Will “mass deportation” actually happen (6 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

It’s so repulsive to see people cheering for what is basically 80% the same thing as the Holocaust - different end result but otherwise very similar.

Economists have said it would tank the economy and cause inflation - notwithstanding the cost.

Is it going to actually happen or is this Build The Wall 2.0?

 

[TampaJoe]

It won't matter in this case. The framing of the DOJ and FBI will fall apart under scrutiny and like so many of the other dictates of this administration, doesn't have any actual legal support.

They're choosing to spotlight this case because the believe people like yourself will be moved by it. It's all just more propaganda to feed their base.

I’m not moved by it one way or another. It is what it is. But then I dont have your law degree or your crystal ball.

 

[coldseat]

I’m not moved by it one way or another. It is what it is.

So you're indifferent? They like that too, let's them get away with so much BS.

But then I dont have your law degree or your crystal ball.

Yeah, I wish that I couldn't tell the future. Been doing that a lot lately. Then again, it's not really being able to tell the future. Just obvious cause and effect by knowing the actors involved and their motivations. Honestly, it's just really obvious if you don't have blinders on.

 

[MT15]

They want so badly to “punish” these people. It’s a very vindictive mindset, and they are so eager to believe whatever crazy numbers and unreasonable policy points that they willingly ignore obvious facts.

It’s the opposite of a compassionate, Christian mindset.

Biden focused on deporting people convicted of crimes, as did Obama - they were both criticized from the left for it also. But these guys would rather send home families that are employed, productive tax-paying members of our society, even if their kids are citizens, even if their citizen kids have cancer and it will disrupt their treatment.

They’re just fine with masked thugs who refuse to identify themselves intimidating these families also. Sendai has openly admitted it.

This is evil, and don’t let anyone tell you it isn’t. It’s rooted in racial prejudice, and the opposite of empathy. There are right and proper ways to carry out these policies, and then there’s the way Trump is doing it. Evil ways.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don’t believe the judge is question was asked to comply with anything. Correct me if I am wrong. She didn’t have to cooperate. She wasn’t asked to cooperate.

That said, she may have crossed a line legally when she actively aided an individual evade arrest by federal officers. That she cannot do. That would exceed her legal authority.

So... the judge was not asked to comply with what is being described as an administrative warrant that she legally does not have to comply with, yet she may have crossed a line legally?

 

[TampaJoe]

So you're indifferent? They like that too, let's them get away with so much BS.



Yeah, I wish that I couldn't tell the future. Been doing that a lot lately. Then again, it's not really being able to tell the future. Just obvious cause and effect by knowing the actors involved and their motivations. Honestly, it's just really obvious if you don't have blinders on.

Not indifference. I simply trust the courts to sort it all out.

You seemed worked up about it.

 

[TampaJoe]

So... the judge was not asked to comply with what is being described as an administrative warrant that she legally does not have to comply with, yet she may have crossed a line legally?

Most folks realize that it’s against the law to interfere with a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duty. The federal matter was not in front of this judge. She had no jurisdiction over the federal matter. She had no more right to intervene or interfere than you or I.

But she did or it appears that she did. So she put herself in the position in which she finds herself. Perhaps she will get the opportunity to tell a federal judge somewhere why she interfered with the performance of federal law enforcement officers in a federal matter.

If she wanted to have jurisdiction over the individual, she should not have released him in the first place. Otherwise she has improperly inserted herself in a matter outside of her jurisdiction and authority.

Just my opinion. A judge somewhere will sort this all out. The facts seem pretty clear. Lots of witnesses.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Most folks realize that it’s against the law to interfere with a law enforcement officer in the performance of his or her duty. The federal matter was not in front of this judge. She had no jurisdiction over the federal matter. She had no more right to intervene or interfere than you or I.

But she did or it appears that she did. So she put herself in the position in which she finds herself. Perhaps she will get the opportunity to tell a federal judge somewhere why she interfered with the performance of federal law enforcement officers in a federal matter.

If she wanted to have jurisdiction over the individual, she should not have released him in the first place. Otherwise she has improperly inserted herself in a matter outside of her jurisdiction and authority.

Just my opinion. A judge somewhere will sort this all out. The facts seem pretty clear. Lots of witnesses.

So now she not only has no legal duty to comply, but she also has no jurisdiction in the matter? This conversation isn't going the way you think it is.

 

[coldseat]

Not indifference. I simply trust the courts to sort it all out.

You seemed worked up about it.

Yeah, seeing fascism in action via Trump's Gestapo gets me riled up.

