The New Lounge

[Mac9192]

Labeling someone a terrorist to bypass the courts is a dangerous road to go down. If the executive can override due process just by calling someone a “terrorist,” what stops that label from being applied to others—protesters, journalists, political opponents? That’s not strength. That’s how rights get erased.

The courts aren’t ignoring MS-13’s designation. They’re saying even if someone is accused of serious crimes, they’re still entitled to the process guaranteed by the Constitution. That’s not a loophole—it’s the foundation of how our system works.

You can be tough on crime and believe in the rule of law. It’s not supposed to be one or the other.

To my knowledge, no one is labeling an individual a terrorist to bypass the courts. It's labeling a known evil gang that. Our current system is broken. Maybe this guy that got deported shouldn't have been, and if so, Trump needs to apologize. But that goes both ways. I hear nothing from the left when an illegal has killed someone, many times after already being deported.

I completely agree though with the intent of this executive decision. Maybe over time, this will take some of their sting away. MS-13 is nothing but a bunch of animals, and need to be treated as such.

 

[Th0r]

To my knowledge, no one is labeling an individual a terrorist to bypass the courts. It's labeling a known evil gang that. Our current system is broken, and I have no issue with putting MS-13 in the same category as ISIS and the Cartel. Maybe this guy that got deported shouldn't have been.

I completely agree though with the intent of this executive decision. Maybe over time, this will take some of their sting away. MS-13 is nothing but a bunch of animals, and need to be treated as such.

In this case, that’s exactly what happened.

A federal judge issued an order protecting this individual from deportation while his legal case was still active. The executive branch deported him anyway—then refused to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling to bring him back. That’s bypassing the courts. Full stop.

The problem isn’t calling MS-13 what they are. It’s using that label to justify ignoring legal orders and denying someone due process. If we accept that logic for people we don’t like, what stops it from being used on people we do?

If I accuse you of being in MS-13, should I then be able to deport you—no hearing, no trial, just a label and a plane ticket? That’s not justice. That’s raw power. And once it becomes the norm, there’s no putting it back in the bottle.

 

[KDSTONE]

In this case, that’s exactly what happened.

A federal judge issued an order protecting this individual from deportation while his legal case was still active. The executive branch deported him anyway—then refused to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling to bring him back. That’s bypassing the courts. Full stop.

The problem isn’t calling MS-13 what they are. It’s using that label to justify ignoring legal orders and denying someone due process. If we accept that logic for people we don’t like, what stops it from being used on people we do?

If I accuse you of being in MS-13, should I then be able to deport you—no hearing, no trial, just a label and a plane ticket? That’s not justice. That’s raw power. And once it becomes the norm, there’s no putting it back in the bottle.

A judge found sufficient evidence to confirm that he is in fact a member of Ms 13, a finding later upheld by another judge. In a court hearing in 2019. The deportation is not based on merely an accusation. You’re twisting the facts to support your argument.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What is alleged and what we know - BBC News

BBC Verify looks at the evidence behind allegations that the Salvadoran mistakenly deported to a mega-prison was a dangerous gang member.

www.bbc.com

 

[Mac9192]

In this case, that’s exactly what happened.

A federal judge issued an order protecting this individual from deportation while his legal case was still active. The executive branch deported him anyway—then refused to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling to bring him back. That’s bypassing the courts. Full stop.

The problem isn’t calling MS-13 what they are. It’s using that label to justify ignoring legal orders and denying someone due process. If we accept that logic for people we don’t like, what stops it from being used on people we do?

If I accuse you of being in MS-13, should I then be able to deport you—no hearing, no trial, just a label and a plane ticket? That’s not justice. That’s raw power. And once it becomes the norm, there’s no putting it back in the bottle.

To a point I get what you're trying to say. But MS-13 aren't good people. I'd also guess there's ways that make it obvious that they are known members, such as tattoos... kind of like there's obvious ways we know if someone is a radical muslim, ISIS...

You're thinking if we use the system, then everything will work out. None of these groups of people care. I still say Trump designating them as terrorists is a great thing.

 

[Th0r]

A judge found sufficient evidence to confirm that he is in fact a member of Ms 13, a finding later upheld by another judge. In a court hearing in 2019. The deportation is not based on merely an accusation. You’re twisting the facts to support your argument.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What is alleged and what we know - BBC News

BBC Verify looks at the evidence behind allegations that the Salvadoran mistakenly deported to a mega-prison was a dangerous gang member.

www.bbc.com

You’re right that an immigration judge in 2019 found preliminary evidence linking him to MS-13—but that wasn’t a criminal conviction. It came during a bond hearing, where the standard of proof is much lower. No court has ever found him guilty of gang membership, and he’s never been charged with any crime.

That same immigration judge later granted him withholding of removal status after determining he would likely face persecution if deported to El Salvador. That ruling legally blocked his deportation. Despite this, the executive branch deported him anyway—and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the removal violated the law and ordered the administration to bring him back.

So again, this isn’t about whether MS-13 is dangerous—everyone agrees they are. The issue is whether the executive can ignore binding court orders simply by pointing to an unproven label. That’s not how the Constitution works. If we let accusations stand in place of due process, the system falls apart.

 

[Th0r]

To a point I get what you're trying to say. But MS-13 aren't good people. I'd also guess there's ways that make it obvious that they are known members, such as tattoos... kind of like there's obvious ways we know if someone is a radical muslim, ISIS...

You're thinking if we use the system, then everything will work out. None of these groups of people care. I still say Trump designating them as terrorists is a great thing.

