—> US Sends More Immigrants to Salvadoran Prison | SCOTUS vs POTUS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 38K
  • Politics 
I thought it was implied. As is putting people in cages or separating kids from their parents. I didn't realize I needed to spell that out for anyone specifically. Is there a reason you don't automatically associate those things with being fundamentally wrong or morally indefensible? I'm just asking why you wouldn't already know that.
It wasn't implied at all. The most you said about them was that it would be politically harmful. Leaving out the fundamental wrongness is a way of sanitizing the behavior- especially when it is listed alongside other activities which are in no way morally equivalent.

I do associate those things with being wrong and morally indefensible. Based on your posting history, I am not convinced you share that understanding. Including this thread.
 
Immigration was a top issue of concern. And most polls showed Trump leading the issue. We shouldn't be back tracking with well known facts. Try and keep up!
Convenient how you guys keep changing your story about why Trump won.

It's as if people voted for many different reasons, and there's no mandate for any specific issue. The popular vote doesn't override the constitution.

What we are talking about is the constitution. This isn't about migrants or "illegal" immigrants. This is about whether the president has to follow the law.
 

Comparing the Biden and Trump Deportation Records​


Trump admitted that when he said 10 - 20 million illegals he just made that up because the real number is closer to 100 million. That's why it has been so easy to hire illegals to work at Mar-a-lago and save a ton of money
Immigration was a top issue of concern. And most polls showed Trump leading the issue. We shouldn't be back tracking with well known facts. Try and keep up!
Thought you were a banned IC poster now, using a different name

Cat got your tongue?

C'mon try to keep up
 
Last edited:
It wasn't implied at all. The most you said about them was that it would be politically harmful. Leaving out the fundamental wrongness is a way of sanitizing the behavior- especially when it is listed alongside other activities which are in no way morally equivalent.

I do associate those things with being wrong and morally indefensible. Based on your posting history, I am not convinced you share that understanding. Including this thread.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I just think putting kids in cages and shipping them off to some hell hole prison is morally wrong on its face. I assumed everyone would feel that way but obviously I was wrong.
 

Bukele Floats Prisoner Swap Deal to Set Trump Deportees Free​



“… The Salvadoran president wrote in a social media post addressed to Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro that “unlike our detainees… your political prisoners have not committed any crimes.”

His post called for the “release and surrender” of a journalist, lawyer and activist, four political leaders and almost 50 detainees of other nationalities, including U.S., European and Middle Eastern nationals.

… It wasn’t clear whether Bukele was offering to repatriate the men in exchange for guarantees they would be imprisoned in Venezuela.

Nor was it clear whether he really intended to bypass the U.S., or whether he had publicly posted his offer directly to Venezuela as a way to bolster the Trump administration’s claims it no longer has any legal authority over the men in question. …”
 

Bukele Floats Prisoner Swap Deal to Set Trump Deportees Free​



“… The Salvadoran president wrote in a social media post addressed to Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro that “unlike our detainees… your political prisoners have not committed any crimes.”

His post called for the “release and surrender” of a journalist, lawyer and activist, four political leaders and almost 50 detainees of other nationalities, including U.S., European and Middle Eastern nationals.

… It wasn’t clear whether Bukele was offering to repatriate the men in exchange for guarantees they would be imprisoned in Venezuela.

Nor was it clear whether he really intended to bypass the U.S., or whether he had publicly posted his offer directly to Venezuela as a way to bolster the Trump administration’s claims it no longer has any legal authority over the men in question. …”
“… Bukele nevertheless wrote on social media that his foreign ministry would forward Venezuela a formal proposal for the prisoner swap.

The country’s [Venezuela’s] chief prosecutor Tarek William Saab blasted the offer in a statement, Reuters reported. He demanded to know what crimes the detainees had been accused of, whether they had appeared before a judge and had access to legal counsel, and whether they had been allowed to contact their families.

The offer reaffirmed that the Venezuelan deportees “are being arbitrarily detained and in a condition of forced disappearance,” he wrote. …”




 
It's clear that the Trump admin screwed up when they deported Garcia to El Salvador but, as far as the other non-permanent residents are concerned, why would they be treated any different than any other foreign national, i.e. an ambassador, that the President has decided isn't welcome here? From what I've read, there's no requirement for an unwanted ambassador to be given a chance to present his/her case. In fact, the majority of people who arrive at a port of entry, and are immediately turned away, are never given a court hearing.
 
It's clear that the Trump admin screwed up when they deported Garcia to El Salvador but, as far as the other non-permanent residents are concerned, why would they be treated any different than any other foreign national, i.e. an ambassador, that the President has decided isn't welcome here? From what I've read, there's no requirement for an unwanted ambassador to be given a chance to present his/her case. In fact, the majority of people who arrive at a port of entry, and are immediately turned away, are never given a court hearing.
Ambassadors are treated differently under the law due to diplomatic immunity -- it is almost like they are not physically present in the US. That is why ambassador kids born in the US are not US citizens.

US laws are different once you cross into the country. That is true of virtually every country on earth. You can deny people entry, but once you admit them, different laws apply.
 
It's clear that the Trump admin screwed up when they deported Garcia to El Salvador but, as far as the other non-permanent residents are concerned, why would they be treated any different than any other foreign national, i.e. an ambassador, that the President has decided isn't welcome here? From what I've read, there's no requirement for an unwanted ambassador to be given a chance to present his/her case. In fact, the majority of people who arrive at a port of entry, and are immediately turned away, are never given a court hearing.
Also, how do you know someone is a foreign national or not if you do not afford due process? What if Trump said you were a foreign national and wanted to send you to CECOT? Would you want some way to prove your innocence?
 
Back
Top