Trump's Immigration Reform

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It looks like this was because the actual plane type wasn't cleared to land in Chicago. It was supposed to be a 787, and they swapped it with an airbus due to a problem with a different flight where another American flight wasn't cleared to land in Naples because it lacked proper clearance. This isn't immigration but regulatory restrictions.

Sorry, I guess the humor didn't exactly translate here.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Questions to you ...

1) Can you quote what caveats are in the article that supports the article headline, maybe I missed it?
2) What do you think is the possibility of it happening? e.g. I say swag 1/1000+, you say swag of x%?
3) Do you believe the article headline is misleading and/or NOT supported by the contents of the article?

First the headline.

Veteran LA political adviser detained at US airport – and thinks having Obama-Biden T-shirt in his luggage may have been why

So let's find all the evidence of him thinking that having the t-shirt in his luggage may have been why he was detained.

Customs and Border Protection held a veteran political adviser for 45 minutes after returning to the U.S. from a vacation. Rick Taylor thought it may have been because of his Obama-Biden T-shirt in his luggage.

Pretty straightforward. He did not say it was the reason. He said he thought it may have been.

“You go through every possibility in your head,” he added. “I thought, ‘Do I have something in my bag?’ And then it hit me—I had packed an Obama-Biden T-shirt.”

“I actually started to panic. I thought, ‘Oh my God, is this going to cause me trouble in this country right now?’” said Taylor.

So after going though every possibility which may have included what I said and what you agreed were valid to think about for his detainment, it hit him that he packed the T-shirt. He questioned whether it would cause him trouble.

I kept thinking, if we’re in a country where packing an Obama T-shirt makes you nervous at the border, what kind of America are we living in? This isn’t the America I was raised in,” Taylor told the Current.

I cheated here just because this is more about him thinking how the packed T-shirt making him nervous. I included it because that is the last of the four mentions of the t-shirt in the entire article headline included.

There are three quotes from the article that supports the headline that he thinks the t-shirt might have been why he was detained. Can he say for a fact that is why he was detained? No, he was not provided the reason for his detainment by CBP. Also at no point did he say that the t-shirt was the reason he was detained. That is what he said he thought after he was detained and throughout the process may have been the reason.

2) What do you think is the possibility of it happening? e.g. I say swag 1/1000+, you say swag of x%?

I think there is a 100% possibility that he thought the t-shirt may have been the reason he was detained. Do I think it is possible that it played a role in him being detained? Yes I think it is possible and I explained the circumstances where it could have played a role. Like the passenger, I also went through the possible reasons for his detainment. I stated some of them before including that it was just a random check and nothing more. The CBP stated that passengers can detained for a "variety of reasons". I do believe the current administration has shown themselves to be willing to go after their political opponents and being capable of using a phrase like "a variety of reasons" to go as far as detaining a political opponent or someone they don't like for a t-shirt.

Did I say that is what happened in this case? No, I clearly stated I don't know the reason. But I would like to know which one of the "variety of reasons" was the official reason for the passenger's detainment.

3) Do you believe the article headline is misleading and/or NOT supported by the contents of the article?

No it is not misleading and is supported as I have shown. The headline and the article are actually very clear. The passenger thinks that the t-shirt may have been why he was detained at the airport.

We could and have gone through scenarios as to what is and what is not possible when it come to the role the t-shirt may or may not have played. That has absolutely nothing to do with what he thought at the time and the circumstances he was in when he thought them.

Questions for you. Since you believe that the headline is misleading...

1. Can you provide quotes from the article that are contrary to what the headline stated and/or show the headline to be misleading? Show the quotes where the passenger says something other than the t-shirt may have been the reason why he was detained as stated in the headline? Even better, share the quotes where the passenger boldly declared the reason I was detained was because of the t-shirt.

2. What do you think is the possibility of this passenger given his political affiliation and the fact that he worked for Senator Alex Padilla at some point. This passenger after being detained and running through the possible reasons for the detainment. What are the possibility of this passenger thinking that the Obama/Biden t-shirt packed in his luggage may have been a reason for his detainment? Again, not the possibility or probability that he is right. Not the possibility or probability that it was the only reason The possibility that it was something he would thought may be a reason.

