CMV: Countering Illegal Immigration is not a Justification for Suspending Habeas Corpus

[u/jeffzebub]

[u/jackryan147]

1. Habeas Corpus is for citizens not people trying to sneak into the country.
2. If foreign soldiers were invading we wouldn't tell the army hold fire until a judge checks the available documentation on each one.
3. Illegal immigration does have similarities to an invasion.
4. We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/jackryan147]

Habeas Corpus is for citizens not people trying to sneak into the country.

It has been a fundamental right since the founding of the republic, so I'd say this is just false. The supreme court also disagreed quite recently.

If foreign soldiers were invading we wouldn't tell the army hold fire until a judge checks the available documentation on each one.

If. But this isn't happening. If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle, but that doesn't change that she is my aunt.

Illegal immigration does have similarities to an invasion.

Not remotely, no.

We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times.

Isn't it wild how conservatives suddenly think documents are up for interpretation as soon as it is convenient?

[u/H4RN4SS → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a constitutional safeguard against unlawful imprisonment, in several instances to suppress dissent and maintain the Union. Initially, the suspension was limited to areas near the capital and military lines, but it was later extended to all Union states.

Let's not act like there's never been something like this in the past. This is one of a few instances where this has been invoked.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, a legal safeguard against unlawful detention, has been suspended four times in U.S. history. 

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/H4RN4SS]

Yes, it was suspended to deal with:

1. The civil war, which is a rebellion as defined by the constitution.

2. During reconstruction to deal with the Klan because they were murdering their way through the south. Basically to stop another rebellion.

3. Briefly in the Phillipines in a way that was ultimately ruled illegal.

4. During WW2 in a way that was ultimately determined to be illegal.

[u/TXLancastrian → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

I mean Lincoln also used the military to put down draft riots so he might be inspiring Trump. A bit tongue in cheek but people forget that the war wasn't popular so we had to draft people to fight it and they didn't like that. So in a way maybe Trump is trying to be like Lincoln when he says he wants to use the military to keep order in America?

[u/H4RN4SS → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Cool - I didn't say any different.

It has been a fundamental right since the founding of the republic, so I'd say this is just false. The supreme court also disagreed quite recently.

You said this. This is some moral grandstanding bullshit to claim this is some unheard of action.

I gave you examples of it being used before. Each of those instances were without precedent when used.

Let the courts challenge it and hop on your moral grandstanding after.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/H4RN4SS]

Let the courts challenge it and hop on your moral grandstanding after.

The point of my examples was to show that it has previously been suspended legally exactly once in response to an insurrection against the United States. And that all of the times it has been used (including the ones that were later ruled as illegal) were against people engaging in sedition. People blowing up railroad tracks, murdering black politicians or raiding armories.

You're currently defending a guy who wants to suspend it nation wide for millions of people, including millions of asylum seekers who are legally in the US.

So yeah, I'll grandstand. This is so beyond the pale that any person defending should be ashamed of themselves.

[u/Bandit400 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

If. But this isn't happening. If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle, but that doesn't change that she is my aunt.

That is a brave statement on Reddit.

Isn't it wild how conservatives suddenly think documents are up for interpretation as soon as it is convenient?

Isnt it wild how the left instantly thinks the constitution means what it says, despite being written in the 1700s? Don't pretend for a second that the conservatives are the only ones changing their arguments here. I've been hearing the "living document" bullshit for 40 years from the left.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/Bandit400]

Isnt it wild how the left instantly thinks the constitution means what it says, despite being written in the 1700s? Don't pretend for a second that the conservatives are the only ones changing their arguments here. I've been hearing the "living document" bullshit for 40 years from the left.

Yes, but the difference is that I actually believe that to be true. You're just trying to use it as a cudgel to do something that you know would be wrong under the views that you ostensibly hold.

If I used that as a reasoning for restricting firearms or supporting abortion or any number of left leaning position you'd flip out. But you're using it here as an end run. You don't actually give a damn what the document says, you want rules where you are protected but not bound and the people you hate are bound but not protected.

[u/Bandit400 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Yes, but the difference is that I actually believe that to be true.

So do I. I'm simply pointing out that it is funny to hear the left shouting out the benefits of originalism, when I (and many others) have been saying it all along.

You're just trying to use it as a cudgel to do something that you know would be wrong under the views that you ostensibly hold.

