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?

 

[RobF]

Apparently not.

They do. You're expressing yourself badly.

If your position is that:

1) It's a bad idea and wrong to "basically grab people and call them gang members and send them to a prison in another country without any due process", as @MT15 put it. And you hold this position regardless of:
2) One reason they might be doing it is to scare other people who might be affected into self-deporting.

Then you wouldn't, typically, use 'but' to connect the two.

Because when you say, "it's wrong, but it could be intended to encourage people to self-deport," that expresses the latter part as a mitigation or justification for the first part.

I agree that one of the things they're trying to do is scare people (and not just people limited to 'illegally present gang members' but anyone who thinks they could be treated as such regardless of their innocence). But that's not a 'but'. It's an 'and'.

They're basically grabbing people and calling them gang members and sending them to a prison in another country without any due process, and one of the reasons they're doing this is to scare people.

 

[MT15]

They do. You're expressing yourself badly.

If your position is that:

1) It's a bad idea and wrong to "basically grab people and call them gang members and send them to a prison in another country without any due process", as @MT15 put it. And you hold this position regardless of:
2) One reason they might be doing it is to scare other people who might be affected into self-deporting.

Then you wouldn't, typically, use 'but' to connect the two.

Because when you say, "it's wrong, but it could be intended to encourage people to self-deport," that expresses the latter part as a mitigation or justification for the first part.

I agree that one of the things they're trying to do is scare people (and not just people limited to 'illegally present gang members' but anyone who thinks they could be treated as such regardless of their innocence). But that's not a 'but'. It's an 'and'.

They're basically grabbing people and calling them gang members and sending them to a prison in another country without any due process, and one of the reasons they're doing this is to scare people.

Thank you! The arrogance of this guy is grating. I understand the English language. I know what he is doing whether he wants to admit it or not.

And saying I have a fevered mind for understanding what he is doing is just plain arrogant.

 

[Optimus Prime]

During the first Trump administration, when Stephen Miller’s immigration policy proposals hit obstacles in federal court, rumors would circulate about his plans to dust off arcane presidential powers. Government lawyers were wary of overreach; officials in the West Wing and at the Department of Homeland Security would sometimes snicker.

LOL Stephen, they’d say, amused by his creative zealotry.

No one is laughing now. Miller, Donald Trump’s Homeland Security adviser and deputy chief of staff, has returned to the White House stronger and more determined than ever to silence the derision and plow through legal constraints.

Miller tried to deter migration during Trump’s first term with a series of moves implemented by trial and error, mostly one at a time. He tried “zero tolerance” family separations, asylum bans, and the “Remain in Mexico” policy. When the coronavirus pandemic hit, Miller finally had a plausible justification for using the emergency public-health law he had long coveted as a border-control tool, and he rode that policy—Title 42—to the end of Trump’s first term.

Miller’s policy making was generally reactive then, a response to the border pressures the administration was struggling to contain, former officials who worked with him say. As one career DHS official told us on the condition of anonymity, he was “throwing mud at the wall to see what would stick.”

Miller’s approach is different this time. He has unleashed an everything-at-once policy storm modeled after the MAGA guru Stephen K. Bannon’s “flood the zone” formula. Drawing on policy ideas worked up in conservative think tanks during the four years between Trump’s terms, Miller’s plan has been to fire off so many different proposals that some inevitably find a friendly court ruling, three administration officials told us.

This tactic also gives Miller multiple ways to seal the border, shut down the U.S. asylum system, and ramp up deportations. “It’s Do everything all at once everywhere,” says Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group aligned with Miller that has incubated some of his policy ideas.

The administration’s court-defying use of the Alien Enemies Act this past weekend to send hundreds of deportees to a prison in El Salvador—including some after a district-court judge explicitly told the government not to—was his most brazen gambit yet. Miller did not respond to a request for comment.

The 1798 act has been used only three times in U.S. history: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, when it provided the legal justification for the internment of Japanese, Italian, and German citizens. The Trump administration claims that the United States has been infiltrated by transnational gangs, including the Venezuelan prison syndicate Tren de Aragua, that it has designated terrorist groups...........

