the country under whatever visa and once you get here you can start moving to other legal statuses under immigration law Admission means pathways to permanent residence and/or citizenship are free to go just about anywhere in this country, and not having to report to DHS. Noncitizens can be here legally and not have a visa, have no pathways to permanent residence and/or citizenship and must report to DHS on a regular basis. Here are your couple of examples.

Example #1- A kidney donor does not necessarily receive a visa to come to the US to donate the kidney. They are allowed in for the procedure and the recovery and once that is complete they leave. They are here legally but are not considered to have been admitted into the country.

Example #2- The confidential informant that identified Kilmar Abrego Garcia as an member of MS 13 could be here or could have been here legally to testify against him while again not being admitted into the country. He or she probably will never meet the criteria to be admitted into the country.But he can be here legally.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Here is the over-simplified answer.

Under immigration law, admission is basically represented by the visa program. You are admitted into the country under whatever visa and once you get here you can start moving to other legal statuses under immigration law Admission means pathways to permanent residence and/or citizenship

Agree that generally that once you are in the US legally, you can "try but not guaranteed" to adjust status successfully. If you are in the US illegally, there are not near as many options and is not as likely

... are free to go just about anywhere in this country, and not having to report to DHS.

Yes, on travel anywhere in the US. No on reporting requirements, see below. Note this reporting requirement includes Green Card/PR. If you have a different source, please provide link and quote.

Requirements to Carry Immigration Registration Document and Report Change of Address | NAFSA

Report address changes within 10 days - All noncitizens living in the United States must report any change of address within 10 days of the address change.

[Edward64]

And for our real discussion ...

From my challenge above

I'm not saying you are incorrect but I need a couple examples. Give me a couple use-cases where they immigrants can be in the US legally if they were not admitted legally?

You answered ...

Noncitizens can be here legally and not have a visa, have no pathways to permanent residence and/or citizenship and must report to DHS on a regular basis. Here are your couple of examples.

This is NOT what you said previously. Your post that started this discussion is below. Note you specifically used the word "immigrants" and not non-citizens.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Trump's Immigration Reform

Originally Posted by miami_fan View Post
So...

The people affected by this action by the administration were immigrants that were in the country legally, correct?

And they are now being treated in the same manner as the immigrants who are in the country illegally, correct?

Interesting.

Your examples below are NOT "immigrants in this country legally".

Foreigners that come into the US with a visa or without a visa are definitely non-citizens but they are not necessarily immigrants. You need a special visa to be an immigrant.

Example #1- A kidney donor does not necessarily receive a visa to come to the US to donate the kidney. They are allowed in for the procedure and the recovery and once that is complete they leave. They are here legally but are not considered to have been admitted into the country.

Don't know if true, but even if true a kidney donor does not need to have a visa, that kidney donor is a non-citizen but is NOT an immigrant.

Example #2- The confidential informant that identified Kilmar Abrego Garcia as an member of MS 13 could be here or could have been here legally to testify against him while again not being admitted into the country. He or she probably will never meet the criteria to be admitted into the country.But he can be here legally.

Even if he was here "legally to testify against him while not being admitted into the country", the informant is a non-citizen but would NOT be an immigrant.


Below is a list of all immigrant and non-immigrant visa types. Your kidney donor probably falls under non-immigrant B2

Directory of Visa Categories

In summary. You started this discussion about "immigrants in this country legally". You are now using the word non-citizen. All immigrants are non-citizens certainly, but not all non-citizens are immigrants. The 2 examples you provided fall under the latter category.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

re: Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia

I dug a little deeper and seems like a bad guy who knows how to play the legal system.

Media Lie About Deported 'Maryland Father's' Legal Status






Bottom-line. Not innocent per Immigration judges. Should have been deported. But should not have been deported to El Salvador. That's the administrative mistake that Trump Admin conceded.


And yes, it's BS that Trump can't get him back. The reality is he does not want him back regardless of the admin "mistake"

Case might a little murkier that what your posts claims:

Vance was wrong: Maryland father accidentally deported to El Salvador isn't 'convicted MS-13 gang member' | Snopes.com

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Case might a little murkier that what your posts claims:

Vance was wrong: Maryland father accidentally deported to El Salvador isn't 'convicted MS-13 gang member' | Snopes.com

The federalist was wrong about something?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And for our real discussion ...