No one’s defending MS-13. But it’s worth looking at how this specific individual was labeled a gang member. The government’s evidence included a Chicago Bulls hat, a hoodie with skulls, and a single confidential informant whose credibility was never tested in court. No tattoos, no charges, no criminal conviction—just implication by appearance and association.

That was enough to deny him bond in 2019. But here’s the kicker: the same judge later ruled he couldn’t be deported because he faced serious danger if returned to El Salvador. That legal protection was still in place when the executive branch deported him anyway—a move the Supreme Court unanimously said was illegal.

As for the terrorist designation—if simply being labeled part of a gang is enough to bypass court orders, that’s a precedent with no brakes. What happens when that logic gets applied to protesters, journalists, or political opponents?

Skipping due process might feel justified in the moment, but once labels start replacing rights, the door’s open for anyone to be next. What I’m saying is—the system, flawed as it is, is the only thing that protects any of us, no matter what we believe.

 

[Th0r]

What shouldn’t be lost here is that a conservative, 9-0 Supreme Court ruled the deportation was unlawful and ordered the government to bring the person back. Are they “woke leftists” now too? Or does the rule of law still mean something, even when it’s politically inconvenient?

Because if we’re fine with the executive branch ignoring court orders whenever it wants, where does that stop? Are we really prepared to give one person the power to decide who the law applies to—and who it doesn’t? That’s not a constitutional republic. That’s a dictator in everything but name.

 

[Dattier]

And his wife is merely suspected of filing a restraining order. Right?

No, she did that, surely because of domestic violence or the threat thereof. There were never any charges nor a conviction. They have since reconciled and she is understandably trying to downplay it.

Again, though, none of this matters. The Trump administration was told clearly that they could not legally deport him before he was deported and they deported him anyway. SCOTUS ruled unanimously that this deportation was illegal.

 

[KDSTONE]

What shouldn’t be lost here is that a conservative, 9-0 Supreme Court ruled the deportation was unlawful and ordered the government to bring the person back. Are they “woke leftists” now too? Or does the rule of law still mean something, even when it’s politically inconvenient?

Because if we’re fine with the executive branch ignoring court orders whenever it wants, where does that stop? Are we really prepared to give one person the power to decide who the law applies to—and who it doesn’t? That’s not a constitutional republic. That’s a dictator in everything but name.

Fair points. How about the rule of law that presumably protects our border? If we want to follow the rule of law then he should have been deported years ago. Obviously, Trump shouldn’t ignore a Supreme Court ruling. That’s alarming.
Politically, though, it’s a loser for Democrats. If I were a Dem, I’d be concerned that the American public would tune me out if there’s a new “constitutional crisis” every couple of weeks, whether or not the bleating is justified. Choose your battles more wisely.

 

[KDSTONE]

No, she did that, surely because of domestic violence or the threat thereof. There were never any charges nor a conviction. They have since reconciled and she is understandably trying to downplay it.

Again, though, none of this matters. The Trump administration was told clearly that they could not legally deport him before he was deported and they deported him anyway. SCOTUS ruled unanimously that this deportation was illegal.

They’ve reconciled. Have they though? If she were a trans I bet you wouldn’t be so cavalier about her abuse. You are aware surely that many victims of domestic violence later recant out of fear for their lives?
Strahan asked her this am if she were still afraid of her husband. The silence was deafening.

 

[KDSTONE]

What shouldn’t be lost here is that a conservative, 9-0 Supreme Court ruled the deportation was unlawful and ordered the government to bring the person back. Are they “woke leftists” now too? Or does the rule of law still mean something, even when it’s politically inconvenient?

Because if we’re fine with the executive branch ignoring court orders whenever it wants, where does that stop? Are we really prepared to give one person the power to decide who the law applies to—and who it doesn’t? That’s not a constitutional republic. That’s a dictator in everything but name.

Biden decided for four years which laws to enforce and which to ignore. Weaponized the Justice Dept to prosecute a past and future political opponent, a trademark of a dictatorship. If I were in fear that our nation was morphing from a republic to a dictatorship and my concerns were independent of political bias, I would have been concerned way before Jan of this year. I don’t remember those posts, not from you or Datt. In fact, I seem to remember Datt lusting for Trump in an orange jumpsuit.
The party of unity and healing wanted to throw a former and future Pres in jail That had the support of half the country. Hypocrites and frauds

 

[KDSTONE]

A President defying a Supreme Court ruling. Surely that’s never happened before. I don’t know how y’all do things on Asgard, but we keep receipts around here:

“The Supreme Court blocked it but that didn’t stop me”, says Joe proudly.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe

Republicans accuse Biden of ignoring landmark water ruling

The lawmakers say agencies are regulating too many streams and wetlands and slow-walking permits.

www.eenews.net

 

[Th0r]

Fair points. How about the rule of law that presumably protects our border? If we want to follow the rule of law then he should have been deported years ago. Obviously, Trump shouldn’t ignore a Supreme Court ruling. That’s alarming.
Politically, though, it’s a loser for Democrats. If I were a Dem, I’d be concerned that the American public would tune me out if there’s a new “constitutional crisis” every couple of weeks, whether or not the bleating is justified. Choose your battles more wisely.

Let’s be clear: the border situation is serious, and it deserves serious solutions. That means understanding what the laws actually are—and being honest about who’s been blocking meaningful reform.

Right now, under U.S. law, anyone who sets foot on American soil can claim asylum, regardless of how they entered. That’s not a loophole—that’s the law, and it’s been on the books for decades. Presidents of both parties have struggled with it because Congress has refused to act, even as border pressure has increased.

