I heard an interesting interview with the head of the ACLU yesterday.

[berg80]

He contends the law trump plans to use to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants is not applicable. Please read the entire article.

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrant...d-law-to-implement-a-mass-deportation-program

The problem for those opposed to trump on this (a majority of Americans are) is his SC routinely ignores established precedent to achieve ideological goals.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

He contends the law trump plans to use to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants is not applicable. Please read the entire article.

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrant...d-law-to-implement-a-mass-deportation-program

The problem for those opposed to trump on this (a majority of Americans are) is his SC routinely ignores established precedent to achieve ideological goals.

Show us where todays scotus ignores precedent to achieve ideological goals, because from here I think u r projecting.

And y is it u left constantly rant about what trumps going to do, ignorant of what has actually occurred? This is a big reason for the red wave. U and yours have no credibility, and project often.

 

[BlackSand]

He contends the law trump plans to use to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants is not applicable. Please read the entire article.

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrant...d-law-to-implement-a-mass-deportation-program

The problem for those opposed to trump on this (a majority of Americans are) is his SC routinely ignores established precedent to achieve ideological goals.

.

An Illegal Immigrant is not an Immigrant at all.
They are Foreign Nationals that have illegally entered the United States.

They have no Rights under our Constitution.
We don't need a Law to remove them ... We already have one and they are here illegally.

It's not an idea ... It doesn't matter if you want to refer to it as an Invasion or Immigration.
The Law states we don't not have to let Foreign Nationals that are here illegally stay ...

.​

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The ACLU will fight anything Trump tries, no matter what methods are used. In their world, they are against borders and the rights of a sovereign nation.

 

[Donald H]

This idea of deporting millions was supposed to be forgotten after the election. How could it possibly happen when the R party depends on the illegal immigrants the most.

It was a prank, but successful one played on an ignorant people who were ready to buy any line of bullshit when promised a piece of the American apple pie.

It's not coming folks. You've elected the right president billionaire to make sure it doesn't. (Health care is a concept.)

Be patient, 2028 is not far off!

For now just celebrate how he's going to cooperate to end the war!

 

[imawhosure]

This idea of deporting millions was supposed to be forgotten after the election. How could it possibly happen when the R party depends on the illegal immigrants the most.

It was a prank, but successful one played on an ignorant people who were ready to buy any line of bullshit when promised a piece of the American apple pie.

It's not coming folks. You've elected the right president billionaire to make sure it doesn't. (Health care is a concept.)

Be patient, 2028 is not far off!

For now just celebrate how he's going to cooperate to end the war!

lol, I got 5 bucks that says HE WILL DO EVERYTHING HE CAN to start throwing them out, and if has all 3 branches of government, he will succeed in getting at least some out. If Dwight D can do it, Donald J can do it too!

 

[Donald H]

lol, I got 5 bucks that says HE WILL DO EVERYTHING HE CAN to start throwing them out, and if has all 3 branches of government, he will succeed in getting at least some out. If Dwight D can do it, Donald J can do it too!

As a Canadian I'm very excited for the prospects. Even though I know that election promises will never be acted upon seriously. The simple reason why is that America is now almost to a point at which it will need to depend on cheap labour almost exclusively.

When the wealthy class destroyed most unions, they took away the workers' power to negotiate a fair wage.

That's how America's capitalism works. Enjoy!

 

[Donald H]

lol, I got 5 bucks that says HE WILL DO EVERYTHING HE CAN to start throwing them out, and if has all 3 branches of government, he will succeed in getting at least some out. If Dwight D can do it, Donald J can do it too!

I'm with you on him doing everything he can to make it appear he's doing what he promised.

I'll bet 10 bucks it never happens. It's quite impossible of course.

 

[Independent thinker]

He contends the law trump plans to use to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants is not applicable. Please read the entire article.

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrant...d-law-to-implement-a-mass-deportation-program

The problem for those opposed to trump on this (a majority of Americans are) is his SC routinely ignores established precedent to achieve ideological goals.

First, when it comes to deportation, he's going to start with criminals. While I don't know what that means in relation to your thread, I will say this: Biden had no problem in doing things, even after the Supreme Court told him he couldn't. The MO seems to be to do whatever the hell you want, legal or not, and then let it run through the courts, which can sometimes take years.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

.

An Illegal Immigrant is not an Immigrant at all.
They are Foreign Nationals that have illegally entered the United States.