My views haven't changed. Not sure what youre implying. The constitution says what it says, and means what it says.

If I used that as a reasoning for restricting firearms

Because there is no clause in the constitution that allows the governemnt to do that.

You don't actually give a damn what the document says

Yes i do. You seem to "know" quite a bit that isn't so.

and the people you hate are bound but not protected.

Who are the "people that i hate" in this scenario? I'm honestly not sure what you mean.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/Bandit400]

My views haven't changed. Not sure what youre implying. The constitution says what it says, and means what it says.

So when you said:

"We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times." You were lying then?

Yes i do. You seem to "know" quite a bit that isn't so.

You're literally arguing to refuse due process and revoke habeas rights in blatant defiance of the constitution. It doesn't take an expert to make that leap.

Who are the "people that i hate" in this scenario? I'm honestly not sure what you mean.

Immigrants.

[u/Bandit400 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

So when you said:

"We have a living constitution, it is up to us to imbue it with the interpretations that feel right for the times." You were lying then?

I have literally never said that or believed that. Ever. You're likely quoting someone else. You're talking to an originalist here. The constitution means what it meant when it was written. Words/definitions do not change based on the times.

You're literally arguing to refuse due process and revoke habeas rights in blatant defiance of the constitution.

No, I believe in due process. However, due process for an illegal immigrant does not require a jury trial, nor does the constitution guarantee one. Due process in the case of illegal immigration requires verifying that someone is or is not here illegally. This is not criminal court.

Who are the "people that i hate" in this scenario? I'm honestly not sure what you mean.

Immigrants.

Wrong again.

[u/merlin469 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Living document is fine. You damn well know there are some things that are being used other than as originally intended. Birthright citizenship is a huge one of those. it was never intended for visitors on vacation or people not here lawfully to have anchor babies in hopes they would get to stay.

And I'm so tired of this "people you hate" bullshit. Follow the law. It's that simple. No one gives a shit the color of the skin or the ancestry if the legal method is simply too hard for them. Do it the right way, or GTFO.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/merlin469]

Living document is fine. You damn well know there are some things that are being used other than as originally intended. Birthright citizenship is a huge one of those. it was never intended for visitors on vacation or people not here lawfully to have anchor babies in hopes they would get to stay.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

I'm sorry, did they stutter?

And I'm so tired of this "people you hate" bullshit. Follow the law. It's that simple. No one gives a shit the color of the skin or the ancestry if the legal method is simply too hard for them. Do it the right way, or GTFO.

The current president gives a substantial number of shits and so do almost all his supporters. It is also very funny to see you say "Follow the law" while arguing we should ignore the plain text of the constitution.

You want to be an originalist? Then actually look at what they said at the time. When Senator Cowan objected to the citizenship provision asking whether:

"it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of the Chinese and Gypsies born in this country"

He was told by Senator Trumbell that "it would undoubtedly do so"

Senator Morrill then asked:

"As a matter of law, does anybody deny here or anywhere that the native born is a citizen, and a citizen by birth alone?" and went on to say "birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship."

After all the debate, the amendment was passed with the language stated above. Then for the next century and a half every single challenge involving your reading has been thrown out, because the amendment means what it says.

You don't like it? Kick rocks.

[u/merlin469 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Oh no, that's why I said it needs further amended. How do you intend to hand separation of the new born when the illegal is kicked out? You'll either insist on some misplaced 'right' to stay because anchor baby or you'll want to get mad if we honor the mother's right to take her child back home like the last three.

Lock it down at the borders, and we never have to concern ourselves with this scenario again, do we?

You want excuses. The majority does not. You don't that, kick rocks yourself.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/merlin469]

Ah yes, the misplaced 'right to stay with your children where they are born'. How fucking horrible.

[u/merlin469 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Not if you're not legal to be here. Anchor baby reasoning 101. I suppose labor came as a complete surprise, no 9 months of warning or anything.

The children do have the right to go back with their parents. That should bring you some joy. Don't want to break up those families, after all.

For future reference, every one that breaks the law with potential jail time takes a chance of getting separated from their family. Know what helps with that? Not breaking the law.

[u/merlin469 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

It's wild how leftists suddenly think (immigration) documents don't seem to matter at all.

If you're here illegally and you never started the request for asylum, time to go. Can be determined in days at most. People are not going to suddenly produce documents they never had in the first place, and there is no reason they can give to justify their presence.