If Republicans were serious about fixing the problem, they’d have backed the bipartisan border deal that included exactly the kind of measures they claim to want: tougher enforcement, more Border Patrol agents, faster asylum screenings, and the authority to shut down the border when crossings spike. It also increased immigration judges to cut the backlog and even expanded legal pathways to reduce pressure on the system overall. These were real, structural reforms.

But they didn’t take the deal. Trump told them to kill it because it might help Biden politically—and they did. So let’s not pretend this is about protecting the country. If the goal was real reform, that was the chance. They walked away because a broken system polls better than a fixed one.

So yes—enforce the law. Secure the border. But don’t pretend the people shouting the loudest about chaos are the ones trying to solve it. You can’t scream about the house being on fire while blocking every attempt to put water on it.

 

[KDSTONE]

There were legit concerns about the bill, independent of Trump’s alleged involvement. It was an 118 billion deal, 60 billion of which to Ukraine and only 20 billion to the border.
There were also concerns that it wouldn’t fundamentally change the catch and release, where illegals often wait ten or more yrs for processing Not good enough

 

[Th0r]

There were legit concerns about the bill, independent of Trump’s alleged involvement. It was an 118 billion deal, 60 billion of which to Ukraine and only 20 billion to the border.
There were also concerns that it wouldn’t fundamentally change the catch and release, where illegals often wait ten or more yrs for processing Not good enough

There’s no such thing as perfect legislation—but this was likely a once-in-a-generation shot at real border reform. It included serious enforcement: more agents and judges, faster asylum processing, and the authority to shut the border when crossings surged. That’s not performative—it’s practical.

Dismissing it as “not good enough” isn’t policy critique. It’s political theater.

And let’s be honest: the lead Republican sponsor was Senator James Lankford, one of the most conservative members of the Senate with a long record on immigration and national security. The bill was so aligned with GOP priorities that the National Border Patrol Council—which endorsed Trump twice—called it the strongest proposal they’d seen in years.

What happened? Lankford got censured by his own state party. Not because the bill was weak, but because it might have worked—and that wasn’t politically useful.

You brought up the foreign aid piece—$60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel—and I get that some people didn’t like it. But this wasn’t just a border bill, it was a national security package. And tying priorities together like that? It’s called negotiation. That’s how Congress has worked for decades. Walking away from the most serious border reform in a generation because you didn’t get 100% of what you wanted isn’t principle—it’s politics.

And when the dust settled? Nothing. No counterproposal. No follow-up bill. Just outrage and slogans. Because the crisis plays better unsolved.

So yes—enforce the law. Secure the border. But don’t pretend the loudest voices are the ones trying to fix it. You can’t block the hose and then complain the fire’s still burning.

 

[denverexpat]

Legislations wasnt needed.....just apply the law and reinstate remain in Mexico. Disincentivize those seeking to gain illegal entry and look what can be done :

March is the second consecutive month in which U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) averaged the lowest daily nationwide apprehensions in history at approximately 264 per day in March. This is 20% lower than the 330 daily nationwide average apprehensions in February and 94% lower than 4,488 per day average from March 2024.

The 9 most terrifying words you can hear - Im from the Government and here to help....passing more bills wasnt needed.

 

[KDSTONE]

Legislations wasnt needed.....just apply the law and reinstate remain in Mexico. Disincentivize those seeking to gain illegal entry and look what can be done :

March is the second consecutive month in which U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) averaged the lowest daily nationwide apprehensions in history at approximately 264 per day in March. This is 20% lower than the 330 daily nationwide average apprehensions in February and 94% lower than 4,488 per day average from March 2024.

The 9 most terrifying words you can hear - Im from the Government and here to help....passing more bills wasnt needed.

Bingo. And Thor deems it politics when Rep walk away from the bill, but it’s not political at all when the Dems pretend to get serious about the border during a Pres election year, when even half of Hispanics or more disapproved of Biden’s handling of the border. There were also a couple of other nonstarters in there as well, including the expansion of the visa and green card programs in an anti immigrant climate as well as the Afghan fiasco.

 

[KDSTONE]

There’s no such thing as perfect legislation—but this was likely a once-in-a-generation shot at real border reform. It included serious enforcement: more agents and judges, faster asylum processing, and the authority to shut the border when crossings surged. That’s not performative—it’s practical.

Dismissing it as “not good enough” isn’t policy critique. It’s political theater.

And let’s be honest: the lead Republican sponsor was Senator James Lankford, one of the most conservative members of the Senate with a long record on immigration and national security. The bill was so aligned with GOP priorities that the National Border Patrol Council—which endorsed Trump twice—called it the strongest proposal they’d seen in years.

What happened? Lankford got censured by his own state party. Not because the bill was weak, but because it might have worked—and that wasn’t politically useful.

You brought up the foreign aid piece—$60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel—and I get that some people didn’t like it. But this wasn’t just a border bill, it was a national security package. And tying priorities together like that? It’s called negotiation. That’s how Congress has worked for decades. Walking away from the most serious border reform in a generation because you didn’t get 100% of what you wanted isn’t principle—it’s politics.

And when the dust settled? Nothing. No counterproposal. No follow-up bill. Just outrage and slogans. Because the crisis plays better unsolved.

So yes—enforce the law. Secure the border. But don’t pretend the loudest voices are the ones trying to fix it. You can’t block the hose and then complain the fire’s still burning.

“ The authority to shut the border when immigration surges”. Uh, pretty sure the fed govt has never lost that authority at any point regardless of numbers.

