Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
They are, though.
Are you confusing "legal resident" with "legal permanent resident"? Or do you genuinely believe that people who enter the US perfectly legally have no right to be there and can be deported on a whim?
They are the same thing.
A Legal Resident of the United States presumes that the person has obtained Legal Permanent Residence status.
I mean, this is pretty pointless.
If you have a protection visa, you still have a right to due process. It doesn't matter if you're a legal resident or not. A person on holidays should get the same protection but Trump has reneged on that becuase the he looked up their Twitter posts and saw they said something critical of DOGE. Automatic deportation apparently
So much for Free Speech
If you have a protection visa, you still have a right to due process. It doesn't matter if you're a legal resident or not. A person on holidays should get the same protection but Trump has reneged on that becuase the he looked up their Twitter posts and saw they said something critical of DOGE. Automatic deportation apparently
So much for Free Speech
Not exactly. As a general rule, the executive has often had significant liberty to decide who crosses the border especially in terms of individuals. It's not that hard to declare someone persona non grata and deny entry. What's more likely a problem for the executive are blanket rules against demographic groups, (i.e. discrimination).
This is much more the point. It's sending out a message not to criticise the US administration - or else.
The Trump administration is overtly threatening people and organisations for disagreement or disobedience in all manner of ways - be it refusing entry at the border, refusing government contracts to universities, selecting with extreme prejudice which media gets access to the president, etc.
Then JD Vance goes abroad and gaslights everyone else about their deficiencies in free speech.
That quote isn't from an official source; it's from a (quite amateurish) tax advice website explaining the difference between legal residents and tax residents. The context makes it clear its talking about lawful permanent residents (and the only actual official quote the site gives, from DHS, specifically uses the term "lawful Permanent resident" and not "Legal resident").
Dude, you and I both know that temporary residence is a thing that's perfectly legal. That's not in dispute. It's a known fact. It's also a known fact that if you're residing in the US legally, the government isn't supposed to be able to deport you on a whim. There are specific grounds on which temporary residents can be deported. Those grounds were not met with these people deported to El Salvador.
All you're doing, really, is showing how little of a shit you actually give about due process. You moaned that "you have to actually prove a crime", when we were talking about Trump-- and then you instantly discard that standard when talking about ordinary people residing in the USA legally. You moan about freedom of speech, and then you instantly leap to defend Trump's deportation of a student for protesting. You don't care about due process or freedom of speech. Not one bit.
Last edited:
My dude. Trump only targeted people in the immigration system.
He isn't going after illegals. He's going after legal immigrants because they are being tracked.
It's Trump. He always does things in the laziest way possible. It's why he revoked the status of 500k legal Immigrants. He can't be arsed to track illegal immigrants
Immigrants now know this and will now make themselves less traceable. The exact same thing happened under Reagan and all it did was dramatically increase illegal immigration. All Trump has done is increased illegal immigration.
Trump's administration has argued that, once they deport someone and that person leaves US airspace, they are no longer under the administration's control. They are also arguing that judges cannot compel the government to bring them back.
This logic means that if government agents can snatch someone off the street and shove them onto a plane fast enough, they'll be stuck in a hellhole prison in a foreign country indefinitely, with no recourse to force the government to bring them back.
Terrified yet? You should be. There is nothing guaranteeing that he won't eventually start doing this to citizens.
This logic means that if government agents can snatch someone off the street and shove them onto a plane fast enough, they'll be stuck in a hellhole prison in a foreign country indefinitely, with no recourse to force the government to bring them back.
Terrified yet? You should be. There is nothing guaranteeing that he won't eventually start doing this to citizens.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,726
- 3,299
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
You are wrong.
A permanent legal resident is someone who has a green card (an I-551). They are a permanent legal resident because the I-551 gives them the right to live and work in the US in perpetuity.
A legal resident is someone who is legally living in the US, like someone with a student or work visa, but who does not have the ability to live in the US in perpetuity. Their visa has an expiration date, which may or may not be extended/renewed.