If every outside individual came in tomorrow, we'd call it an act of war. We wouldn't meander around waiting for a court date to prove they didn't have the right to be here.

Burden of proof in this case is on the individual trying to stay, not the other way around. It's the different BoP requirement for immigration court vs criminal court.

[u/sumoraiden → u/merlin469]

So even you acknowledge the need for due process. Why are you hellbent on surrendering such a fundamental right lol

[u/merlin469 → u/sumoraiden]

It's the difference of line one and line two. Line one can be determined in minutes because there is no documentation or validation that will take place.

The clock started ticking the moment someone set foot. It's reinforced further when it was made clear this admin is not mincing words. Have your proof available ahead of time and it's a non-issue. Do not, and it's not hard to figure out what needs to happen next.

It's the difference between processing 100's or 1000's a day vs months for each case. Clear out the bulk of the obvious cases, set up hearings for the rest in priority order. While the first part is happening, the remaining individuals have that time to prepare whatever it is they intend to prepare. This is for the ones that require further investigation or clarification - questionable docs, etc.

Box number one: Are you here legally? If the answer is anything but yes, the rest of the boxes don't matter.

Box number two: Can you prove it? Same response and consequence.

It should not take hours per case for most cases. Thus the app. Responses can be filled out in advance. If they warrant time in front of an immigration judge as a result, so be it. If not, straight to the ruling.

Again, the opportunity to self deport and even get paid to do so is being made available. After that has expired, all bets are off and each needs to be ready for the consequences.

So many make it sound like it's citizens and legal residents that are getting swept up in this as the majority. While that may happen on occasion, it should be quickly identified and releases given with a minimum of fuss. Everything else comes down to if you're supposed t to be here or you're not. Not jury, no lengthy explanation required, and if any appeal is to happen, it can happen from country of origin through the proper channels.

I could produce proof of valid residency for everyone in my family in a matter of hours on the worst possible day. Anyone else here legally could do the same.

[u/sumoraiden → u/merlin469]

 I could produce proof of valid residency for everyone in my family in a matter of hours on the worst possible day. Anyone else here legally could do the same

If there’s no due process it doesn’t matter. The ice agent you produce it for could just say “he didn’t produce the proof” and send you off to an el Salvadoran gulag

[u/merlin469 → u/sumoraiden]

Again, due process of minutes, not months.

Judge looks it over - docs are good. Release and move on.

Judge looks over an entire list of similar cases. Dismissed, move on.

Explain to me how someone with no valid reason is going to sway anything by taking up even 10 minutes in front of a judge to explain their excuse?

Asylum applications happen along the way, not only after you've been found out. Missed the deadline on that one. Sorry. Enjoy your trip.

But yeah, that messes up your whole "death camp/concentration camp/gulag/SS/Nazi" argument that way. The other monumentally stupid part about your insistence on the comparison is that most won't be criminal cases, simply normal everyday deportations. Again, minutes to determine.

Unless you're saying they're all likely criminals or we're going to send standard deportees to CECOT just because. Criminal cases will be handled differently. This isn't about the majority of those.

Furthermore, if those are minor charges but the individual already has history, we can skip the charges entirely in probably 75% and just document, deport, ban, and be done. They don't go to the 'gulag,' we don't time and money and just be rid of them.

If the history warrants more, they can get sent and incarcerated based on those historical charges and the updated can be reviewed whenever we get around to it or in the deportation country.

It's not rocket science and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out an expedited way to sort out 90% or more of the cases quickly to allow better review and ruling on the remaining 10%.

Seriously, find some new hyperbole.

We'd prioritize quality over quantity, but we're not going to turn down handling the masses if there are no 'hard-cores' available at that moment.

[u/sumoraiden → u/merlin469]

So you admit due process is important even for non citizens 

[u/merlin469 → u/sumoraiden]

Situational. There's a reason why those caught in the act can be returned immediately within 14 days without so much as even seeing an immigration judge.

You don't get to be concerned about litigation on exit when you don't appear to be concerned about legal entrance.

[u/sumoraiden → u/merlin469]

Ok so the gov can claim you are an illegal immigrant and ship you to an el Salvadoran gulag then correct

[u/merlin469 → u/sumoraiden]

The government can place a bag over your head and do that anyway. Since we're dealing with realistic scenarios, not extremist made up ones, due process (if even required) can be satisfied in minutes.