From my challenge above

You answered ...



This is NOT what you said previously. Your post that started this discussion is below. Note you specifically used the word "immigrants" and not non-citizens.

Incorrect.

An immigrant is a person who comes to this country or goes to another country to take on permanent residence. That's it. A visa is one way albeit the most common way to come to this country legally in order to begin living here permanently. A visa application is someone telling the United States that I want to come to there either as a tourist, immigrant, non-immigrant etc and stay in accordance with what the law says of those categories. An approved visa is the U.S admitting someone into the country in accordance with the approved visa application. Just because someone showed up here on a tourist or non immigrant visa does not mean they don't actually want to live here permanently. It is very possible that they do want to live here but those visas was the best entry points to get here. Same for anyone who has come under the TPS program or in this case the parole program. Only the person knows for sure what their intentions are. This is not me casting anyone in any sort of devious light. It is just me acknowledging the reality. Keep in mind, there are probably people who could have used the CHNV program who chose not to because they did not want to stay here permanently. There are people in the CHNV program who would love to go home now. I assume that if it were safe to do so they would have already left. There are also people who have decided that this is now home and are taking steps to remain here.

Like it or not, our immigration laws allow for people to legally enter the country under a variety of laws and programs beside the visa program. They also allow those people to change from one program to another and in more limited situations to change their immigration status after getting here in order to stay here on a permanent basis. They are given legal permission to be here as they go through that process.

So the organ donor who has wanted to permanently reside here with her sibling but could not get a visa took advantage of a horrible situation to receive permission (as opposed to being admitted) to come to the U.S. for the transplant and recovery, then be allowed to stay under some other program as a caregiver for her sibling or because her homeland does not have the facilities to take care of the organ donor post surgery and then receive a green card at some point after that and finally receiving U.S. citizenship. Yeah that was a true story. There are millions of non citizens, green card holders and even U.S. citizens who initially came here to take on permanent residence (immigrants) and never received a visa of any sort before legally entering the country. Here is another example.

Would you suggest that the Cubans who entered the country legally under the wet foot/dry foot provision under the parole program for all those years, stayed here 20 or 30 years, started businesses and families and even died here, did not plan on staying here permanently when they arrived? Before they left? I wouldn't. I would suggest that they planned to make the U.S. their permanent residence as soon as they were allowed to leave Cuba even if they chose not to become gain Permanent Resident status here in the U.S. which many did not. Would you call them immigrants? Because we have called them immigrants since they first came. Oh and guess what we did not require them have to come into the country that whole time? A visa. Is that a better example for you?

So yes, I do say that there are immigrants who are here legally that have not been admitted into the country because that is the reality and has been for more than seven decades.

https://www.cato.org/blog/126-parole...-parole-orders

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Case might a little murkier that what your posts claims:

Vance was wrong: Maryland father accidentally deported to El Salvador isn't 'convicted MS-13 gang member' | Snopes.com

Snopes is correct, Vance was incorrect in saying he was "convicted", but the Federalist link does not claim otherwise (e.g. does not say the father was "convicted").

The Maryland father was not convicted. Regardless, he was found to be deportable/removable by an immigration judge and then confirmed by the immigration appeals process.

An illegal immigrant does NOT need to be convicted of a crime/anything to be deportable.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Incorrect.

An immigrant is a person who comes to this country or goes to another country to take on permanent residence. That's it.

The key word is "permanent" and I believe your argument is someone that comes "intending/wants" to live in US on a permanent basis is an immigrant. I'll concede that is a common "webster" definition.

However, per US government definition, "intends/wants" is not good enough ...

Glossary | OHSS - Office of Homeland Security Statistics

Immigrant: Any person lawfully in the United States who is not a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or person admitted under a nonimmigrant category as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 101(a)(15).

or to be clear, let me reword it some in parenthesis

Immigrant: Any person lawfully in the United States who is not a U.S. citizen, (not a) U.S. national, or (not a) person admitted under a nonimmigrant category as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 101(a)(15).