They have no Rights under our Constitution.
We don't need a Law to remove them ... We already have one and they are here illegally.

It's not an idea ... It doesn't matter if you want to refer to it as an Invasion or Immigration.
The Law states we don't not have to let Foreign Nationals that are here illegally stay ...

.​

Quitting the Quislings

We must become partisans, who kill the invaders after their government has surrendered to them.

 

[BlackSand]

Quitting the Quislings

We must become partisans, who kill the invaders after their government has surrendered to them.

.

It's a lot easier to stop calling Foreign Nationals who illegally try to enter this country Immigrants ...
Calling them Immigrants is like telling them there is a chance they can stay ... Or that it is okay to come.

It would be ignoring the very basic fact that a Foreign Power doesn't have to invade this Nation with an Army ...
If all they need is a bunch of women and children to get us fighting each other and destroy ourselves.

"We do not have to invade the United States; we will destroy you from within" ~ Nikita Krushchev

.​

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

.

It's a lot easier to stop calling Foreign Nationals who illegally try to enter this country Immigrants ...
Calling them Immigrants is like telling them there is a chance they can stay ... Or that it is okay to come.

It would be ignoring the very basic fact that a Foreign Power doesn't have to invade this Nation with an Army ...
If all they need is a bunch of women and children to get us fighting each other and destroy ourselves.

"We do not have to invade the United States; we will destroy you from within" ~ Nikita Krushchev

.​

President Polk's Polka

The Mexican government has abetted this invasion. We should seize its offshore oil wells to cover the cost of the War on Tortilla.

 

[ZestolPastilevsky]

Man, you can find a lawyer out there to interpret any law any way. Of course the ACLU will say he can't do it. It's literally a left wing advocacy group.

 

[berg80]

Show us where todays scotus ignores precedent to achieve ideological goals, because from here I think u r projecting.

Have you heard of the Dobbs ruling?

 

[martybegan]

Have you heard of the Dobbs ruling?

That wasn't ideological, that was fixing the mess left by Roe.

Just as Brown fixed the mess left by Plessey.

 

[berg80]

The ACLU will fight anything Trump tries, no matter what methods are used. In their world, they are against borders and the rights of a sovereign nation.

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority.

 

[Mac-7]

He contends the law trump plans to use to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants is not applicable. Please read the entire article.

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrant...d-law-to-implement-a-mass-deportation-program

The problem for those opposed to trump on this (a majority of Americans are) is his SC routinely ignores established precedent to achieve ideological goals.

Any “largest deportation drive in our nations history” would be the result of the largest alien invasion in our history

 

[struth]

He contends the law trump plans to use to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants is not applicable. Please read the entire article.

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrant...d-law-to-implement-a-mass-deportation-program

The problem for those opposed to trump on this (a majority of Americans are) is his SC routinely ignores established precedent to achieve ideological goals.

Well he’s free to litigate it

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Just as Brown fixed the mess left by Plessey.

Integration Led to Disintegration

Brown needs to be overturned. It turned our schools into jungles. That benefits only the race-traitor ruling class. Their prep schools are not forced to accept gangstas.

 

[DonGlock26]

He contends the law trump plans to use to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants is not applicable. Please read the entire article.

The Law Hinges on the Idea of an Invasion or Predatory Incursion

Historically, the Act has been used only when Congress has declared war, and Supreme Court precedent has acknowledged that the law may only be used as a wartime authority. But its text also includes actual or threatened “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government. There is, of course, no military invasion or incursion occurring in the United States, so it would be unlawful for Trump to invoke the Act.

Nonetheless, invasion rhetoric has been a lynchpin of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Trump falsely claimed that the “greatest invasion in history” was happening at the southern U.S. border with Mexico, and such rhetoric has been used to justify his extreme anti-immigrant stances and policy proposals. Increasingly, we’ve seen other anti-immigrant extremists use “invasion” theory to facilitate their illegal actions. In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has repeatedly claimed an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico border to show just cause for the entirety of Operation Lone Star, an anti-immigrant border enforcement scheme that allows for the arrest of U.S. citizens and others far from the southwest border. Abbott has even used it to justify the construction of a 1,000-foot barrier in the Rio Grande River.
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrant...d-law-to-implement-a-mass-deportation-program

The problem for those opposed to trump on this (a majority of Americans are) is his SC routinely ignores established precedent to achieve ideological goals.

ACLU: All Communists Like Us.