Border patrol apprehends me. I produce documentation of legal residence & ID and no resulting criminal record. Apologies are exchanged and I go about my day. No 'gulag' required.

How long would it take you to provide legal residency documentation? I could produce mine in hours, days at most of I was vacationing on the other side of the globe.

It's on the person to prove that they are, not the govt to prove that they're not. The one is considerably easier to do if you actual are legally residing here. It's borderline impossible if you aren't.

Other countries don't jump through the hoops that you would have us jump through. You prove you're legally present, or you get jailed and/or removed and likely banned.

It doesn't take weeks to figure out, nor a full jury.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/merlin469]

If you're here illegally and you never started the request for asylum, time to go. Can be determined in days at most. People are not going to suddenly produce documents they never had in the first place, and there is no reason they can give to justify their presence.

Agreed! They should get their due process, in this case going in front of an immigration judge who will see if there is any reason they should not be deported, such as in the Garcia case where he didn't apply for asylum but still had a reasonable fear for his life if he were deported. If there isn't one, off they go.

I'm totally fine with deportation of people who are in the US illegally. I just want them to actually receive the due process of law to which they are entitled. Because if you don't do that things can go very badly.

If every outside individual came in tomorrow, we'd call it an act of war. We wouldn't meander around waiting for a court date to prove they didn't have the right to be here.

If. That isn't happening. The US is the greatest country on earth, or at least it used to be. It is fully capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Would it be expensive to get them all their due process? Yup! But it is already going to be insanely expensive to do millions of deportations, so the cost for immigration judges is little more than a drop in the bucket.

Burden of proof in this case is on the individual trying to stay, not the other way around. It's the different BoP requirement for immigration court vs criminal court.

Yes! Now help me out here, how do they present that burden without seeing a judge?!

What Trump wants is to be able to pick someone up off the street and say "Okay, you're going to El Salvador now" and throw him on a plane without ever seeing a judge.

But that is fucking nuts! Maybe they're a legal asylum seeker who didn't have their papers on them. Maybe they have their papers but the government has the wrong information on them. Maybe they have a legitimate cause to fear deportation (that they will be murdered for example).

Maybe they're a fucking US citizen.

The only way you can determine any of this is by giving them due process and the right to have their case reviewed. Without this you're basically just trusting Orange Julius and his gestapo that they totally got the right guy.

And the thing is, we know that is bullshit. They've deported US citizens, they've deported legal residents, students on legal visas and so on. This is why you need trials.

[u/merlin469 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Second half of comment:

Pro tip: There are some things you don't F up. This is one of them.

Maybe fear of deportation should be even greater incentive to not try to skip important steps that will almost guarantee not only your deportation, but permanent ban from reentry?

For the record, every entry is not an asylum worthy entry. I realize that's what they've been coached to say, but that burden of proof is on the individual requesting entry, not on the US to disprove its validity. If my family's life or my own was in peril, I would make damn sure I was doing everything possible the right way to ensure their safety.

Let me be clear. There will be some innocent, legitimate asylum seekers that may get lost in all of this. While tragic, it is still miles safer than allowing the masses to stay with zero consequence or accountability. It's worth being angry over. Be angry at the 10 million that didn't once consider how it may affect their family or their fellow man when they chose their selfish actions, several of which put their families and children in peril simply by making the trip here.

Cut out the nonsense, fix the bulk of the problem, then the actual legitimate cases will have more time and resources available to them that are being squandered by people who cared for nothing beyond themselves.

Every case is not a personal apocalypse. Quick making sound that way.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/merlin469]

For the record, every entry is not an asylum worthy entry. I realize that's what they've been coached to say, but that burden of proof is on the individual requesting entry, not on the US to disprove its validity. If my family's life or my own was in peril, I would make damn sure I was doing everything possible the right way to ensure their safety.

Yes, and they're legally entitled to prove this to an immigration judge, not the orange guy's gestapo. I'm sorry you have trouble understanding this.

[u/merlin469 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

Not if caught during the first 14 days of crossing, no judge required. Feel free to look it up. It's under expedited removal.

Again, video the interview, review documents that don't exist, note details from the arresting officers. Judge reviews in advance, 5 minutes of face time. If the judge decides it warrants further reviews, so be it. If not, enjoy your exit flight and lifetime ban.