And just to anticipate your question about "how about those that come in without a visa". The ETSA program falls under the "nonimmigrant category".

So yes, I do say that there are immigrants who are here legally that have not been admitted into the country because that is the reality and has been for more than seven decades.

https://www.cato.org/blog/126-parole...-parole-orders

The Cato link pertains to people on "parole" and are not considered immigrants. They can apply and try change their category into an immigrant visa, but being a parolee itself is not an immigrant.

Page not found | American Immigration Council.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise discretion to temporarily allow certain noncitizens to physically enter or remain in the United States if they are applying for admission but do not have a legal basis for being admitted.

While individuals who receive a grant of parole are allowed to enter the United States, they are not provided with an immigration status nor are they formally “admitted” into the country for purposes of immigration law.

[RainMaker]

BREAKING: US to revoke all visas held by South Sudanese passport holders

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) April 5, 2025

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The key word is "permanent" and I believe your argument is someone that comes "intending/wants" to live in US on a permanent basis is an immigrant. I'll concede that is a common "webster" definition.

However, per US government definition, "intends/wants" is not good enough ...

Glossary | OHSS - Office of Homeland Security Statistics

or to be clear, let me reword it some in parenthesis

This is the hill you are fighting on?

I am comfortable using your definition. However, before I go there I have a better reword for you. The reword from the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a)(15)

(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens-

Yeah, not exactly politically correct but I guess it has not been changed since 1952 which is part of my point Guess what provision is not one of the non immigrant categories/classes then or now despite this provision being created within this Act back in 1952? Oh and line 3 defines alien as anyone who is not a US citizen or US national.

Anyways, using the definition that you posted, the people that are here under the four humanitarian parole programs that make up the CHNV

1. Not U.S. citizens. They are citizens of Cuba, Hati, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

2. Not U.S. nationals. They are nationals of those countries.

3. Were not admitted* into the country. As such, they were also not admitted into a non immigrant category.

* As defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 101(a)(13A and 13), the terms "admission" and "admitted" mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.

(B) An alien who is paroled under section 1182(d)(5) of this title or permitted to land temporarily as an alien crewman shall not be considered to have been admitted.

So based on all parts of your definition, people who came here under CHNV are immigrants. If they apply for an immigration visa, they would apply under a specific category i.e. F41(Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens, new arrivals) or F46(Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizens, adjustments) and must relinquish parole status in order to be considered for permanent residence.

If your argument is that the conditions in those countries are no longer restricting those people from going back to their home nations, I can understand that. I can disagree but understand. If you tell me it provides a loophole and allows people to skip the immigration line, I understand and can sort of agree. But what is not under any dispute is the intent of my original statement.

So...

The people affected by this action by the administration were immigrants that were in the country legally, correct?

And they are now being treated in the same manner as the immigrants who are in the country illegally, correct?

Interesting.

I do acknowledge that according to the definition you posted, immigrants can't be in the country illegally but I think you get what I mean.

[Edward64]

Before I respond, please confirm this doc you are referring to?

8 USC 1101: Definitions


So just so I am clear on what we are discussing right now, please confirm below "discussion topic"...

1) I believe we are discussing what the definition of an "immigrant" is per US government definitions, right?

and your argument is

2) Someone on CHNV parole program from Cuba, Hati, Nicaragua and Venezuela is considered an "immigrant" per US government definitions?

or

3) My earlier link/quote on definition of immigrant in #832 is not completely accurate and your link in USC 1101 is more accurate and shows someone on CHNV parole program is considered an "immigrant" per US government definitions?

or

4) You agree that someone on CHNV parole program is NOT considered an "immigrant" per US government definitions?

Can you please confirm if we are talking about 2-3-4 or a combination? If it's something else, feel free to propose a wording

[RainMaker]

Lawyer for U-M protester held at airport; refused to give feds his phone

[flere-imsaho]

If there's ever another Democratic President, they should, on day one, issue an executive order stating that the 4th amendment applies even at border crossings and airports (for American citizens at least) and specifically this means any government agency must have a judicial search warrant to seize electronic devices.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Before I respond, please confirm this doc you are referring to?