Stephen Miller Has a Plan​

Stephen Miller Has a Plan

The White House point person on immigration is pursuing a strategy that is bedeviling his opponents and could provoke a constitutional crisis.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

ICE detainees flee from custody in Colorado after reported power outage

Geilond Vido-Romero, 24, and Joel Jose Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 32, "are still at large and the search is ongoing," ICE said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Sendai]

They do. You're expressing yourself badly.

If your position is that:

1) It's a bad idea and wrong to "basically grab people and call them gang members and send them to a prison in another country without any due process", as @MT15 put it. And you hold this position regardless of:
2) One reason they might be doing it is to scare other people who might be affected into self-deporting.

Then you wouldn't, typically, use 'but' to connect the two.

Because when you say, "it's wrong, but it could be intended to encourage people to self-deport," that expresses the latter part as a mitigation or justification for the first part.

I agree that one of the things they're trying to do is scare people (and not just people limited to 'illegally present gang members' but anyone who thinks they could be treated as such regardless of their innocence). But that's not a 'but'. It's an 'and'.

They're basically grabbing people and calling them gang members and sending them to a prison in another country without any due process, and one of the reasons they're doing this is to scare people.

The “But” simply states this might be the reason for doing it. No mitigation or justification. Nowhere did I remotely imply I thought it was justified. Simply pointing out this might be why they did it. And, as a theory, it might be wrong.

 

[MT15]

The “But” simply states this might be the reason for doing it. No mitigation or justification. Nowhere did I remotely imply I thought it was justified. Simply pointing out this might be why they did it. And, as a theory, it might be wrong.

No, if you were simply wanting to speculate why they were doing it you wouldn’t use that phrasing. The “but” absolutely implies justification or mitigation. You would have made a separate statement - like “and I think they’re doing it because of x, y z”.

Come on, it’s okay to admit you worded it poorly and you didn’t mean to justify it. Unless that was what you meant. It’s your call. But we understand the English language so don’t try to gaslight us about that particular usage.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No, if you were simply wanting to speculate why they were doing it you wouldn’t use that phrasing. The “but” absolutely implies justification or mitigation. You would have made a separate statement - like “and I think they’re doing it because of x, y z”.

Come on, it’s okay to admit you worded it poorly and you didn’t mean to justify it. Unless that was what you meant. It’s your call. But we understand the English language so don’t try to gaslight us about that particular usage.

He's still demonstrating his lack of understanding regarding a simple, three-letter word.

 

[Sendai]

No, if you were simply wanting to speculate why they were doing it you wouldn’t use that phrasing. The “but” absolutely implies justification or mitigation. You would have made a separate statement - like “and I think they’re doing it because of x, y z”.

Come on, it’s okay to admit you worded it poorly and you didn’t mean to justify it. Unless that was what you meant. It’s your call. But we understand the English language so don’t try to gaslight us about that particular usage.

No it doesn’t. I made a simple observation that there might be a connection between the flights and the app.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No it doesn’t. I made a simple observation that there might be a connection between the flights and the app.

So your stance is that you don't understand basic concepts of the English language and, when it was pointed out to you, you decided to double down on your ignorance instead of admitting that what you said definitely meant something other than what you claim to have intended.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The Department of Homeland Security said on Friday that it would revoke the temporary legal status of more than 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans welcomed into the US under a Biden-era sponsorship process, according to a notice posted to the Federal Register and signed by the homeland security chief Kristi Noem.

The order cuts short a two-year “parole” program – known as CHNV – under Joe Biden that allowed 532,000 people who had arrived in the US since October 2022 with financial sponsors to obtain two-year work permits to live and work in the US. Noem’s notice said they will lose their legal status on 24 April.

The new policy affects people who are already in the US and who came under the humanitarian parole program.

It follows an earlier Trump administration decision to end what it called the “broad abuse” of the humanitarian parole, a long-standing legal tool presidents have used to allow people from countries where there is war or political instability to enter and temporarily live in the US.