 

[Dattier]

They’ve reconciled. Have they though? If she were a trans I bet you wouldn’t be so cavalier about her abuse. You are aware surely that many victims of domestic violence later recant out of fear for their lives?
Strahan asked her this am if she were still afraid of her husband. The silence was deafening.

Again, though, none of this matters. The Trump administration was told clearly that they could not legally deport him before he was deported and they deported him anyway. SCOTUS ruled unanimously that this deportation was illegal.

 

[KDSTONE]

Yeh I read that the first time you posted it. I ignored it, because Thor had already posted the exact same thing.

 

[Th0r]

Let’s clear a few things up.

The idea that “no legislation was needed” and we just had to “apply the law” doesn’t match reality. The current asylum laws were written decades ago for a very different time. Under existing statute, anyone who steps foot on U.S. soil can request asylum—and the government is legally required to process it. That’s not optional, and it’s not something Biden made up. If you don’t like that, you need new legislation. That’s what this bill aimed to do: speed up screenings, add more judges, and give DHS the power to shut down the border during surges.

“Remain in Mexico” wasn’t a law—it was an executive policy. It was challenged in court, suspended, re-implemented, and eventually overturned. That’s the problem with relying on executive orders—they don’t last. Real reform needs to be written into law.

Citing the March drop in apprehensions without context is misleading. That drop followed a crackdown by Mexican authorities and new CBP enforcement tools tied to legal pathways—ironically, the kind of tools this bill would have expanded. And even if you take those numbers at face value, they don’t fix the long-term backlog, the judge shortage, or the lack of surge authority. This bill addressed all of that.

Now on the second post—yes, both parties have played politics with the border. But only one party walked away from the most serious border bill in decades because Trump told them not to give Biden a win. That’s not speculation—he said it out loud.

And the modest visa and green card expansions? That’s not some radical immigration agenda. It’s a basic way to create legal pathways and relieve pressure on the system. You can’t say “come legally” and then block every legal option.

So let’s drop the slogans. If you’re ignoring the courts, rejecting actual reform, and attacking anyone who tries to fix it, this isn’t about solving the problem—it’s about keeping it alive for the next election.

 

[Th0r]

“ The authority to shut the border when immigration surges”. Uh, pretty sure the fed govt has never lost that authority at any point regardless of numbers.

Just to clarify: DHS does have general authority to manage the border, but under current law, it can’t simply “shut it down” in response to a surge in asylum claims. That’s the issue.

The bill would’ve given DHS specific statutory authority to temporarily halt asylum processing when daily crossings exceeded certain thresholds—something they can’t legally do now without risking violations of international and domestic asylum law. That’s why it was a major piece of the legislation.

So no, the government hasn’t “always had that authority.” That was the point. This bill would’ve codified it and made it durable.

 

[KDSTONE]

Well that’s f d up if true.
This asylum bull is batsh- crazy.

 

[Th0r]

Well that’s f d up if true.
This asylum bull is batsh- crazy.

Yeah, it’s incredibly screwed up. Trump tanked a serious, bipartisan border bill—one even the Border Patrol union supported—just to deny Biden a political win. He threw Lankford under the bus for trying to solve the very issue Republicans have been shouting about for years.

And let’s be honest—if Trump actually wanted to fix this, I’d be shocked. He doesn’t. Neither does the Republican Party. The crisis plays too well. It fires up the base, fuels fundraising, and keeps people angry enough not to notice they’ve offered no real solutions.

Instead of solving the issue, we’ve now embarked on denying due process and sending people who’ve never even been charged to torture dungeons in El Salvador. That is the laziest possible outcome, and I genuinely wish more of his supporters would see through it.

Because there’s nothing American about handing people over to a regime that’s openly hostile to human rights. That’s not tough. That’s not smart. That’s just giving up on the system we claim to believe in.

And if any of that sounds exaggerated—don’t take my word for it. Fact-check me. Look it up for yourself. The truth isn’t hard to find if you’re willing to go beyond the headlines.

 

[Th0r]

As of a couple of hours ago, Garcia has been moved out of El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison and into a lower-security facility. That only happened after serious public pressure, media attention, and direct involvement from U.S. officials. Without that, he’d probably still be sitting in one of the harshest prisons in the hemisphere—for no criminal charge, and in direct defiance of a U.S. court order.

This is exactly why it matters to speak up when the administration gets it wrong. If no one had raised their voice, this guy would’ve been left to rot—and how many others are still in there with no one paying attention?

Every American should be pissed off about how this played out. We’re supposed to be a country of laws and due process—not one that disappears people into foreign prisons and only acts when it’s forced to. If justice only happens when enough people are watching, what kind of system is that?

 

[KDSTONE]

This is nothing new. It’s only new that Dems and the media get worked up about it, that is the removal of due process for deportees. According to the ACLU, three out of four deportees in the Obama era didn’t receive individualized due process. Ruhroh, Shaggy.

Speed Over Fairness: Deportation Under the Obama Administration | ACLU

www.aclu.org

 

[KDSTONE]

As of a couple of hours ago, Garcia has been moved out of El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison and into a lower-security facility. That only happened after serious public pressure, media attention, and direct involvement from U.S. officials. Without that, he’d probably still be sitting in one of the harshest prisons in the hemisphere—for no criminal charge, and in direct defiance of a U.S. court order.

This is exactly why it matters to speak up when the administration gets it wrong. If no one had raised their voice, this guy would’ve been left to rot—and how many others are still in there with no one paying attention?

