Will “mass deportation” actually happen (4 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?

 

[Dragon]

The smart thing to would have been to continue the “remain in Mexico” policy. That was working. You don’t have to deport migrants who don’t qualify for asylum if you don’t let them into the country to begin with. But that was a Trump policy don’t had to go if for no other reason than it was a Trump policy. Never miss an opportunity to cut your nose off to spite your face.

His main mistake was to reverse policies that were working prior to getting more effective policies in place. He assumed if he created a crisis that Congress would do as he wanted. It wasn’t about the interest of the nation. It was all power politics. How was it in the interest of the nation to let all those folks into the nation without a plan to assimilate them? Being reckless is not in the best interest of the nation. He paid a price for that at the polls as he should have.

Welll that policy was no longer legal once the pandemic was over so you are saying he should break the law? Also Mexico did not want to extend the agreement so how would you force Mexico to receive people returned from the US ?

Congress is responsible for changing the laws and Trump told them not to.

You seem to ignore even the most basic facts in your replies. Biden is no totalitarian leader. He has to abide by the laws of the land and they are created by congress.

 

[MT15]

Who said nobody knows anything? The fact is that we all view the world differently. We all have different experiences. Different perspectives. I’m a conservative. You appear to be a liberal. To think that everyone needs to agree on everything isn’t healthy either.

You are twisting things around and moving goalposts again. Yes, everybody has a perspective, but what you are doing is stating falsehoods and then excusing it by saying it’s your opinion.

Which is what I said - denying reality. You can have opinions and perspectives that are unique to you. What you don’t get to have are “alternative facts”. That’s what you seem to be trying to do here.

For example - you can disagree with the way Biden carried out his border policies, but you don’t get to say there were no border policies and that he did nothing and that he “opened the border”. Those are just not true. It’s a reductive way of speaking that carries no reality.

 

[Lapaz]

Welll that policy was no longer legal once the pandemic was over so you are saying he should break the law? Also Mexico did not want to extend the agreement so how would you force Mexico to receive people returned from the US ?

Congress is responsible for changing the laws and Trump told them not to.

You seem to ignore even the most basic facts in your replies. Biden is no totalitarian leader. He has to abide by the laws of the land and they are created by congress.

I don't think that Remain in Mexico is illegal. The code allows it per paragraph 1225(b)(2)(c) linked below, which says the following:
"(C) Treatment of aliens arriving from contiguous territory
In the case of an alien described in subparagraph (A) who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml;jsessionid=CBC641C749C3B0AAFE68329FF9C457FB?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-chapter12-subchapter2-part4&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGU4LXNlY3Rpb24xMjI5YQ%3D%3D%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim&edition=prelim

I believe the Supreme Court just ruled that DHS has discretion to return people to continuous territories. The problem isn't the legality of Remain in Mexico, but the cruelty, because those people were living terribly and in dangerous conditions. They were legally seeking asylum, and most would qualify, but they were in a sort of purgatory. The laws and services needed to be changed by congress with the immigration bill, and that is what Biden wanted. He didn't want to keep persecuting those people. Trump doesn't give a damn, but Biden did. The bill was the solution, and Trump used his influence to block it, and got rewarded.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Nearly half of the 1.4 million people in the U.S. immigration system who have pending deportation orders cannot be sent back to their home countries, according to internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, posing one of several looming obstacles to President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge for a mass removal campaign

Some orders can’t be carried out because the would-be deportee’s home country won’t take them or limits cooperation with ICE.

Others identified for deportation are serving prison terms, or have received a reprieve or deferral from an immigration judge, due to a medical condition, a credible persecution threat or another extenuating factor.

An array of other logistical and legal impediments also could constrain mass deportations, according to current and former ICE officials.

Trump promises to brush aside hurdles and mount a campaign modeled after the harsh roundups of the Eisenhower Administration, when the U.S. government expelled hundreds of thousands of migrant workers to Mexico.…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/12/06/mass-deportation-obstacles-trump-migrants/

 

[superchuck500]

 

[TampaJoe]

Welll that policy was no longer legal once the pandemic was over so you are saying he should break the law? Also Mexico did not want to extend the agreement so how would you force Mexico to receive people returned from the US ?

Congress is responsible for changing the laws and Trump told them not to.

You seem to ignore even the most basic facts in your replies. Biden is no totalitarian leader. He has to abide by the laws of the land and they are created by congress.

You are twisting things around and moving goalposts again. Yes, everybody has a perspective, but what you are doing is stating falsehoods and then excusing it by saying it’s your opinion.

