“You’re Here Because of Your Tattoos”

[Seymour Flops]

If you don’t like expedited removal, why didn’t you ban it when Dems had power?

Did you keep it around so Biden could brag about deporting more people than Trump?

 

[Godboy]

And we will end up paying for a million-dollar lawsuit.

Its tough to sue people when youre in that no-human-rights prison, THOUSANDS of miles away from the US.

 

[Godboy]

You think that you cant determine if someone is legal without "due process"? Bro, if you give them your date of birth and social security number, they will know if youre legal almost instantly.

 

[Crepitus]

Being put in jail for over 4 years without a trial?

That did not happen.

No one was jailed without a trial.

Please stop telling that lie.

 

[jknowgood]

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Bugger 86 visibly cracking each time Trumpfy shows flair and leadership .

Not qualities that Troll Bots are used to .

"Me Has Gavel; You Must Grovel"

The traitors want Trump to be kowtowing to every wannabe-dictator judicial clown in the nation, on his hands and knees begging their permission to let him do his job.

Did any ot those who claim innocence help us catch the enemy? If not, then they, too, are the enemy.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The regime wants to send a message. "If we don't like you we can pick you up off the street and disappear you." They know they have support for this from The Following and from the POT congressional caucus.

We don't have to wonder any longer if an authoritarian government will ever exist in the US. It's here.

Pointless Talking Points

You liars don't really believe that or you'd all shut up or be running and hiding. Your inconsistency is easy to expose.

Similar to the fact that Hitler didn't really believe his accusations about JEWS!!! controlling the world, or he wouldn't have dared to ever oppose them.

 

[Lisa558]

These leftists defend illegal alien gang members and HAMAS-supporting foreigners while throwing innocent Jewish American teens to the wolves.

just sayin.’

 

[Seymour Flops]

El Salvador accepts more alleged Tren de Aragua gang members from Trump admin

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said 17 men he described as violent criminals from the Tren de Aragua gang have been transferred to El Salvador.

www.foxnews.com

Looks like more of Biasberg’s gangbanger heroes have been sent away.

The U.S. military transferred a group of 17 alleged members of Tren de Aragua to El Salvador from Guantanamo Bay on Sunday night, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.

Biasberg said his 14 day TRO was to give him time to think. He has given no legal reason that the deportations should not continue. Now he is extending that 14 days.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's temporary restraining order will put Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act on hold until April 12 while litigation plays out. Boasberg issued a two-week freeze on the use of the law during an emergency March 15 hearing after Trump invoked the act.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-extends-block-trump-use-wartime-law-deportations-2025-03-28/

14 days to think and all he came up with was “let the litigation play out?” Mighty slow thinking.

Praise Allah Trump is ignoring this moron finding ways to protect the American people in compliance with all applicable laws!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Biasberg said his 14 day TRO was to give him time to think. He has given no legal reason that the deportations should not continue. Now he is extending that 14 days.

Incorrect. His legal reasoning as to why the TRO needed to be in place is documented in his 37 page order not to rescind the TRO.

WW
.
.
.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.53.0_1.pdf

 

[Seymour Flops]

Incorrect. His legal reasoning as to why the TRO needed to be in place is documented in his 37 page order not to rescind the TRO.

WW
.
.
.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.53.0_1.pdf

Well, I’ll give both you and Biasberg an amount of credit. Biasberg a small amount for proffering an excuse that is at least better than “I need to think about it,” and you a moderate amount for providing backup for you claim.

However, Biasberg offered no specific reason that the deportations would not be legal. How could it not be legal to deport illegal aliens suspected of membership in a terrorist gang? I guess that question is the reason that Biasberg is not saying why.

His reasoning that “no harm” is done by keeping them in custody would have been belied if Trump had not ignored his found a legal way to work within his order to deport the terrorists. They are a prison gang who would surely have killed or harmed corrections officers and other prisoners if left in U.S. prisons. A humanitarian disaster.

Besides, suppose the judge issued a permanent order against deporting the terrorists and Trump did not fight it since they are in custody anyway. How long would it take for the ACLU to switch to trying to free them? They would be one Obama judge away from getting back to raping and killing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However, Biasberg offered no specific reason that the deportations would not be legal. How could it not be legal to deport illegal aliens suspected of membership in a terrorist gang? I guess that question is the reason that Biasberg is not saying why.

The Judges evaluation on the likelihood the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits*** begins on PDF page 19 and extends to page 31 where the Conclusion starts.

*** Remember this is a TRO, not a final decision. The Judge is required to examine the likelihood of the plaintiffs winning on the merits.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Judges evaluation on the likelihood the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits*** begins on PDF page 19 and extends to page 31 where the Conclusion starts.