Every American should be pissed off about how this played out. We’re supposed to be a country of laws and due process—not one that disappears people into foreign prisons and only acts when it’s forced to. If justice only happens when enough people are watching, what kind of system is that?

Not only were most Obama era deportees not charged with a crime, they were denied individualized due process, no court hearing, no face to face with a judge. It wasn’t news because Obama was Pres, not Trump.
When someone disappears, no one knows where they are. Doesn’t seem to fit this case. I hope he’s returned to the US for a formal deportation hearing if that would facilitate some real discussion on how best to move forward legally and humanely with the illegals who are already here.

 

[KDSTONE]

As of a couple of hours ago, Garcia has been moved out of El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison and into a lower-security facility. That only happened after serious public pressure, media attention, and direct involvement from U.S. officials. Without that, he’d probably still be sitting in one of the harshest prisons in the hemisphere—for no criminal charge, and in direct defiance of a U.S. court order.

This is exactly why it matters to speak up when the administration gets it wrong. If no one had raised their voice, this guy would’ve been left to rot—and how many others are still in there with no one paying attention?

Every American should be pissed off about how this played out. We’re supposed to be a country of laws and due process—not one that disappears people into foreign prisons and only acts when it’s forced to. If justice only happens when enough people are watching, what kind of system is that?

As of a couple of hours ago, Garcia has been moved out of El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison and into a lower-security facility. That only happened after serious public pressure, media attention, and direct involvement from U.S. officials. Without that, he’d probably still be sitting in one of the harshest prisons in the hemisphere—for no criminal charge, and in direct defiance of a U.S. court order.

This is exactly why it matters to speak up when the administration gets it wrong. If no one had raised their voice, this guy would’ve been left to rot—and how many others are still in there with no one paying attention?

Every American should be pissed off about how this played out. We’re supposed to be a country of laws and due process—not one that disappears people into foreign prisons and only acts when it’s forced to. If justice only happens when enough people are watching, what kind of system is that?

I can’t recall the name of a single person deported during the Obama or Biden presidencies. Less than three months in, I can name two already this admin: Khalil and now Garcia. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Th0r]

This is nothing new. It’s only new that Dems and the media get worked up about it, that is the removal of due process for deportees. According to the ACLU, three out of four deportees in the Obama era didn’t receive individualized due process. Ruhroh, Shaggy.

Speed Over Fairness: Deportation Under the Obama Administration | ACLU

www.aclu.org

If your point is that both parties have mishandled immigration and due process, I agree. The ACLU was absolutely right to call out the Obama administration’s use of expedited removal. That criticism was valid then—and it’s still valid now.

But here’s the difference: acknowledging past failures doesn’t excuse present ones. If anything, it reinforces the need to demand better, regardless of who’s in charge. What’s happening now isn’t just “speed over fairness”—it’s outright defiance of a Supreme Court order and deporting people to black-site prisons in foreign countries. That’s a whole different level of dangerous.

So if you were genuinely concerned about due process back then, great—we’re on the same page. But if the only time it’s worth pointing out is when the other side is mad about it, then maybe the outrage isn’t about principle at all.

Not only were most Obama era deportees not charged with a crime, they were denied individualized due process, no court hearing, no face to face with a judge. It wasn’t news because Obama was Pres, not Trump.
When someone disappears, no one knows where they are. Doesn’t seem to fit this case. I hope he’s returned to the US for a formal deportation hearing if that would facilitate some real discussion on how best to move forward legally and humanely with the illegals who are already here.

This is textbook whataboutism—deflecting from the current crisis by pointing to Obama-era stats that have nothing to do with what’s happening right now. Yes, the ACLU rightly criticized expedited removals under Obama. That was a failure. But citing one failure doesn’t justify another—especially when the new one involves ignoring a Supreme Court order and sending people who’ve never been charged with a crime to foreign prisons built for terrorists.

That’s not enforcement. That’s a constitutional breakdown.

And let’s be honest: if there hadn’t been public outrage, Garcia would still be buried in CECOT. No transparency. No oversight. No legal recourse. That’s not due process—it’s a disappearance. And the last thing this administration wants is for someone like Garcia to come back and testify publicly about what was done to him. That’s why they’re stalling.

You say you hope he gets a formal hearing? So do I. That’s literally what the court ordered. And the executive branch has refused to follow through.

Have I not been saying all along that real laws should be passed to fix this mess? That’s the only durable solution—not executive orders, not political stunts, and definitely not ignoring court rulings.

If we can’t agree that court orders must be followed and due process matters—even for people we don’t personally sympathize with—then let’s stop pretending this is about law and order. It’s not. It’s about power—and who we’re willing to let abuse it.

 

[KDSTONE]

If your point is that both parties have mishandled immigration and due process, I agree. The ACLU was absolutely right to call out the Obama administration’s use of expedited removal. That criticism was valid then—and it’s still valid now.

But here’s the difference: acknowledging past failures doesn’t excuse present ones. If anything, it reinforces the need to demand better, regardless of who’s in charge. What’s happening now isn’t just “speed over fairness”—it’s outright defiance of a Supreme Court order and deporting people to black-site prisons in foreign countries. That’s a whole different level of dangerous.

So if you were genuinely concerned about due process back then, great—we’re on the same page. But if the only time it’s worth pointing out is when the other side is mad about it, then maybe the outrage isn’t about principle at all.

This is textbook whataboutism—deflecting from the current crisis by pointing to Obama-era stats that have nothing to do with what’s happening right now. Yes, the ACLU rightly criticized expedited removals under Obama. That was a failure. But citing one failure doesn’t justify another—especially when the new one involves ignoring a Supreme Court order and sending people who’ve never been charged with a crime to foreign prisons built for terrorists.

