Which US citizens and Green Card holding permanent residents were affected back then?
Speaker Mike Johnson
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
Which US citizens and Green Card holding permanent residents were affected back then?
Trump has sent $16 billion to Israel in his first 40 days but that's not enough.
Now his Thought Police (or Thought Gnome, in Speaker Johnson's case) are going after people who don't approve?
What could possibly go wrong?
Now his Thought Police (or Thought Gnome, in Speaker Johnson's case) are going after people who don't approve?
What could possibly go wrong?
And Trump is a racist and so is Musk. They have that right.
He has the right to believe what he wants and say what he thinks. That's the 1A. This is wrong on every level. If you think it's ok you're part of the problem. Sucking up to authoritarianism.
Grounds of Deportability: When Legal U.S. Residents Can Be Removed
Whether on a nonimmigrant visa or green card, committing certain acts or crimes can make a person deportable from the U.S.
www.nolo.com
The problem is that RNHawk doesn't care about violating the law. He only cares that we are deporting someone he disagrees with. He doesn't recognize that this could happen to someone he agrees with. The guy is not a terrorist and didn't violate the law. It's BS but RN doesn't care because it's one less person he disagrees with.
Trump carrying on with the Bush/Obama legacy. But nope...definitely NOT a UniParty. 👀
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration's asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.
"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration's claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing."
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asks the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asks the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
And this:
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration's asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.
"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration's claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing."
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asks the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asks the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
And this:
Obama Built an ‘Infrastructure’ for Civil-Liberties Violations That Trump Will Inherit
In his farewell address, the president highlighted his legacy on national-security issues, but his actions may have opened the way for future abuses.
www.theatlantic.com
Grounds of Deportability: When Legal U.S. Residents Can Be Removed
Whether on a nonimmigrant visa or green card, committing certain acts or crimes can make a person deportable from the U.S.www.nolo.com
The problem is that RNHawk doesn't care about violating the law. He only cares that we are deporting someone he disagrees with. He doesn't recognize that this could happen to someone he agrees with. The guy is not a terrorist and didn't violate the law. It's BS but RN doesn't care because it's one less person he disagrees with.
Literally the only thing on the list he can be deported under is the "terrorist group" affiliation/membership. And I've seen no indication he is either affiliated with or a member of Hamas. Nor has he been accused of it, formally.
Nearly everything else requires formal evidence OR criminal charges. And not one of those appears to apply.
What do active terrorist combatants, outside the US, have anything to do with this?Trump carrying on with the Bush/Obama legacy. But nope...definitely NOT a UniParty. 👀
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat. Government lawyers made that claim in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the administration's asserted targeted killing authority violates the Constitution and international law. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments from both sides today.
"Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply," said CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei, who presented arguments in the case. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the government's claim to an unchecked system of global detention, and the district court should similarly reject the administration's claim here to an unchecked system of global targeted killing."
The ACLU and CCR were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi. The lawsuit asks the court to rule that, outside the context of armed conflict, the government can carry out the targeted killing of an American citizen only as a last resort to address an imminent threat to life or physical safety. The lawsuit also asks the court to order the government to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.
And this:Obama Built an ‘Infrastructure’ for Civil-Liberties Violations That Trump Will Inherit
In his farewell address, the president highlighted his legacy on national-security issues, but his actions may have opened the way for future abuses.www.theatlantic.com
Amidst this back and forth, if the courts ultimately rule that his detainment and deportation were lawful, how will you all view the matter?
If it's all the Trumpers on the SC: same way I viewed the "Presidential Immunity" nonsense.
Legal but still a bad precedent. No matter how you slice it, they’re attempting to use this to deport someone on the grounds he said or did something they don’t like. In all of this, no one has yet to provide a crime at this guy has been charged with.
Those are the only statutory grounds they can deport him under:
He committed a crime AND was convicted of it (not simply "charged")
He is actively part of a terrorist organization (member or working with them): there are ZERO charges or evidence to support this at this time.
Simply "saying" something that is the same thing a terrorist group has said sets an exceedingly low bar, that you could then prosecute half the Republican party over Nazi sympathizing and positions. If you want to make that kind of speech "illegal", this will cut both ways.
Go back and read this thread. I provide lots of links and documents supporting my opinionGrounds of Deportability: When Legal U.S. Residents Can Be Removed
Whether on a nonimmigrant visa or green card, committing certain acts or crimes can make a person deportable from the U.S.www.nolo.com
The problem is that RNHawk doesn't care about violating the law. He only cares that we are deporting someone he disagrees with. He doesn't recognize that this could happen to someone he agrees with. The guy is not a terrorist and didn't violate the law. It's BS but RN doesn't care because it's one less person he disagrees with.
Ice arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia protests, lawyer says
There were open calls for war against Israel and and US statements. You dont get to stay here on a visa and green card taking advantage of our system while making statements against the US. He is not entitled to the same freedoms US citizens are.
iowa.forums.rivals.com
Go back and read this thread. I provide lots of links and documents supporting my opinion
Ice arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia protests, lawyer says
There were open calls for war against Israel and and US statements. You dont get to stay here on a visa and green card taking advantage of our system while making statements against the US. He is not entitled to the same freedoms US citizens are.
iowa.forums.rivals.com
Do you not find it concerning someone whose here legally, has broken no laws, etc., could be deported solely for saying something the federal government disagreed with?
You're averse to facts, huh?
The fact that Bush and Obama claimed the right to torture, to unilaterally murder US citizens anywhere in the world, and to keep the legal reasoning behind their actions confidential due to 'national security' is undisputed.
But, but, but Trump! 😱
They're all peas in a pod.
If you ever looked up my posting history from that far back, I think you’d find my stance on torture has been pretty consistent.
Much of what people did under the “war on terror” umbrella was legally/morally dubious at best.
But back to this thread topic. Are you okay with deporting a person who’s here legally, has committed no crime or even been charged with anything, and in fact whose only “sin” here is to say something the federal government disagrees with?
He has committed no crime, you just don't like what he said and are totally ok with him being deported over speech. That's what it boils down to.Go back and read this thread. I provide lots of links and documents supporting my opinion
Ice arrests Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia protests, lawyer says
There were open calls for war against Israel and and US statements. You dont get to stay here on a visa and green card taking advantage of our system while making statements against the US. He is not entitled to the same freedoms US citizens are.iowa.forums.rivals.com
Zero of which appear to apply. No evidence has been presented by the USG to establish ANY apply.
No. You haven't.
You've simply demonstrated you're as bigoted and racist as the men running our government right now.
Supporting the First Amendment is Supporting America, Dipshit.
but what about when someone says something that I don't like
you're saying the first amendment applies then too? that's not fair!
I will feel afraid for my green card friends. I work for a software company. The 1A will no longer apply to them. I hope their path to citizenship is expedited.
You haven't done any of that. I posted what he could be reported for. He didn't check any of the boxes from the list.
Or you can’t admit he has committed no crime except to say things you disagree with.
what was "factual" to you in what he said?
Everything he stated is hypothetical and unproven
Similar threads