Once again, the obvious question is why was this passenger stopped and placed in a room for 45 minutes, allegedly after being asked if he was from California? Beyond that and based on your focus, I know also wonder why was he not provided any information as to the reason for his detainment to the point where he began to think that a t-shirt may have been a reason for his detainment?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Sorry, I guess the humor didn't exactly translate here.

The joke didn’t land either, huh?

[RainMaker]

ICE detains Iranian woman in New Orleans for 47 years | National Politics | nola.com

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

First the headline.

So let's find all the evidence of him thinking that having the t-shirt in his luggage may have been why he was detained.

Pretty straightforward. He did not say it was the reason. He said he thought it may have been.

While being detained, I agree he believe it may have been the t-shirt

So after going though every possibility which may have included what I said and what you agreed were valid to think about for his detainment, it hit him that he packed the T-shirt. He questioned whether it would cause him trouble

While being detained, I agree he believe it may have been the t-shirt

There are three quotes from the article that supports the headline that he thinks the t-shirt might have been why he was detained.

I did not say that he unreasonably believed he was being detained for having the t-shirt. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that while being detained.

From what I've surmised from your response ...

1) You believe I am complaining about Taylor didn't have a good reason to think what he thought. I am not. I actually think its reasonable for him to think so while being detained

2) In my posts, I have challenged the article itself, NOT the person (e.g. if you believe I challenged the veracity of the person and what he believed, provide my quotes). Plenty of evidence of me challenging the article and not the person ...

So, the obvious question, just based on this article, how did CBP know he had an Obama-Biden T-shirt in his bag that wasn't opened? There may be more facts forthcoming, but based on your linked article, what's the problem?

But (1) the article we are discussing strongly implied it

However, the article in question has NOT provided any caveats.

Therefore, I believe the article headline is misleading (e.g. click bait)

Can you quote what caveats are in the article that supports the article headline

Because I believe this is a reoccurring theme in the rest of your response. I'll label this as "It's about the article and how it was written, not about what he thought"

• I believe the article headlines is misleading
• I do not believe the article content supports the headline
• My commentary and IMO this discussion, has nothing to do with what "he" thought while being detained and were his fears reasonable (it was)
• It has everything to do with the article itself and what I believe to be unnecessary fearmongering and clickbait

2) What do you think is the possibility of it happening? e.g. I say swag 1/1000+, you say swag of x%?

I think there is a 100% possibility that he thought the t-shirt may have been the reason he was detained. Do I think it is possible that it played a role in him being detained? Yes I think it is possible and I explained the circumstances where it could have played a role.

See above "It's about the article and how it was written, not about what he thought"

Did I say that is what happened in this case? No, I clearly stated I don't know the reason.

Nope, I did not say you said this is what happened. I am just asking for a swag x% of probability of CBP detaining him for the t-shirt based on the facts reports in the article. I am not asking for x% of him thinking it was the t-shirt (I can easily see that as 100% while being detained) ... I am asking x% probability of CBP detaining him because of t-shirt.

But I would like to know which one of the "variety of reasons" was the official reason for the passenger's detainment.

Don't know and we'll probably never find out. From bits-and-pieces I've read/seen, unless it escalates beyond detainment & questions and requiring paperwork, official reasons aren't given.

3) Do you believe the article headline is misleading and/or NOT supported by the contents of the article?

No it is not misleading and is supported as I have shown. The headline and the article are actually very clear. The passenger thinks that the t-shirt may have been why he was detained at the airport.

We'll agree to disagree. As I've stated, I believe the article headlines was misleading and content of article does not support it.

Article headline

Veteran LA political adviser detained at US airport – and thinks having Obama-Biden T-shirt in his luggage may have been why

The Colombo moment in the article

It had already been picked up by his wife. It was sent through a scanner, but wasn’t opened.

• The headline says "(Taylor) thinks having t-shirt may have been why". This is present tense, which says Taylor is still believing this (at the time of the article)

In the content, after his detainment and seeing his luggage, Taylor does not believe that was the reason anymore. And therefore, the article has a misleading headline and content does not support it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Questions for you. Since you believe that the headline is misleading...

1. Can you provide quotes from the article that are contrary to what the headline stated and/or show the headline to be misleading?

