Walz compares American Law Officers to German Nazis

[Marener]

YOU are trying to erase that distinction. Our big problem is with the millions of illegals.

The Trump administration erased that distinction. They take people who never broke any law, strip them of illegal status and declare them illegals.

Like a fascist would.

 

[pknopp]

That’s not a rant, it’s a sincere question.

No it isnt.

Wanting the government to abide by laws just the same as the people is in no way, shape or form saying one isn't for our borders.

 

[Marener]

If their undermining our foreign policy yes, why not?

This regime is threatened by students writing an OpEd?

That’s weak.

 

[Lisa558]

The Trump administration erased that distinction. They take people who never broke any law, strip them of illegal status and declare them illegals.

Like a fascist would.

Like who? And visa holders don’t have to break laws to be deported. If they come here spewing Islamic terrorist propaganda, they are undermining U.S. policy.

 

[Marener]

Like who? And visa holders don’t have to break laws to be deported. If they come here spewing Islamic terrorist propaganda, they are undermining U.S. policy.

Right. The US is at serious risk because of an OpEd in a student news paper.

Who the hell are you trying to convince? Yourself?

You’re okay with sending innocent people to third world prisons, so you really have no moral high ground. You don’t have any moral ground at all.

https://www.cato.org/blog/50-venezuelans-imprisoned-el-salvador-came-us-legally-never-violated-immigration-law

 

[Nostra]

What’s notable is that none of you will say what rights immigrants have.

You can’t say because Trump hasn’t told you “independent thinkers” yet.

Immigrants or illegals?

 

[Nostra]

The Trump administration erased that distinction. They take people who never broke any law, strip them of illegal status and declare them illegals.

Like a fascist would.

Why would they strip them of illegal status and declare them illegals?

 

[j-mac]

No it isnt.

Wanting the government to abide by laws just the same as the people is in no way, shape or form saying one isn't for our borders.

20 million….you’ll defend killing a baby, but defend 20 million illiterate illegals lowering wages here, I don’t get your thought process.

 

[j-mac]

This regime is threatened by students writing an OpEd?

That’s weak.

You’re threatened by removing those that have no right to be here.

That’s deplorable.

 

[struth]

Funny how you ask a question and then answer it.

Not sure I answered my question. I simply was reminded of a recent case

Can you answer the question?

 

[pknopp]

20 million….you’ll defend killing a baby...................

I'm pro-life so screw off with your unhinged rants.

 

[struth]

Right. The US is at serious risk because of an OpEd in a student news paper.

Who the hell are you trying to convince? Yourself?

You’re okay with sending innocent people to third world prisons, so you really have no moral high ground. You don’t have any moral ground at all.

https://www.cato.org/blog/50-venezuelans-imprisoned-el-salvador-came-us-legally-never-violated-immigration-law

no, not serious, but could be if we allow it to foster

No, nobody

Who are these innocent people? Name some

 

[Marener]

You’re threatened by removing those that have no right to be here.

That’s deplorable.

I’m appalled that you confuse free speech with threats to your regime.

 

[struth]

I’m appalled that you confuse free speech with threats to your regime.

What are you even talking about? What a weird post

 

[SweetTea]

I think it includes the right to habeas corpus. Don’t you?

The President can legally suspend the writ if it is a matter or national security. Did the framers foresee mass illegal immigration at the time? Would they have considered that a matter of national security? Would they have extended the right of habeas corpus to people entering the country illegally, had they known the way immigration would have changed over the years? You seem to want to make interpretations that only fit your narrative. If habeas corpus applies, even though we likely know that wasn’t the intent for illegals(wasn’t even a thing), so does the President’s ability to suspend it. The issue with suspending it is that it would affect everyone’s rights, not just illegals. That is the main problem I have with a suspension.