Someone who has been allowed into the US with temporary protected status (like an asylum seeker) is considered a legal resident until such time as their status expires or is revoked.
For temporary protected status, the grounds can just be the government determining it is safe to send you back. The man in question, the "Maryland dad" who was deported to El Salvador, was not in the country legally, he did not have a green card, he did not have a visa, his asylum case was denied, he had his final deportation order (actually before he had kids, he had his deportation order), but the immigration judge granted temporary protected status because he was from El Salvador. That is the difference between temporary protected status and asylum, asylum is about the person applying for it, whether they are persecuted, where temporary protected status is about where they are fleeing, and is meant to prevent the deportation of people into war zones or famines.
When he was granted that status, the homicide rate in El Salvador was 39 per 100,000, it was in the top 10 of most violent nations on the planet. That rate is now 1.9. He is statistically more likely to be murdered in the US than El Salvador. The temporary protection status of El Salvador was due to expire recently, but the Biden Admin extended it. I assume the Trump admin will not extend it further. So it doesn't matter if he was an ideal, peaceful resident, his days of legal residency were shortly numbered, it does not matter what he did personally.
What's your point here?
Nothing you've said seems to counter the claim that he had legal permission to remain in the country. That someone's permission to remain was likely to end some point in the future does not justify forcible deportation before that point. So was he legally removed? Nothing you've said seems to indicate so.
The government can cancel permissions to stay, but this remains a procedure governed by principles of law and - ideally - fairness. It is conventional and humane to give law-abiding individuals time to settle their affairs when their right to remain ends because sudden and peremptory removal may cause serious hardship or harm. (This time may be in the form of a visa with a set expiry for them to prepare for, or a notice period in case of cancellation.)
That Silvanus is talking about crimes and due process, claiming the government can't deport on a whim... but the government 100% can end the protected status of an entire block of people on a whim and deport all of them.
To your point about allowing people to settle their affairs, I think they are doing that quite deliberately for the most part. The concession that this single deportation was actually in error, along with the fact that they haven't taken away TPS for Salvadorans while already actively using El Salvador as a preferred destination for deportees, seems to imply they intend to respect the temporary protection orders and let the clocks run their course naturally. To that end, anyone on temporary protected status from El Salvador should probably consider getting their affairs in order and returning on their own terms within the next 18 months.
That man is not who I'm talking about here. Over 14 of those people deported to El Salvador came via CBP One, which was a legal method of entry. They arrived legally and were not charged with any crime. The grounds given for deportation was an unsubstantiated accusation of membership in two criminal gangs, based on things like innocuous tattoos.
The government is supposed to require grounds. Not necessarily conviction, but grounds. In this case the grounds are transparently bogus. And not only were they deported, but they're now in one of the world's worst maximum security prisons, after having followed the correct channels for arrival and never having broken any country's laws.
Last edited:
You seem to be under the impression that if someone enters legally and/or doesn't commit a crime they can't be deported. That is not the case. If you don't have a legal status in the US, you can be removed from the US. Using CBP One means you applied for asylum and were allowed in. If your asylum claim is denied, and the place you came from isn't itself a death sentence, you leave. If you don't leave on your own, you get deported. A person can enter legally, commit no crimes, and be deported.
No, and I'd recommend you reread my post. I know a criminal conviction isn't required. But the government is supposed to have grounds. There are specific grounds outlined for the removal of a noncitizen living legally in the US. These grounds were not met, because having a tattoo doesn't indicate membership of a criminal gang.
Uh-huh, but these claims weren't officially denied, nor did they overstay or break terms. Several of them were scooped up during routine immigration appointments.
And once again: not only were they deported, they were sent to a maximum security prison. You are defending a scenario in which people followed the rules as laid out, committed no infractions or offences, and wound up in one of the world's most brutal prisons.
If any group can be subject to any punishment without due process you should always be terrified, because you are a single accusation away from that punishment at all times.
You're just making up straw men to act as chaff.
Do everyone a favour and either make a proper point or move on.