I believe I have answered this in the post immediately above. Approx. last fifth of my response starting with "agree to disagree".

Show the quotes where the passenger says something other than the t-shirt may have been the reason why he was detained as stated in the headline? Even better, share the quotes where the passenger boldly declared the reason I was detained was because of the t-shirt.

See above "It's about the article and how it was written, not about what he thought"

2. What do you think is the possibility of this passenger given his political affiliation and the fact that he worked for Senator Alex Padilla at some point. This passenger after being detained and running through the possible reasons for the detainment.

What are the possibility of this passenger thinking that the Obama/Biden t-shirt packed in his luggage may have been a reason for his detainment?

In my response immediately above, it is quite reasonable for Taylor to believe it was because of the t-shirt when he was detained. But then see above "It's about the article and how it was written, not about what he thought"

Once again, the obvious question is why was this passenger stopped and placed in a room for 45 minutes, allegedly after being asked if he was from California? Beyond that and based on your focus, I know also wonder why was he not provided any information as to the reason for his detainment to the point where he began to think that a t-shirt may have been a reason for his detainment?

I believe I answered this above so I'll copy-and-paste

Don't know and we'll probably never find out. From bits-and-pieces I've read/seen, unless it escalates beyond detainment & questions and requiring paperwork, official reasons aren't given.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The joke didn’t land either, huh?

I think it flew over my head.

[RainMaker]

The t-shirt is such an unimportant aspect of the story. Anyone with two functioning brain cells can figure out he was stopped because he worked for Padilla who the administration has a major beef with. They've stopped and harassed a lot of people with political opinions they don't like. This isn't surprising, they said they would do it and are.

[miami_fan]

Questions for you. Since you believe that the headline is misleading...

1. Can you provide quotes from the article that are contrary to what the headline stated and/or show the headline to be misleading?

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe I have answered this in the post immediately above. Approx. last fifth of my response starting with "agree to disagree".

So to sum this up, you asked me for quotes from the article that that supports my argument that the headline was not misleading and is supported by the article. I provided the quotes. You agreed with what I said. I asked you to provide the quotes that support your argument that the headline was misleading and was not supported by the content of the article. You provided nothing from the article and only repeat your claims without evidence from the article. Now after multiple posts about the suitcase going through the scanner and not being opened and the probability of that he was detained because of the shirt, now the issue is about how the article was written and the headline not matching the content of the article.

Cool.

What do you think is the possibility of this passenger given his political affiliation and the fact that he worked for Senator Alex Padilla at some point. This passenger after being detained and running through the possible reasons for the detainment.

In my response immediately above, it is quite reasonable for Taylor to believe it was because of the t-shirt when he was detained. But then see above "It's about the article and how it was written, not about what he thought"

But the headline literally spoke to what he... never mind. I'll move on.

Do you believe the article headline is misleading and/or NOT supported by the contents of the article?

In the content, after his detainment and seeing his luggage, Taylor does not believe that was the reason anymore. And therefore, the article has a misleading headline and content does not support it.

I know I should let it go but apologies to you and the board, I have to ask. I will try my best to make this the last post on T-Shirt-gate.

You do realize that this entire incident including the whole suitcase through the scanner and not opened thing occurred on June 20th, right? And that he was interviewed for this article days after the 20th? That would also be days after "the suitcase was located and sent through a scanner—but never opened." part occurred but before it was published on June 27th? Given those facts, wouldn't the article undoubtedly and truly reflect how he felt and what he thought while detained and what he thought at the time of publication if they were different? This leads me to my final point.

I know you believe "the suitcase was located and sent through a scanner—but never opened." line is enough to say that the t-shirt played no role. I know you think that line makes this an open and shut case. I can even understand why an article written exclusively based on this guy describing what happened and how this guy felt throughout while accurate might be considered as unnecessary fearmongering and clickbait. We can agree to disagree on that opinion. However, but I have to ask because for the life of me I missed this part. Please show where in this article it states that after "the suitcase was located and sent through a scanner—but never opened." incident happened, HE no longer thought that was a reason for his detainment. I not only don't see that anywhere in the article, I believe there would be no article whatsoever if he made that statement prior to publication.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

So to sum this up, you asked me for quotes from the article that that supports my argument that the headline was not misleading and is supported by the article. I provided the quotes. You agreed with what I said. I asked you to provide the quotes that support your argument that the headline was misleading and was not supported by the content of the article.