That’s not enforcement. That’s a constitutional breakdown.

And let’s be honest: if there hadn’t been public outrage, Garcia would still be buried in CECOT. No transparency. No oversight. No legal recourse. That’s not due process—it’s a disappearance. And the last thing this administration wants is for someone like Garcia to come back and testify publicly about what was done to him. That’s why they’re stalling.

You say you hope he gets a formal hearing? So do I. That’s literally what the court ordered. And the executive branch has refused to follow through.

Have I not been saying all along that real laws should be passed to fix this mess? That’s the only durable solution—not executive orders, not political stunts, and definitely not ignoring court rulings.

If we can’t agree that court orders must be followed and due process matters—even for people we don’t personally sympathize with—then let’s stop pretending this is about law and order. It’s not. It’s about power—and who we’re willing to let abuse it.

No, no, just no. You’ve acted for weeks like Trump has placed us smack in the middle of a constitutional crisis. Implying, if not outright stating explicitly, that his actions with Garcia are unprecedented. Not only is defying the Supreme Court not without precedent ( see above post that you conveniently ignored), neither is the denial of due process. Dems lose credibility when acting like our country is on the brink of dictatorship when Trump does roughly the same things his Dem predecessors have done that were completely ignored. Not only was it not a crisis it was not even covered.
As for your predictable bleating about whataboutism, this is a convenient avoidance of accountability for hypocrisy. Like a woman catches her husband in bed with the secretary and she’s outraged and demands a divorce and he says what about the time you screwed the gardener? Pointing out her hypocrisy and double standard can always be called whataboutism. It’s a played out comeback.
When you find yourself in a position where it’s clear your argument is beginning to wobble, you love to throw out phrases like “regardless of who’s in charge” like you’re some neutral observer and not deep in the woods with your anti Trump bias. I didn’t know you when Obama or Biden was President. Maybe you call balls and strikes fairly.
I’ve already stated that Trump’s defiance of the Supreme Court is alarming, but sadly not unprecedented.

 

[GhostOf301]

Disclaimer. I haven't read the books y'all have written today. But I see where @Dattier commented on the illegal immigrant who is suspected of being an MS13 member and blabbering about the rule of law. He was here illegally. So by rule of law, he had no right to be here, and no rights.

 

[Th0r]

No, no, just no. You’ve acted for weeks like Trump has placed us smack in the middle of a constitutional crisis. Implying, if not outright stating explicitly, that his actions with Garcia are unprecedented. Not only is defying the Supreme Court not without precedent ( see above post that you conveniently ignored), neither is the denial of due process. Dems lose credibility when acting like our country is on the brink of dictatorship when Trump does roughly the same things his Dem predecessors have done that were completely ignored. Not only was it not a crisis it was not even covered.
As for your predictable bleating about whataboutism, this is a convenient avoidance of accountability for hypocrisy. Like a woman catches her husband in bed with the secretary and she’s outraged and demands a divorce and he says what about the time you screwed the gardener? Pointing out her hypocrisy and double standard can always be called whataboutism. It’s a played out comeback.
When you find yourself in a position where it’s clear your argument is beginning to wobble, you love to throw out phrases like “regardless of who’s in charge” like you’re some neutral observer and not deep in the woods with your anti Trump bias. I didn’t know you when Obama or Biden was President. Maybe you call balls and strikes fairly.
I’ve already stated that Trump’s defiance of the Supreme Court is alarming, but sadly not unprecedented.

You say this isn’t unprecedented, but defying a Supreme Court order and refusing to fix it after a unanimous ruling is extraordinary. Even if there have been past failures around due process—and yes, they should’ve been called out too—that doesn’t excuse doing it again. That’s not consistency, that’s permission.

Your analogy? It actually helps my point. If everyone’s cheating, the institution is broken. That’s how I see executive power—it’s been stretched for years, and now the boundaries are being openly bulldozed. The danger isn’t that one side started it. The danger is what happens when no one stops it.

And let’s be clear—my argument isn’t “wobbling.” That’s just a deflection. I’ve been consistent from the start: this isn’t about which party is in power. It’s about the precedent we’re setting when court orders can be ignored and constitutional limits get treated like suggestions. If I didn’t care about the principle, I wouldn’t be here repeating it.

And since you brought it up—if this were really about who’s “toughest” on immigration, then it’s worth pointing out the actual numbers: Obama deported over 3 million people, more than any president in history. Biden? Over 1.1 million formal deportations, and over 3.7 million removals when you count Title 42. Trump? Roughly 1 million in his entire first term. So for all the talk, his record doesn’t even come close.

That’s why this latest move is so frustrating. It’s not about strength. It’s not about law and order. It’s a media stunt dressed up as policy—and when you look at the outcomes, it’s clear they’re not even trying to solve the issue. They’re trying to control the narrative.

You say Trump’s defiance is alarming. Great—we agree. So why the effort to downplay it? Why focus on past administrations instead of acknowledging what’s escalating now?

Because the real question isn’t whether it’s been done before. It’s what happens when someone more competent picks up where this ends and pushes it even further. That’s not just a political risk—it’s a threat to the system we all have to live under.

 

[Th0r]

Not to cut anybody off, but I want to say—regardless of the differences in how we got here, I think if we cut through all the noise, there’s actually some overlap in what we both believe. At the end of the day, most people—on both sides—want real solutions, not just slogans. We want a functioning system, clear rules, actual enforcement, and basic fairness. And we should be pushing our leaders—regardless of party—to stop using this issue as a campaign prop and actually fix the damn thing.