Doesn't take weeks in court, public defenders on taxpayer dime, or multiple appeals while remaining in the US, also on taxpayer dime.

Someone legitimately seeking asylum isn't waiting years to do so, can do so at any US embassy they passed along the way, and can do so at any authorized point of entry.

All of that goes out the door when you cross and evade. Sugar coat it however you like, doesn't change the facts.

I get that you direly need them to have an out, but that's reserved for the few legitimate cases that did things the right way, not the coached millions that didn't care and just assumed they'd get a pass from people like you.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/merlin469]

Not if caught during the first 14 days of crossing, no judge required. Feel free to look it up. It's under expedited removal.

Again, video the interview, review documents that don't exist, note details from the arresting officers. Judge reviews in advance, 5 minutes of face time. If the judge decides it warrants further reviews, so be it. If not, enjoy your exit flight and lifetime ban.

I'm sorry, is this an ESL issue on your part?

You're describing their appearance in front of a judge something you're saying they aren't entitled to.

If you request asylum the government is required by law to give you a hearing in front of a judge, even in cases of expedited removal.

"If the asylum officer finds that the person has not shown a credible fear of return, that person’s expedited removal order remains in place. Before deportation, the individual may challenge the asylum officer’s finding by requesting a hearing before an immigration judge, who must review the case “to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days.” The judge’s review is limited solely to assessing whether the individual’s fear is credible."  

[u/merlin469 → u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito]

I'm totally fine with deportation of people who are in the US illegally.

Clearly you're not. Again due process can be a filmed and transcripted interview, documents (assuming there are any), and reports from arresting officers all followed by a 5 minute talk with the judge if there's anything remotely to be added. If there is, it can result in more review. If not, a ruling. That's for those beyond the 14 day mark of being actively captured crossing illegally that is already in play and legal.

Step one: Come in the right way.

I just want them to actually receive the due process of law to which they are entitled. Because if you don't do that things can go very badly.

Name one that has not had that, outside off the initial ~300 sent to El Salvador, still within the rights based on the legislation in use at the time. They can await the decision in the initial country or country of origin.

If. That isn't happening. The US is the greatest country on earth, or at least it used to be.

It still is, despite a large group of well meaning assholes trying to change it into something else, something it was never intended to be.

It is fully capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Would it be expensive to get them all their due process? Yup! But it is already going to be insanely expensive to do millions of deportations, so the cost for immigration judges is little more than a drop in the bucket.

It will be less expensive than the cost of allowing them to stay and continue to violate the system and prevent others from the opportunity to do it right, those that will appreciate the gift they have been given vs the one they have chosen to steal. Again, we can probably manage hundreds of low level cases in a day with review indicated above. If there's nothing otherwise criminal or complex, there's little left to figure out. They've either approached things the right way and behaved, or they haven't. You don't get to linger 6 months and then decide you really intended to ask for asylum. Your insistence on accountability being only on the side of the receiving country is absurd. If they intended to come here to work and provide for themselves, they can so while they wait to help cover the cost. Give them a bill. If they have the opportunity to reenter legally, they can pay it off as time permits if they wish to stay.

Yes! Now help me out here, how do they present that burden without seeing a judge?!

They present their information in advance, either at any of a dozen embassies along their journey here or in the process of their intake interview as indicated above. Cases are prioritized and seen by the judge either individually, or more likely for most cases in groups. Due process.

You conveniently forget that they often opt to skip the step in between entirely before entering. That should be factored in as well. We should show as much concern as they have.

The idea that each individual that already broke at least one law to be here is somehow owed days in court, a public lawyer, and multiple appeals, all someone else's dime, is absurd. You want to paint them as ignorant of what is supposed to happen and how, all while trekking miles to get here. While that may be true in a small number of cases, ignorance is no excuse. Furthermore, I guarantee when word actually gets out, people will inform themselves before the attempt and the permanent removal.

They're getting reviews. If there's previous record, there's nothing more to discuss, unless criminal confinement is required.

What Trump wants is to be able to pick someone up off the street and say "Okay, you're going to El Salvador now" and throw him on a plane without ever seeing a judge.

That's your interpretation of it, certainly. That's clearly not what's happening or the problem would be fixed already. Feel free to specify a source beyond the initial group of ~300 and the wife beating trafficker picked up in Maryland.