You provided nothing from the article and only repeat your claims without evidence from the article.

Huh? I provided the quotes from the article. I have no idea why you think otherwise.

Here's the sequence. When you asked

1. Can you provide quotes from the article that are contrary to what the headline stated and/or show the headline to be misleading?

I responded

I believe I have answered this in the post immediately above. Approx. last fifth of my response starting with "agree to disagree".

So, go look at "agree to disagree" in previous post, you will see the 2 quotes from the article.

You may not agree they support my position, but you claim I provided "nothing from the article" ... I absolutely-positively-certainly supplied the quotes and "evidence" from the article. If you still disagree, tell me why.

*****

Now after multiple posts about the suitcase going through the scanner and not being opened and the probability of that he was detained because of the shirt, now the issue is about how the article was written and the headline not matching the content of the article.

Cool.

The issue has ALWAYS been "how the article was written and the headline not matching the content of the article". Go back to my original post when I responded to RM. See the quotes I provided and note the bolded sections. I'm going to repost them here for others to easily reference, but go into the link below and see for yourself that I didn't change any bolding.

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

I assume you think the headlines is the outrage?

Veteran LA political adviser detained at US airport – and thinks having Obama-Biden T-shirt in his luggage may have been why

:
:
But then ...

After waiting for close to an hour, Taylor was told to get his suitcase for inspection.

“It wasn’t with me,” he said. “I started to panic again, trying to figure out where it was.”

It had already been picked up by his wife. It was sent through a scanner, but wasn’t opened.

“They handed it to me and said, ‘You’re good to go,’” Taylor told the Current.

So, the obvious question, just based on this article, how did CBP know he had an Obama-Biden T-shirt in his bag that wasn't opened?

I know you believe "the suitcase was located and sent through a scanner—but never opened." line is enough to say that the t-shirt played no role. I know you think that line makes this an open and shut case.

Yes.

I did leave some wiggle room with early quote "Now, if more facts come out from him or non-twitter-like source, let me know." But based on the article itself ... yes.

I can even understand why an article written exclusively based on this guy describing what happened and how this guy felt throughout while accurate might be considered as unnecessary fearmongering and clickbait.

When I said fearmongering and clickbait, I reference how the (1) headline was not supported by the (2) contents of the article. NOT because it was how one guy (Thomas) felt.

However, but I have to ask because for the life of me I missed this part. Please show where in this article it states that after "the suitcase was located and sent through a scanner—but never opened." incident happened, HE no longer thought that was a reason for his detainment. I not only don't see that anywhere in the article, I believe there would be no article whatsoever if he made that statement prior to publication.

Going back to my original post here Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Trump's Immigration Reform

I quoted below section (bold was there) per the article ...

After waiting for close to an hour, Taylor was told to get his suitcase for inspection.

“It wasn’t with me,” he said. “I started to panic again, trying to figure out where it was.”

It had already been picked up by his wife. It was sent through a scanner, but wasn’t opened.

“They handed it to me and said, ‘You’re good to go,’” Taylor told the Current.

You are right the article did not explicitly say "he said" it, but certainly reasonable to surmise he said/believed it. Or in other words ...

Question - why would Taylor continue to believe the t-shirt was the reason for his detainment when he believes his luggage wasn't opened?

[Edward64]

I know I should let it go but apologies to you and the board, I have to ask. I will try my best to make this the last post on T-Shirt-gate.

Don't apologize. People know what they're getting into in this thread, it's their choice to read-participate-butt in or not. It's your and my choice as well.

And I certainly don't mind. Although we disagree much, IMO this is how good debates go. We challenge each other, ask for quotes, provide sources etc. And although understandably we are "exasperated" with each other, we do this without attacking (well, at least not at the level of some others). Just my 2c

[Edward64]

Coming up ... denaturalization. I suspect the big fight will be on "terrorists" (e.g. definitions matter)

Just a moment...

The DOJ directed attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases where naturalized citizens commit crimes, per the memo.