 

[TampaJoe]

So now she not only has no legal duty to comply, but she also has no jurisdiction in the matter? This conversation isn't going the way you think it is.

So tell me where her legal interest lies in a federal immigration case. She can choose to support the federal law enforcement officer or she can choose not to interfere. If she wanted to maintain jurisdiction over the individual she should have kept him in her custody.

 

[TampaJoe]

Yeah, seeing fascism in action via Trump's Gestapo gets me riled up.

That is obvious. Don’t let it get to you.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So tell me where her legal interest lies in a federal immigration case. She can choose to support the federal law enforcement officer or she can choose not to interfere. If she wanted to maintain jurisdiction over the individual she should have kept him in her custody.

Telling someone in her courtroom that they are free to use the side door is interference in a situation where she was in no way bound to comply with anything?

Edit: To clarify, I agree she has no jurisdiction. She is not a party to the matter in any way. As such, she is free to tell the ICE Agents to go suck an egg if she so chooses.

 

[TampaJoe]

Telling someone in her courtroom that they are free to use the side door is interference in a situation where she was in no way bound to comply with anything?

Edit: To clarify, I agree she has no jurisdiction. She is not a party to the matter in any way. As such, she is free to tell the ICE Agents to go suck an egg if she so chooses.

I agree. She did take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. She can disregard that oath if she so chooses. What she cannot do is to send law enforcement on a goose chase while she has the individual duck out a side door. But a judge will sort it out. She can explain it all to him/her.

She doesn’t have to like the Feds. She doesn’t have to help the Feds. But she cannot actively work against the Feds. She would lock you or I up for such conduct in her courtroom.

But hey. It’s a federal case now. It is in the system. She has rights. The govt has rights. We will see how it all turns out.

 

[coldseat]

That is obvious. Don’t let it get to you.

Spoken like a true sympathizer.

 

[TampaJoe]

Spoken like a true sympathizer.

You would know better than I.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I agree. She did take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. She can disregard that oath if she so chooses. What she cannot do is to send law enforcement on a goose chase while she has the individual duck out a side door. But a judge will sort it out. She can explain it all to him/her.

She doesn’t have to like the Feds. She doesn’t have to help the Feds. But she cannot actively work against the Feds. She would lock you or I up for such conduct in her courtroom.

But hey. It’s a federal case now. It is in the system. She has rights. The govt has rights. We will see how it all turns out.

Can you point to the part of the Constitution that shows me where it says a judge must comply with an ICE administrative warrant that they are not bound by law to help facilitate?

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Donald Trump’s administration has lined the White House driveway with large posters featuring mugshots of migrants as the president broadcasts his immigration crackdown, according to a report.

In a clear view for the press, the "roughly 100" posters were placed along "Pebble Beach," the north grounds of the White House where TV crews broadcast from, Axios reported Monday.

Each poster features the word “ARRESTED” above an immigrant’s mugshot and the crime they are accused of committing. Instead of names, the posters say “illegal alien” under each mugshot.

The hope is that the posters are visible behind the journalists as they broadcast from that spot, a White House official told Axios.

Photos, obtained by the news website, show posters with immigrants who allegedly committed “murder," "sexual offense against child," "rape,” and “distribution of fentanyl”.……

Trump team litters White House lawn with mugshots of arrested migrants

About 100 posters were set up capturing ‘some of the worst illegal immigrants and criminals’ that have been arrested since Trump reclaimed the White House, an official said

www.independent.co.uk

 

[TampaJoe]

Can you point to the part of the Constitution that shows me where it says a judge must comply with an ICE administrative warrant that they are not bound by law to help facilitate?

I don’t think I said she had to comply. She wasn’t asked to comply. However, if she choose not to support federal law enforcement, she should not have actively aided the individual to evade arrest. If that’s what she did, then she broke the law as well as violate her oath of office.

That’s my opinion. But a federal judge will sort this all out. The question is whether she aided in the individuals attempt to evade arrest. There is a difference in standing idle and active participation. Buying time by sending the agents to the administrative judge while pointing to a non public side entrance might be viewed by some as active participation.

So we will she how prosecutors judges and lawyers sort all this out.

It has become fashionable to ignore federal law when you don’t like it. Makes it difficult later on to enforce the rule of law. And we wonder why no one respects or trusts the government. Especially when people who should know better undermine the very rule of law they are sworn to uphold.

 

[fooferdoggie]

man Trump could fill the lawn with himself and all the people he hired and supported and let out of jail.