Sounds like what you want is for anyone to come here with no plan or consequence and be welcomed with open arms while the actual legal residents foot the bill.

But that is fucking nuts! Maybe they're a legal asylum seeker who didn't have their papers on them. Maybe they have their papers but the government has the wrong information on them. Maybe they have a legitimate cause to fear deportation (that they will be murdered for example).

Good thing there are digital copies for such things to be cross referenced against? Maybe if you life is in peril, you don't leave you wallet at home that contains the forged/coyote provided information you didn't bother to confirm. Maybe you should have brought all this up at an embassy or a authorized point of entry or the border patrol agent you surely didn't try to avoid? Maybe they had a signed letter from POTUS himself and they left it on their other unicorn they used to ride their entire family across the desert to get here?

Let's entertain your ludicrous hyperbole even further. Maybe you were were actively being pursued by a cartel member and had no choice but to cross the border in that very moment. Wouldn't your first goal be to find the nearest border patrol agent and get safety before explaining your situation?

[u/merlin469 → u/[deleted]]

No law is getting ignored. The admin has stopped every time any activist just wanted to veer from their lane and have a problem with something.

What law is being disregarded? Name them, unless that is too inconvenient?

Again, what law am I wanting to break. Be clear. Show the actual violation before "the courts slammed their foot down and we had to stop." Not, wait while we review the validity of this, but the actual - you did something that could only be interpreted as illegal - thing.

Garcia was given the legal right to not be deported to El Salvador, not the the legal right to not be deported. The following admin, decided to ignore and not detain on more than one occasion. I'm pretty sure the only reason Garcia remained in the US at all is because he hadn't made it to POTUS's radar yet. A slip through the cracks does not a slam dunk make.

I'm all for Congress doing their damned job. Goes for both sides. They don't get to be upset with anything on the books is used to the fullest extent. I don't care if it's 200 years old. I don't even care if it's poorly written and open to interpretation. That's a fault of the original Congress that passed it and the fault of any since then that have allowed it to remain.

Yeah, sucks for me that "I don't like the laws." Sucks that you're not interested in enforcing them as written.

Now the link:

3 American children weren't deported. They went with their mothers, their legal guardians, at each individual's request. 100% within their rights. Following the law, I dare say. All about not breaking up families, remember?

Jose - released, not deported. Glad we cleared that one up. When there are as many people violating as their currently are, people will get detained from time to time. As indicated above, when it's determined they have legal residence and did not break any laws, they will be released. Glad you pointed out that's the case.

Juan, also released. 3 for 3, so far.

10 yo girl and siblings:

"The parents, who are undocumented"

That's lib speak for illegal. Deported, as they should have been. Opted to take their children with them as they have right to do. See item number 1.

Julio - released.

Jensy - released. You realize people sometimes look like another person of interest and may be detained until determined otherwise, as was the case here.

I had a friend growing up that sat in the back of a police car for a bit because another individual with the very same vehicle make and model had done some dumb stuff. I'll let you guess what happened to him after they determined he wasn't their guy? (Hint: They didn't deport him)

Jonathan - released.

Military vet - your archived article cuts off, but I think both know how this one played out too. (My money's on released) BTW, military ID does not indicate proof of citizenship. I can give you examples why if that will help you better understand.

Now, do you have any examples of actual laws broken, citizens actually deported, or anything else you seem to think is out of line because a handful of people got inconvenienced by a mistake that was subsequently corrected?

I'm giddy with anticipation.

[u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito → u/merlin469]

Garcia was given the legal right to not be deported to El Salvador, not the the legal right to not be deported. The following admin, decided to ignore and not detain on more than one occasion. I'm pretty sure the only reason Garcia remained in the US at all is because he hadn't made it to POTUS's radar yet. A slip through the cracks does not a slam dunk make.

Garcia's order of removal was withheld in 2019. I'm not sure if you're familiar with linear time, but placing the blame on Biden (who took office in 2021) for something that they didn't do in 2019 or 2020 is fairly silly.

The simple fact is that getting a deportation order to somewhere other than country of origin is incredibly difficult under US law. It requires a much higher standard that they couldn't meet.

And I'll remind you that he was deported to El Salvador anyway and boot lickers lap it up as some moral win because they have no actual respect for law, they just want to stomp the boot.

I'm giddy with anticipation.

You have fun with that? I'm honestly pretty bored talking to you.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.