The DOJ calls for "civil denaturalization" in the case of "war crimes," "extrajudicial killings," "human rights abuses," and for those "convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States," as well as "terrorists."

"The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence," the memo said.

*****

I posted previously on the 4 (A-D) conditions/reasons for denaturalization. There is a link with more context & details.

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

I'll just post what I wrote. The key question to me is the bolded section.

This happened pre-Trump and assume the conditions were established also pre-Trump. I'm sure there are alot of possible "buts" in there but, in general, the conditions A-D for de-naturalization seems reasonable to me.

Assuming the laws are followed and the evidence does show A-D happened, what's the issue? Has Trump/Miller proposed additional conditions that are unreasonable? Or is it because they are more aggressive looking into violations of A-D?

[Mota]

First it was they're only coming for "criminals". Then it warped into "all illegals are criminals".

[RainMaker]

Government got caught lying again if you still choose to believe what they say on these matters.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/newlywed-p...y?id=123420501

[Thomkal]

Gee I wonder why the Administration didn't want Kilmar Garcia back in this country:


Just a moment...

[SirFozzie]

Known Nutcase Laura Loomer (who has the ear of the president) calls for feeding 65 million latinos to alligators

https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/1939831588902109629

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mota

First it was they're only coming for "criminals". Then it warped into "all illegals are criminals".

That's kind of, you know, by definition.

The fact that we're so far down the rabbit hole of lunacy that this has to be explained to anyone over the age of maybe 3 years old is why the one thing I've never found to be anything more than an empty slogan for the delusional is Make America Great Again.

We're too far gone.

[SirFozzie]

no, you're too far gone Jon.

[kingfc22]

Apparently Jon’s family tree goes back to the Native Americans

[HerRealName]

Jon hates crime so much he votes for a convicted felon.

[JPhillips]

Asylum seeking isn't in any way illegal.

TPS isn't in any way illegal.

[Ksyrup]

Alligator Alcatraz had minor flooding on its first day open after only 1.5 inches of rain. I'm guessing this is a feature so they can more quickly rid themselves of detainees by drowning.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Asylum seeking isn't in any way illegal.

TPS isn't in any way illegal.

This. It drives me crazy that they are pulling people out of courthouses that are by definition following the law, and then deporting them with no due process. It has always been so ridiculous the whole "open borders" crap they paint Democrats with, when Obama and Biden both deported people at high rates. The difference was the people deported HAD due process. They did have a reason they didn't belong in the country. There should be a process to allow people entry, and there should be consequences to not following those rules. It is just the line should be reasonable and logical, and not based on blatant racism.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This. It drives me crazy that they are pulling people out of courthouses that are by definition following the law, and then deporting them with no due process. It has always been so ridiculous the whole "open borders" crap they paint Democrats with, when Obama and Biden both deported people at high rates. The difference was the people deported HAD due process. They did have a reason they didn't belong in the country. There should be a process to allow people entry, and there should be consequences to not following those rules. It is just the line should be reasonable and logical, and not based on blatant racism.

Just following the Word and keeping their faith close to their heart.

'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'

[miami_fan]

Boxer Julio Cesar Chávez Jr. arrested by ICE, to be deported - ESPN

First off, I had no idea that Chavez Jr. was 39 yrs old.

Second, I am absolutely shocked that the ring was not surrounded by ICE agents immediately after the fight ended and then the agents rush the ring, removed Chavez Jr from the ring and immediately into an unmarked van.

[RainMaker]

Paul has been a Trump supporter so they weren't going to fuck up his fight.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Alligator Alcatraz had minor flooding on its first day open after only 1.5 inches of rain. I'm guessing this is a feature so they can more quickly rid themselves of detainees by drowning.

Actually it's a feature because too much moisture, especially standing, fetid, water, will increase the chance of virulent diseases.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Paul has been a Trump supporter so they weren't going to fuck up his fight.

Amazing how ICE gets to just pick and choose who AND when they enforce things. Almost like they are just making up shit as they go.

[RainMaker]

Utah man wrongfully detained by ICE for nearly 50 days, attorney says

[Edward64]

Supreme Court allows deportation of immigrants to South Sudan | AP News

The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties.
:
It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision.

Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can’t quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the U.S. and had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said.

AI identified the countries ...

Eight men, convicted of serious crimes in the US, were deported to South Sudan after the Supreme Court lifted an injunction that had previously blocked their deportation. The men, originally from various countries including Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba, and Myanmar

I get Cuba and Myanmar not accepting their citizens back, but I'd have thought all the other countries would have accepted their citizens back vs US sending them to South Sudan.

[Ksyrup]

I missed that the government is back to stating in court filings that the Garcia deportation was a mistake. They gonna re-hire the attorney they fired for "admitting" that a couple of months ago?

[cuervo72]

More leopards/faces.

‘I want my vote back’: Trump-voting family stunned after Canadian mother detained over immigration status | US immigration | The Guardian

[bhlloy]

It’s almost parody at this point. Honestly if it wasn’t so dystopian it would be a brilliant sitcom. Could call it something like Fire and ICE.

I do wonder how many of these are 100% true, but the Guardian is generally a very reliable source.

[GrantDawg]

This kind of thing is not helpful.
https://apnews.com/article/mcallen-t...source=bluesky

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

More leopards/faces.

‘I want my vote back’: Trump-voting family stunned after Canadian mother detained over immigration status | US immigration | The Guardian

Womp womp

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This kind of thing is not helpful.
Man killed after shooting at a US Border Patrol facility in southern Texas | AP News

Sent from my SM-S938U using Tapatalk

Just another good guy with a gun. Until he wasn't.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'll refer you back to my response in #822 Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Trump's Immigration Reform

If that's your proof that Israel has "full control of our immigration policies" vs (my statement) "influences" ... like I say, you live in la-la-land, and apparently, it's very, very small.

lol
Just a moment...

[GrantDawg]

Literal quote from Tom Homan. ICE doesn't need probable cause. Just being brown is enough.
"Homan: "People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don't need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them ... based on their physical appearance."

[RainMaker]

That's one thing you can absolutely blame Obama for.

[RainMaker]

https://abc7.com/post/disabled-veter...says/17072476/

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Literal quote from Tom Homan. ICE doesn't need probable cause. Just being brown is enough.
"Homan: "People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don't need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them ... based on their physical appearance."

Don't know where your quote is from, but I found exact quote from below bluesky account?

@atrupar.com on Bluesky

MSNBC provides the entire quote ...

In his latest Fox News appearance, Homan said: “Look, people need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them. They just need totality of the circumstances, right? They just go through the observation, get our typical facts — based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”

Safe to assume there'll be (and looking forward to) plenty of challenges that end up in the courts.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

lol
Just a moment...

Still waiting ...

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

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

https://abc7.com/post/disabled-veter...says/17072476/

Totally fine! I’m sure his South Sudanese lawyer will clear things up right away.

[RainMaker]

Killed a man and then detained everyone until they deleted evidence.

Our staff is on the ground supporting families. Many workers-including US citizens, were held by federal authorities at the farm for 8 hours or more. US citizen workers report only being released after they were forced to delete photos and videos of the raid from their phones. 4/

— United Farm Workers (@UFWupdates) July 11, 2025

[RainMaker]

US Citizen detained by ICE: Clearly it didn't matter that I was a citizen, or a veteran, or that I identified who I was. They ignored everything I said, and they just they broke my window and they dragged me out. I let them know that I was a veteran and I wasn't doing anything… pic.twitter.com/9UVJzzEyMB

— FactPost (@factpostnews) July 17, 2025

[GrantDawg]

There is a video of this guy protesting ICE officers, so we can know what their "probably cause" was. Blatantly using power to silence dissent.

[cuervo72]

Allentown man said to have died in ICE custody is alive in Guatemala, family says

82yo who had asylum from Pinochet and was looking to get a replacement for his lost green card. Winds up deported to Guatemala.

[Flasch186]

In retrospect, Pinochet, was apparently the good guy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

6 weeks in OCE detention for writing an oped critical of a country. I'll give you one guess on the country it was about.

“Even God Cannot Hear Us Here�: What I Witnessed Inside an ICE Women’s Prison | Vanity Fair

[Lathum]

Yeah but eventually she was released so according to Edward no harm no foul.