Big thanks to @KDSTONE for a genuinely solid debate today. We went back and forth hard, but that’s how ideas get stress-tested—and I sincerely mean it when I say I appreciate it.

 

[KDSTONE]

You say this isn’t unprecedented, but defying a Supreme Court order and refusing to fix it after a unanimous ruling is extraordinary. Even if there have been past failures around due process—and yes, they should’ve been called out too—that doesn’t excuse doing it again. That’s not consistency, that’s permission.

Your analogy? It actually helps my point. If everyone’s cheating, the institution is broken. That’s how I see executive power—it’s been stretched for years, and now the boundaries are being openly bulldozed. The danger isn’t that one side started it. The danger is what happens when no one stops it.

And let’s be clear—my argument isn’t “wobbling.” That’s just a deflection. I’ve been consistent from the start: this isn’t about which party is in power. It’s about the precedent we’re setting when court orders can be ignored and constitutional limits get treated like suggestions. If I didn’t care about the principle, I wouldn’t be here repeating it.

And since you brought it up—if this were really about who’s “toughest” on immigration, then it’s worth pointing out the actual numbers: Obama deported over 3 million people, more than any president in history. Biden? Over 1.1 million formal deportations, and over 3.7 million removals when you count Title 42. Trump? Roughly 1 million in his entire first term. So for all the talk, his record doesn’t even come close.

That’s why this latest move is so frustrating. It’s not about strength. It’s not about law and order. It’s a media stunt dressed up as policy—and when you look at the outcomes, it’s clear they’re not even trying to solve the issue. They’re trying to control the narrative.

You say Trump’s defiance is alarming. Great—we agree. So why the effort to downplay it? Why focus on past administrations instead of acknowledging what’s escalating now?

Because the real question isn’t whether it’s been done before. It’s what happens when someone more competent picks up where this ends and pushes it even further. That’s not just a political risk—it’s a threat to the system we all have to live under.

Not to cut anybody off, but I want to say—regardless of the differences in how we got here, I think if we cut through all the noise, there’s actually some overlap in what we both believe. At the end of the day, most people—on both sides—want real solutions, not just slogans. We want a functioning system, clear rules, actual enforcement, and basic fairness. And we should be pushing our leaders—regardless of party—to stop using this issue as a campaign prop and actually fix the damn thing.

Big thanks to @KDSTONE for a genuinely solid debate today. We went back and forth hard, but that’s how ideas get stress-tested—and I sincerely mean it when I say I appreciate it.

Appreciate you as well. You’re a good debater and a helluva writer. Wish you all a great weekend. Alas, it’s time for Virgin River and I have to pretend I’m invested for harmony’s sake. Sigh

 

[dukesince91]

It’s weird that so many are trying to make a social justice martyr out of Anthony. My understanding is he stabbed a virtual stranger in the heart over a seat. And it’s on video. Seems to be open and shut. Given his age, I’d be opposed to the death penalty, but I may be in the minority on that on this board

An eye for an eye.

 

[Dattier]

Disclaimer. I haven't read the books y'all have written today. But I see where @Dattier commented on the illegal immigrant who is suspected of being an MS13 member and blabbering about the rule of law. He was here illegally. So by rule of law, he had no right to be here, and no rights.

He came here illegally. In 2019, during the first Trump administration, he was granted a "withholding of removal" verdict from a judge, meaning he cannot legally be deported... meaning he is legally permitted to stay here despite having initially arrived here illegally.
So no, he was not here illegally, and Homeland Security under the first Trump administration gave him a work permit.
By the rule of law, he had every right to be here indefinitely, and like all humans of any citizenship, is protected by the same Constitutional rights citizens are protected by in the US.
You are wrong about the rule of law and you are wrong about citizenship being required for Constitutional rights. All of this has been well established consistently by SCOTUS.

 

[Th0r]

I know you guys love talking tariffs and economics—and apparently, I can’t help writing the occasional short novel on the subject. So strap in.

This is speculation on my part, based on how events have been unfolding. That said, with Trump, policy often mirrors whoever got in his ear last—so if Navarro shows up today, the entire approach could flip by dinner.

Still, it looks like the administration is preparing to roll back the China tariffs significantly—potentially cutting them from 145% to somewhere between 50% and 65%. That’s not just a recalibration—that’s a substantial reversal.

Let’s not pretend 50% is some kind of compromise. For small businesses that rely on imported goods or components, it’s still a disaster. They can’t absorb those kinds of costs, and if this holds, a wave of bankruptcies over the next 90 days wouldn’t surprise me. Don’t worry, Walmart’s fine. It’s their suppliers—the small operators trying to stay afloat—that are going to get wiped out. And maybe that was the plan all along. Drive out the little guys, let a handful of CEOs consolidate even more market share, and call it a win for “American industry.”

This entire episode has exposed what was clear from the outset: there was no coherent policy here. It was posturing, and not planning. The assumption was that by hitting hard, markets would panic and foreign capital would rush into U.S. bonds, giving the administration leverage. But instead of reinforcing our position, capital pulled back from both equities and debt markets. They gambled on predictability—and got caught with their pants down.

Now comes the quiet retreat. China’s signaling openness to talks, but only if the threats stop. Both sides are easing the rhetoric, but the fallout may already be baked in.

And just wait—when the dust settles, the administration will call this a win. They’ll point to a few symbolic agreements and pretend the whole thing was part of the plan. Don’t buy it. This isn’t a victory lap—it’s damage control.