To fix it all, what needs to happen is an Ammendment that uses common sense that does not afford a person bypassing our legal entry process the same rights as someone who did. The problem is, Democrats don’t have any common sense. They want to protect illegals. They like it. You like it. I can assure you that Democrats would not vote or such an Ammendment. Think what you will, but I can assure you that our framers didn’t foresee what is going on with our immigration system and illegal crossings and would have been much more restrictive had they done so. You know it, just won’t admit it.

 

[struth]

I think it includes the right to habeas corpus. Don’t you?

There is no right to HC. Try reading the Constitution some time.

 

[Lisa558]

The President can legally suspend the writ if it is a matter or national security. Did the framers foresee mass illegal immigration at the time? Would they have considered that a matter of national security? Would they have extended the right of habeas corpus to people entering the country illegally, had they known the way immigration would have changed over the years? You seem to want to make interpretations that only fit your narrative. If habeas corpus applies, even though we likely know that wasn’t the intent for illegals(wasn’t even a thing), so does the President’s ability to suspend it. The issue with suspending it is that it would affect everyone’s rights, not just illegals. That is the main problem I have with a suspension.

To fix it all, what needs to happen is an Ammendment that uses common sense that does not afford a person bypassing our legal entry process the same rights as someone who did. The problem is, Democrats don’t have any common sense. They want to protect illegals. They like it. You like it. I can assure you that Democrats would not vote or such an Ammendment. Think what you will, but I can assure you that our framers didn’t foresee what is going on with our immigration system and illegal crossings and would have been much more restrictive had they done so. You know it, just won’t admit it.

The Democrats kept insisting during Biden’s term, and during the campaign, that they wanted to control the massive invasion of illegal aliens across the southern border. Yet, when push comes to shove, they are desperate to keep even the most lowlife, violent illegal in the country - and will scream and cry to get him back here.

Reminds me of the quote “your actions are screaming so loudly that I can’t hear what you’re saying,”

 

[Marener]

The President can legally suspend the writ if it is a matter or national security. Did the framers foresee mass illegal immigration at the time? Would they have considered that a matter of national security? Would they have extended the right of habeas corpus to people entering the country illegally, had they known the way immigration would have changed over the years? You seem to want to make interpretations that only fit your narrative. If habeas corpus applies, even though we likely know that wasn’t the intent for illegals(wasn’t even a thing), so does the President’s ability to suspend it. The issue with suspending it is that it would affect everyone’s rights, not just illegals. That is the main problem I have with a suspension.

To fix it all, what needs to happen is an Ammendment that uses common sense that does not afford a person bypassing our legal entry process the same rights as someone who did. The problem is, Democrats don’t have any common sense. They want to protect illegals. They like it. You like it. I can assure you that Democrats would not vote or such an Ammendment. Think what you will, but I can assure you that our framers didn’t foresee what is going on with our immigration system and illegal crossings and would have been much more restrictive had they done so. You know it, just won’t admit it.

Honesty, you seem to be able to rationalize almost anything Trump does.

Common sense says that the government can’t deprive immigrants, even illegal immigrants, of all rights. You won’t find much support from the public to suspend habeas corpus because you feel like it. Common sense says that the founders would have recoiled at the idea of the president having such dictatorial authoritarian powers.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The propagandists really are pretty successful at rebranding the authoritarianism of this administration.

ICE is responsible for snatching up people off the street and sending them to a foreign gulag. This administration sees it as a point of pride that they did it so fast the courts couldn't prevent them from doing it.

/—-/ The inferior courts have no authority.

 

[Thinker101]

Honesty, you seem to be able to rationalize almost anything Trump does.

Common sense says that the government can’t deprive immigrants, even illegal immigrants, of all rights. You won’t find much support from the public to suspend habeas corpus because you feel like it. Common sense says that the founders would have recoiled at the idea of the president having such dictatorial authoritarian powers.

Common sense says you can't let 20 million unchecked, unvetted, illegals into the country without repercussions. So it's pretty safe to say you idiots lack anything that even resembles common sense.