During his campaign, Donald Trump promised to deport millions of people who are in the US illegally, and as president he has also been ending legal pathways for immigrants to come to the US and to stay.……..

Trump revokes legal status of 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans

Move takes effect on 24 April as president weighs also stripping parole status from some 240,000 Ukrainians in US

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration Friday ended a contract that provides legal help to migrant children entering the country without a parent or guardian, raising concerns that children will be forced to navigate the complex legal systemalone.

The Acacia Center for Justice contracts with the government to provide legal services through its network of providers around the country to unaccompanied migrant children under 18, both by providing direct legal representation as well as conducting legal orientations — often referred to as “know your rights” clinics — to migrant children who cross the border alone and are in federal government shelters.

Acacia said they were informed Friday that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was terminating nearly all the legal work that the center does, including paying for lawyers for roughly 26,000 children when they go to immigration court. They’re still contracted to hold the legal orientation clinics.

“It’s extremely concerning because it’s leaving these kids without really important support,” said Ailin Buigues, who heads Acacia’s unaccompanied children program. “They’re often in a very vulnerable position.”……

Trump administration cuts legal help for migrant children traveling alone

The Trump administration is ending a key program providing legal help to migrant children entering the country alone, raising concerns they'll be forced to navigate the complex legal system alone.

apnews.com

 

[MT15]

So your stance is that you don't understand basic concepts of the English language and, when it was pointed out to you, you decided to double down on your ignorance instead of admitting that what you said definitely meant something other than what you claim to have intended.

Which definitely calls his intentions into question in my mind. Well, that and the repeated reference to :fevered minds: toward the people who are correctly interpreting his post.

Maybe one more stab at it. Let’s look at two statements:

The demonstrators destroyed a statue that they found objectionable, but i think they did it to highlight the opening of their new art show.

The demonstrators destroyed a statue and I think they meant to use the destruction to promote their new art show.

The first one is rationalizing the destruction, and the second one is not. It’s quite simple.

 

[MT15]

The centers that hold ICE detainees, prisons really, are run by for-profit companies. They are holding people who have been wrongfully detained for weeks or months in some cases. This TikTok is done by The Guardian telling the story of the Canadian woman who was put in prison for 2 weeks.

TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[Optimus Prime]

Lawyers for Donald Trump’s administration are considering whether his invocation of an 18th century wartime law allows federal law enforcement officers to enter homes without a warrant.

The president has deployed the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport, without due process, alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang, designated a foreign terrorist organization. Officials, however, have admitted that many of the immigrants flown to a prison in El Salvador last weekend don’t have criminal records.

Trump is relying on the law for only the fourth time in U.S. history. It was most recently used to detain Japanese Americans, including U.S. citizens, during the Second World War.

“Terrorists don’t get to hide behind closed doors,” said an official with the Department of Justice in a statement to The Independent from the White House.

The administration is mulling whether federal agents can search for suspected gang members inside peoples’ homes without securing a warrant from a judge, The New York Times first reported, citing people familiar with the discussions.

It’s unclear whether the administration is providing law enforcement agencies with that guidance, which could amount to a drastic breach of the Fourth Amendment and constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Civil rights groups and legal experts are sounding the alarm, noting the president could be relying on the broad scope of the Alien Enemies Act to get around criminal and immigration law.……..

Trump White House could let feds enter homes without warrants under Alien Enemies Act

Justice Department official says ‘terrorists don’t get to hide behind closed doors’ as legal experts sound alarm

www.independent.co.uk

 

[UriUT]

Holy shirt people are really STUPID.

"Say and do cruel things as much as possible!!! Just not to me. Oh wait, you're after me now? You liar!!!!!!"

Because of her stupidity...perhaps greed?

 

[Optimus Prime]

How can anyone defend this?!
=======================

A Hmong American woman who has lived in the Milwaukee area since she was 8 months old was deported last week to Laos, a country she has never visited, and says she is stranded in a rooming house surrounded by military guards.