*** Remember this is a TRO, not a final decision. The Judge is required to examine the likelihood of the plaintiffs winning on the merits.

WW

Thank you, I took a look at that. Quite a long list of false facts analyze by poor logic I could go on it on, but I will just give one example.

The judge stated as fact that the train de Arafat members here that were released from Venezuela with instructions to come here was not a “predatory incursion. “ That would be difficult to say as an argument, and certainly is not a fact.

Is legal conclusion that the president must first prove that all of these deportees are members of train de Aragua is equally false. They are illegally in the country in the first place, so there is no need to prove anything further in order to deport them.

This is a judge that hates Donald Trump, and is doing an all he can using any kind of logic He can no matter how specious to slow down the work he was sent to Washington by the voters to do.

He is learning that he has the power to issue such rule, but no power to enforce it. Nor was such power ever envisioned for a district court judge.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The judge stated as fact that the train de Arafat members here that were released from Venezuela with instructions to come here was not a “predatory incursion. “ That would be difficult to say as an argument, and certainly is not a fact.

No he didn't what he said was...
.
.
.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

No he didn't what he said was...
.
.
.
View attachment 1095469

WW

I will say this for that judge. He admitted that it was a “close call” which for a liberal Democrat is the equivalent of saying “I know I’m wrong but this is a Hail Mary.”

Obviously, a judge can make legalistic arguments for any position. That’s what lawyers are trained to do. It appears that this judge simply swallowed the ACLU reasoning and regurgitated in his temporary restraining order.

He can argue all day that the President’s actions are justiciable, but impractical terms it is a moot point. There is no way that any reasonable president would allow him or herself to be constrained by a district judge from protecting the American people from a gang of terrorists, almost certainly deliberately sent by a foreign government.

To use his own “no harm no foul “argument, even if this vicious, terrorist gang were not sent by the government of Venezuela, ridding American soil of them is still equally as beneficial as it would be if they were sent by a foreign government.

So the no harm, no foul approach would be for the deportations to continue while the court makes up its mind, as if it hasn’t already, issues it rulings, and the administration appeals to the Supreme Court.

But again, the deportations are continuing, and this judge has not made any move to stop them. If he were confident in his power to enforce it, he would simply send the marshals or whatever a federal judge does when they believe their orders are being ignored.

I appreciate your being polite and respectful and sticking to the point.I will ask you to extend yourself further and reply to this post with less cut and paste and more of your own words.

Or not, it’s completely up to you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I will say this for that judge. He admitted that it was a “close call” which for a liberal Democrat is the equivalent of saying “I know I’m wrong but this is a Hail Mary.”

Obviously, a judge can make legalistic arguments for any position. That’s what lawyers are trained to do. It appears that this judge simply swallowed the ACLU reasoning and regurgitated in his temporary restraining order.

He can argue all day that the President’s actions are justiciable, but impractical terms it is a moot point. There is no way that any reasonable president would allow him or herself to be constrained by a district judge from protecting the American people from a gang of terrorists, almost certainly deliberately sent by a foreign government.

To use his own “no harm no foul “argument, even if this vicious, terrorist gang were not sent by the government of Venezuela, ridding American soil of them is still equally as beneficial as it would be if they were sent by a foreign government.

So the no harm, no foul approach would be for the deportations to continue while the court makes up its mind, as if it hasn’t already, issues it rulings, and the administration appeals to the Supreme Court.

But again, the deportations are continuing, and this judge has not made any move to stop them. If he were confident in his power to enforce it, he would simply send the marshals or whatever a federal judge does when they believe their orders are being ignored.

I appreciate your being polite and respectful and sticking to the point.I will ask you to extend yourself further and reply to this post with less cut and paste and more of your own words.

Or not, it’s completely up to you.

When incorrect statements about the judges rulings are made.

Pointing out how they are incorrect then linking to the ruling or pasting the text showing the claim is incorrect is all that’s needed.
.
.
There is a difference in discussing the points of law and making false claims.

WW

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It appears that this judge simply swallowed the ACLU reasoning and regurgitated in his temporary restraining order.

All Criminals Love Us

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The solution is to have them fill out their application for asylum papers and send them back until their application is processed. Simple.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Yes, poor little misunderstood lambs. I hope they don’t get treated too harshly.

View attachment 1094292

Look at all those bald heads. Close up. Take a look. They are tattooed. Gang bangers will shave their heads and put their tats on their scalps, then when the hair grows back the tats can't be seen, until its necessary. That's why El Salvador shaves their heads so they know their gang identity.

 

[Stryder50]

The point is the lack of due process.

How do you know what the Trump administration says is true?

Like we saw in the handling of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capital protesters.