Which is what I said - denying reality. You can have opinions and perspectives that are unique to you. What you don’t get to have are “alternative facts”. That’s what you seem to be trying to do here.

For example - you can disagree with the way Biden carried out his border policies, but you don’t get to say there were no border policies and that he did nothing and that he “opened the border”. Those are just not true. It’s a reductive way of speaking that carries no reality.

Falsehoods. From your perspective perhaps. Not everything you disagree with is a”falsehood”. I will characterize the Biden border policy as I choose. You don’t have to agree with my opinion. Hate to break it to you but a lot of people don’t agreed with you. It showed up in polling on the immigration issue. Now you can claim it has no basis in reality. That’s your opinion. You are welcome to it.

Biden made a mess at the border and say around and watched it fester for three years. That was his record and he and Harris suffered at the polls based on that record. That’s the reality.

 

[Dragon]

Falsehoods. From your perspective perhaps. Not everything you disagree with is a”falsehood”. I will characterize the Biden border policy as I choose. You don’t have to agree with my opinion. Hate to break it to you but a lot of people don’t agreed with you. It showed up in polling on the immigration issue. Now you can claim it has no basis in reality. That’s your opinion. You are welcome to it.

Biden made a mess at the border and say around and watched it fester for three years. That was his record and he and Harris suffered at the polls based on that record. That’s the reality.

Opinions and facts are distinct, and conflating the two can derail productive discussions. Opinions are subjective and based on personal perspectives, whereas facts are objective and verifiable. In any debate or discussion, relying on facts ensures that everyone operates within the same reality, enabling meaningful exchanges and preventing misunderstandings.

When opinions are presented as facts, it not only weakens the argument but also risks losing credibility. Grounding claims in verifiable evidence fosters clarity and builds trust, making for a stronger and more respectful dialogue.

 

[bird]

Falsehoods. From your perspective perhaps. Not everything you disagree with is a”falsehood”. I will characterize the Biden border policy as I choose. You don’t have to agree with my opinion. Hate to break it to you but a lot of people don’t agreed with you. It showed up in polling on the immigration issue. Now you can claim it has no basis in reality. That’s your opinion. You are welcome to it.

Biden made a mess at the border and say around and watched it fester for three years. That was his record and he and Harris suffered at the polls based on that record. That’s the reality.

And as you have always done you ignore reality because it doesn’t fit your worldview. The border was not this catastrophe that you claimed. When you claim it as your opinion you are lying. Beyond that your stupid, arrogant, ignorant party had a bill. A bill that your party wanted. Then they showed themselves to be the gutless sycophants that they are because Trump told them to not pass it. They chose a Trump over the country and YOU don’t care.

Peddle your bullschlitz about this somewhere else. You opinion is not merely meaningless, it is a lie. You don’t like being called a liar then don’t lie.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Falsehoods. From your perspective perhaps. Not everything you disagree with is a”falsehood”. I will characterize the Biden border policy as I choose. You don’t have to agree with my opinion. Hate to break it to you but a lot of people don’t agreed with you. It showed up in polling on the immigration issue. Now you can claim it has no basis in reality. That’s your opinion. You are welcome to it.

Biden made a mess at the border and say around and watched it fester for three years. That was his record and he and Harris suffered at the polls based on that record. That’s the reality.

You are entitled to your own opinion. What you are not entitled to are your own facts. You have been given ample opportunity to support your opinion with facts, and you fail to do so every time. An opinion without support is worthless and in no way holds the same weight as well-informed, well-supported opinions. In fact, it holds no weight. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[TampaJoe]

Opinions and facts are distinct, and conflating the two can derail productive discussions. Opinions are subjective and based on personal perspectives, whereas facts are objective and verifiable. In any debate or discussion, relying on facts ensures that everyone operates within the same reality, enabling meaningful exchanges and preventing misunderstandings.

When opinions are presented as facts, it not only weakens the argument but also risks losing credibility. Grounding claims in verifiable evidence fosters clarity and builds trust, making for a stronger and more respectful dialogue.

I appreciate all that info but pretty much everything discussed on a board such as this is opinion. I know I take very little of what is posted as fact. It’s all pretty much somebody’s opinion on something they have heard or read or maybe witnessed for themselves. Where things do get screwing is when people start thinking their opinions are fact and truth.