Ma Yang, 37, a mother of five, said she does not speak the Lao language, has no family or friends in the country and that the military is holding all her documents.

She was born in Thailand, the daughter of Hmong refugees after the Vietnam War, and she was a legal permanent U.S. resident until she pleaded guilty to taking part in a marijuana trafficking operation.

"The United States sent me back to die," she said. "I don't even know where to go. I don't even know what to do."

As President Donald Trump pushes the mass deportation of immigrants, Yang believes she is one of the first Hmong Americans to be deported to Laos in recent years.

As of November, the U.S. considered Laos an "uncooperative" country that accepted few, if any, deportees. Zero people were deported to Laos in the last fiscal year, according to federal data.

Once she arrived in the Laotian capital of Vientiane on March 6, she said she was questioned by military authorities then sent to a rooming house, where guards did not allow her to leave or contact anyone for five days. She paced in circles around the compound and ate food the guards gave her.

A few days ago, she was taken to buy a cellphone and withdraw cash. She could finally reach out to her partner of 16 years, Michael Bub of South Milwaukee, a U.S. citizen.

The military official in charge of her situation — she does not know his rank or title — then said she could leave if she wanted. But she is scared to venture out.

"How do I rent, or buy, or anything, with no papers?" Yang said. "I'm a nobody right now."

Yang has no insulin for her diabetes and dwindling supplies of high blood pressure medication, she said. She is the only deportee in the house, she said.……….

Yang was among 26 people indicted in a sweeping federal case in 2020. It alleged Yang helped count and package cash that was mailed to marijuana suppliers in California. Prosecutors found bags of cash taped between pages of magazines, according to a complaint.

She took a plea deal and served 2 1/2 years in prison. She said her attorney incorrectly told her the plea deal would not affect her immigration status as a green card holder. But her legal permanent residency was revoked.

Yang would've traded a shorter prison sentence for a longer one if she could have kept her green card, she said. She needs to be home with her kids.

"I made a mistake, and I know that it was wrong," Yang said. "But I served the time for it already."………

Milwaukee-area woman deported to Laos though she's never been there, doesn't speak the language

As Donald Trump pushes the mass deportation of immigrants, Yang believes she is one of the first Hmong Americans to be deported to Laos recently.

www.jsonline.com

Milwaukee woman who was deported to Laos by the Trump administration earlier this month is deeply “shaken” by the prospect of spending more than a decade away from her partner and five children back home in Wisconsin, activists helping the family told The Independent.

Ma Yang, a 37-year-old Hmong-American, has been living in a government facility outside the Laotian capital of Vientiane for the past couple of weeks after being forced to leave her family and friends in the U.S.

Yang was born in a refugee camp in Thailand but gained legal status as a permanent U.S. resident until she pleaded guilty to cannabis-related charges and served 30 months in federal prison.

Having taken a plea deal mistakenly believing that her green card would not be at risk, she is now one of the "millions and millions" of people Donald Trump pledged to kick out of America during his re-election campaign.…….

Milwaukee mom deported to Laos ‘shaken’ as she faces decades without family in U.S.

Despite being born in Thailand and becoming a permanent U.S. resident, Ma Yang has been sent to the other side of the world to a country where she knows no one. Alisha Rahaman Sarkar traces her journey to the Laotian capital of Vientiane

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Sendai]

So your stance is that you don't understand basic concepts of the English language and, when it was pointed out to you, you decided to double down on your ignorance instead of admitting that what you said definitely meant something other than what you claim to have intended.

I’d say you have issues with the English language.

Definition of BUT

except for the fact; that —used after a negative; without the concomitant that… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

My use fits nicely with “on the other hand”.

Nowhere does merriam say it is used as “justification “.

 

[RobF]

I’d say you have issues with the English language.

Definition of BUT

except for the fact; that —used after a negative; without the concomitant that… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

My use fits nicely with “on the other hand”.

Nowhere does merriam say it is used as “justification “.

Uh huh. And what's "on the other hand" to "it's wrong"?

Stop digging, you're just making a complete clown of yourself here.