And no, this wasn’t some 4D chess move. Real negotiation starts with clear goals and a plan to get there. What we got was a self-inflicted punch to the balls, followed by a scramble to explain it away. If this is “the art of the deal,” then the deal is badly written.

I’ve said before—tariffs can be useful, but only when they’re part of a broader, disciplined strategy. This wasn’t that. It was improvised, reactive, and economically reckless. If blanket tariffs are going to exist at all, they should be capped at something closer to 10%, and even then, only with a clear purpose behind them. Strategic tariffs—targeted, limited, and tied to clear goals—are a completely different animal from the kind of blanket tariff wall we’ve seen here. One helps you bargain. The other just burns leverage for headlines.

And this circles back to the larger point I’ve been making: Congress never should’ve allowed this kind of unilateral action in the first place. One person shouldn’t be able to unilaterally reshape decades of trade policy under the guise of an emergency. Article I gives Congress—not the President—the authority over tariffs and commerce. It’s time they take it back. Because when that power drifts unchecked to the executive, we don’t get policy—we get chaos with a press team.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk on tariff trauma.

 

[GhostOf301]

I know you guys love talking tariffs and economics—and apparently, I can’t help writing the occasional short novel on the subject. So strap in.

This is speculation on my part, based on how events have been unfolding. That said, with Trump, policy often mirrors whoever got in his ear last—so if Navarro shows up today, the entire approach could flip by dinner.

Still, it looks like the administration is preparing to roll back the China tariffs significantly—potentially cutting them from 145% to somewhere between 50% and 65%. That’s not just a recalibration—that’s a substantial reversal.

Let’s not pretend 50% is some kind of compromise. For small businesses that rely on imported goods or components, it’s still a disaster. They can’t absorb those kinds of costs, and if this holds, a wave of bankruptcies over the next 90 days wouldn’t surprise me. Don’t worry, Walmart’s fine. It’s their suppliers—the small operators trying to stay afloat—that are going to get wiped out. And maybe that was the plan all along. Drive out the little guys, let a handful of CEOs consolidate even more market share, and call it a win for “American industry.”

This entire episode has exposed what was clear from the outset: there was no coherent policy here. It was posturing, and not planning. The assumption was that by hitting hard, markets would panic and foreign capital would rush into U.S. bonds, giving the administration leverage. But instead of reinforcing our position, capital pulled back from both equities and debt markets. They gambled on predictability—and got caught with their pants down.

Now comes the quiet retreat. China’s signaling openness to talks, but only if the threats stop. Both sides are easing the rhetoric, but the fallout may already be baked in.

And just wait—when the dust settles, the administration will call this a win. They’ll point to a few symbolic agreements and pretend the whole thing was part of the plan. Don’t buy it. This isn’t a victory lap—it’s damage control.

And no, this wasn’t some 4D chess move. Real negotiation starts with clear goals and a plan to get there. What we got was a self-inflicted punch to the balls, followed by a scramble to explain it away. If this is “the art of the deal,” then the deal is badly written.

I’ve said before—tariffs can be useful, but only when they’re part of a broader, disciplined strategy. This wasn’t that. It was improvised, reactive, and economically reckless. If blanket tariffs are going to exist at all, they should be capped at something closer to 10%, and even then, only with a clear purpose behind them. Strategic tariffs—targeted, limited, and tied to clear goals—are a completely different animal from the kind of blanket tariff wall we’ve seen here. One helps you bargain. The other just burns leverage for headlines.

And this circles back to the larger point I’ve been making: Congress never should’ve allowed this kind of unilateral action in the first place. One person shouldn’t be able to unilaterally reshape decades of trade policy under the guise of an emergency. Article I gives Congress—not the President—the authority over tariffs and commerce. It’s time they take it back. Because when that power drifts unchecked to the executive, we don’t get policy—we get chaos with a press team.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk on tariff trauma.

Just curious what outcome of this strategy you would consider a victory worth celebrating. It seems you already have your conclusions.

 

[Mac9192]

No offense, but where were you @Th0r from 21 thru 24? I get that all of us on the right spent 4 years criticizing Biden. Our country turned into a full on shit show while he was in office. Trump may very well might be making some mistakes. I still think it's a little early to be blasting him, but that's a part of the game. Compared to the last administration though? No one knew who was making decisions while Ol Joe was eating Corn puffs, watching Looney Tunes, and being kept away from the public. There is NO defending that.

Sorry, but I tried reading the above novel, but my eyes glazed over.

 

[Th0r]

Just curious what outcome of this strategy you would consider a victory worth celebrating. It seems you already have your conclusions.

A coordinated strategy where the U.S., alongside allies, targets sectors where China holds strategic monopolies. Like raw mineral production, lithium-ion batteries production, green energy tech, magnets, semiconductors, pharmaceutical ingredients, and electronics assembly—each of which poses a national security and economic risk to the United States. This is exactly where targeted, coordinated tariffs should come into play.

The goal shouldn’t be to isolate China overnight or bring every job back home—it’s to apply sustained, focused pressure on key sectors while giving U.S. industry time and incentive to rebuild capacity over a realistic, multi-year timeline.

We also need to drop the fairy tale that all manufacturing is coming back. The U.S. economy benefits from global labor dynamics, especially in developing markets—that’s a separate debate, but it’s reality. And even if production returns, most of those jobs will be automated. This is about control of supply chains, not recreating a 20th-century workforce.

A real win means securing our strategic production capabilities without self-inflicted damage.