Juries meet all the time in the country and are presented facts. Often the same group of people come to different conclusions based on the same set of facts. I know the difference between fact and opinion. Jury verdicts are called opinions. SCOTUS decisions are called opinions. Most everything said on this board is somebody’s opinion.

 

[Dragon]

Numbers, records, and laws are facts. Your feelings about something, however, are not facts.

Many members of this board have repeatedly provided you with factual information, yet you continue to dismiss them with opinions. That behavior aligns more with trolling than with engaging in a serious debate. If you wish to be taken seriously, consider addressing facts with counter-facts, not just personal opinions.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I appreciate all that info but pretty much everything discussed on a board such as this is opinion. I know I take very little of what is posted as fact. It’s all pretty much somebody’s opinion on something they have heard or read or maybe witnessed for themselves. Where things do get screwing is when people start thinking their opinions are fact and truth.

Juries meet all the time in the country and are presented facts. Often the same group of people come to different conclusions based on the same set of facts. I know the difference between fact and opinion. Jury verdicts are called opinions. SCOTUS decisions are called opinions. Most everything said on this board is somebody’s opinion.

If this forum were a jury room, you would be a random person who sees a story about the trial on the local news and rushes down to the courthouse to barge into the room, claim that the defendant is guilty, and then get baffled when everyone looks at you like a raving lunatic.

 

[DaveXA]

I appreciate all that info but pretty much everything discussed on a board such as this is opinion. I know I take very little of what is posted as fact. It’s all pretty much somebody’s opinion on something they have heard or read or maybe witnessed for themselves. Where things do get screwing is when people start thinking their opinions are fact and truth.

Juries meet all the time in the country and are presented facts. Often the same group of people come to different conclusions based on the same set of facts. I know the difference between fact and opinion. Jury verdicts are called opinions. SCOTUS decisions are called opinions. Most everything said on this board is somebody’s opinion.

So deliberately ignore factual statements? That's an interesting approach to a debate. Just understand that sort of strategy will lose a debate competition every time. Since you haven't presented any facts to support your opinions, your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

 

[TampaJoe]

If this forum were a jury room, you would be a random person who sees a story about the trial on the local news and rushes down to the courthouse to barge into the room, claim that the defendant is guilty, and then get baffled when everyone looks at you like a raving lunatic.

Except this isn’t a jury room now is it. We are discussing. I wouldn’t assume your opinion is a fact nor would I assume it was the truth, the whole truth. I would assume it’s your opinion on what you believe is true and that you come by that honestly. I may not agree with your assessment but I don’t question your motivation. I don’t assume you are lying.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Except this isn’t a jury room now is it. We are discussing. I wouldn’t assume your opinion is a fact nor would I assume it was the truth, the whole truth. I would assume it’s your opinion on what you believe is true and that you come by that honestly. I may not agree with your assessment but I don’t question your motivation. I don’t assume you are lying.

You backed away from that comparison pretty dang fast. My point stands, though. In jury rooms, people discuss things based on evidence. You, on the other hand, don't deal in evidence and still insist that your opinions and my opinions are created equally. They aren't. If I share an opinion or a position on this board (or anywhere else), I can back it up with facts and evidence that led me to said opinion or position. You don't (or can't) do the same.

 

[TampaJoe]

So deliberately ignore factual statements? That's an interesting approach to a debate. Just understand that sort of strategy will lose a debate competition every time. Since you haven't presented any facts to support your opinions, your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth it takes up.

I didn’t say I ignored anything. It may simply be a disagreement on conclusion. Most of the “statements” around here are simply opinions based on someone’s interpretation of a set of facts.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I didn’t say I ignored anything. It may simply be a disagreement on conclusion. Most of the “statements” around here are simply opinions based on someone’s interpretation of a set of facts.

Can you give an example of someone giving an opinion based on their interpretation of a set of facts and then show how those facts can be interpreted another way?

 

[superchuck500]

I know the difference between fact and opinion. Jury verdicts are called opinions.

Jury verdicts are not called opinions. Jury verdicts are called verdicts. Individual elements of jury verdicts are called findings. Juries determine facts - as least as to the case, that's why they're referred to as "the factfinder". Juries do not issue opinions.

Judges write opinions - they are written in support of a ruling, or judgment. For example, a ruling can be that a motion or petition is granted (or denied) and the reasons for the ruling are called the judicial opinion.

Often people post facts here - most appropriately with demonstrated support (i.e. data). Saying that the data show that X happened under Y's administration is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact, or if you want to get nuanced, it's a statement of what that data shows to be true. It can be rebutted with either other data or a sound refutation of that data.