8 USC 1101: Definitions


So just so I am clear on what we are discussing right now, please confirm below "discussion topic"...

1) I believe we are discussing what the definition of an "immigrant" is per US government definitions, right?

and your argument is

2) Someone on CHNV parole program from Cuba, Hati, Nicaragua and Venezuela is considered an "immigrant" per US government definitions?

or

3) My earlier link/quote on definition of immigrant in #832 is not completely accurate and your link in USC 1101 is more accurate and shows someone on CHNV parole program is considered an "immigrant" per US government definitions?

or

4) You agree that someone on CHNV parole program is NOT considered an "immigrant" per US government definitions?

Can you please confirm if we are talking about 2-3-4 or a combination? If it's something else, feel free to propose a wording

1. Yes that is the document and that is the definition.

2. Correct.

3. Your definition is not completely accurate. Your definition is fine. Your interpretation of the definition is not in keeping with how it is used and has been used. Conversely if someone is not lawfully in the U.S, we would and sometimes still do call them "illegal immigrants"

[RainMaker]

This is one of the groups handing over lists of people to deport to the government.

StopAntisemitism is calling on Attorney General Bondi to investigate if Ms. Rachel is being funded by a foreign party to push anti-Israel propaganda to skew public opinion.

Since 10/7, Ms. Rachel has transformed into an amplifier of Hamas propaganda, broadcasting to 20M+… pic.twitter.com/15bZArdX1g

— StopAntisemitism (@StopAntisemites) April 8, 2025

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

1. Yes that is the document and that is the definition.

2. Correct.

3. Your definition is not completely accurate. Your definition is fine. Your interpretation of the definition is not in keeping with how it is used and has been used. Conversely if someone is not lawfully in the U.S, we would and sometimes still do call them "illegal immigrants"

Thanks for confirming/clarifying

I’m not able to get my laptop on the hotel sign on page right now (works on mobile, beats me) and will respond later as it’ll take more typing.

[cuervo72]

@nhannahjones.bsky.social on Bluesky

This is what the so-called war on “woke” was always about it, convincing people that what happens to the marginalized can’t happen to them. It can, it will. First, challenge citizenship by birth. Then, unconstitutionally expel citizens from their own country. “Deport” is the incorrect word, btw.

[flere-imsaho]

They're literally deporting people with a stronger technical right to U.S. residency/citizenship than Melania & Elon. This isn't about doing what's right, it's about getting rid of people they don't like.

[RainMaker]

Trump on deportations: We are going to work with farmers. If they have strong recommendations for their farms for certain people we’re going to let them stay in for a while… we have to take care of our farmers and our hotels and various places where they need the people pic.twitter.com/OQEScOnGkq

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 10, 2025

[Ghost Econ]

But... These are the jobs they're stealing from white people... I mean Americans.

[PilotMan]

"We're going to close the loopholes that all these people are taking advantage of!



We're going to make some loopholes. But only for people who really really really need it"

[Ghost Econ]

Meanwhile, part of his prior talk was about making sure we got the best and brightest to come work here... you know, to work cheaply for the jobs white America actually want. Its almost like conservatives are too stupid to live.


Oh, and the Supreme Court says we have to bring back the guy we wrongly sent to the El Salvadorean concentration camp. So my guess is he'll accidently fall onto a group of shivs before he can be brought back.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

Meanwhile, part of his prior talk was about making sure we got the best and brightest to come work here... you know, to work cheaply for the jobs white America actually want. Its almost like conservatives are too stupid to live.

That changed when Israel decided we can't have students who oppose genocide.

I guess they're just throwing shit at a wall at this point.



[flere-imsaho]

Honestly, that sounds like a scammer, not DHS. Though, who can tell the difference these days?

[RainMaker]

She is an immigration attorney so I'd think she'd be able to tell (at least I hope). It's also probably why she is being targeted.

[RainMaker]

If the Secretary of State doesn't like your thoughts on killing children by one specific country, you can lose your legal status and be deported. Both parties unequivocally support this.

Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, judge rules : NPR