14 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

So you believe that in the x number of days Trump has been in office, the country has degraded to the point where anybody and everybody can be deported to El Salvador for no apparent reason?

 

As I stated in a previous post, which no one replied to, how deluded are you on a scale of 1 to 10 about what's really going on? 

That has nothing to do with what I said. I did not express any opinion about the state of the country, nor any belief that "anybody and everybody can be deported."

 

You said they would not want to deport US citizens. I provided evidence that Donald Trump has stated he would love to deport US citizens to El Salvador, and would be honored to do so. Which kind of makes it sound like he at least, does want to.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dan O said:

You never answer any question and provide support when you claim lies and falsehood.

Situation normal for all his so called answers to questions!

22 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Exactly. Lazy incompetance. 

Thats never happened in the history of any government

1 hour ago, Dan O said:

Yep lies and flames are what got Trump elected. 

And which he is still making!

14 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Yes, she clearly states "heinous violent criminals who have broken laws repeatedly"

 

 

 

Still US citizens. Slippery slope.

11 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

 

Still US citizens. Slippery slope.

Ok, I see your point. 

But probably people who obtainted citizenship as adults ... and maybe that system is too lenient where immigrants move to a country, obtain citizenship, and then become criminals.

But still doesn't mean Trump should single-handedly be allowed to change the laws I guess .. .

 

 

5 hours ago, FriscoKid said:

How do you know that? How do you know they didn't do it merely to scare or intimidate her. 

 

Common sense.  U.S. citizens, whether U.S. born or naturalized, can't be deported.  As an immigration attorney,  Nicole Micheroni would know this and therefore couldn't be scared or intimidated by an erroneous email.

 

5 hours ago, FriscoKid said:

 Do you just make this sh* t up as you go? 

 

No need for me to make anything up.  I'll leave that to you.

 

5 hours ago, FriscoKid said:

You are assuming the DHS under Trump is inept, and they probably are, but this appears to be clearly intentional or they would have reached out to her by now to correct their mistake.

 

I'm not assuming DHS is inept.  I am acknowledging that it's possible DHS sent an email in error. There are at least 47.8 million immigrants and long-term nonimmigrants in the U.S.  About 1.1 million have student visas.  DHS sends out tens of thousands of  emails every day  and even the most efficient organizations can make a mistake.

 

Slowly now, from the top, so you understand.  Micheroni got a standard  email sent to foreign residents of the U.S. whose temporary legal status to remain  in the U.S.  had expired or been revoked.  Since U.S. born CITIZENS CANNOT BE DEPORTED under any circumstances, the only mistake to correct would be a follow-up email stating the first had be sent in error.  It's no big thing.

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

Since U.S. born CITIZENS CANNOT BE DEPORTED under any circumstances

'Can not' and 'are not allowed to be ' are not the same.

Quote

Not Clickbait

 

It is clickbait.  OP is a liar.  🙄

"DHS Tries To Deport A US Born, American Citizen - Not Clickbait - Can't Make This Stuff Up!"

 

Yes, it was clickbait.  No one has tried to deport her.

7 hours ago, BLMFem said:

12 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

Definitely.  The headline of the topic is very misleading.  DHS did not attempt to deport Nicole Micheroni; it sent her an email by mistake.

How do you know this? Has the DHS admitted it, or are you authorized to speak on their behalf?

If the DHS had tried to deport her, it would have physically tried to deport her, not just sent her an email...that's how he knows.  Deportees are not deported by email.

7 hours ago, FriscoKid said:

How do you know that? How do you know they didn't do it merely to scare or intimidate her. Do you just make this sh* t up as you go? You are assuming the DHS under Trump is inept, and they probably are, but this appears to be clearly intentional or they would have reached out to her by now to correct their mistake.

"...appears to be clearly intentional or they would have reached out to her by now to correct their mistake".

If it was intentional, they'd have deported her or, at the very least, started the deportation process.  They haven't.

2 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Still US citizens. Slippery slope.

 

 

It's happened in the past when Nazis that escaped into the USA became naturalized citizens.  They were stripped of citizenship and deported (or extradited, depending on the case).

 

Besides, what's wrong with housing inmates sentenced to death or life in prison in a country that is contracted to house them for a tiny fraction of the $$ 10's of thousands a year that it costs the US and the States to house inmates?  Even if they're citizens...  They will have gone through their due process and sentenced to incarceration.  Seems like housing them in a cheaper country would save the taxpayers $$ billions.

 

This story makes no sense on its face. He's going to deport a "Micheroni" while there's tens of millions of anchor babies from South America still in the country?

53 minutes ago, impulse said:

It's happened in the past when Nazis that escaped into the USA became naturalized citizens.  They were stripped of citizenship and deported (or extradited, depending on the case).

 

 

Trump should have challenged the 14th amendment and retroactively deported people who descended from illegal aliens who broke the law. Any other sane country would do that. Instead he's focused on tariffs which are just as likely to end him as they are to help anyone.

Keep it civil please.

9 hours ago, impulse said:

 

 

It's happened in the past when Nazis that escaped into the USA became naturalized citizens.  They were stripped of citizenship and deported (or extradited, depending on the case).

 

Besides, what's wrong with housing inmates sentenced to death or life in prison in a country that is contracted to house them for a tiny fraction of the $$ 10's of thousands a year that it costs the US and the States to house inmates?  Even if they're citizens...  They will have gone through their due process and sentenced to incarceration.  Seems like housing them in a cheaper country would save the taxpayers $$ billions.

 

 

The Nazis weren't US citizens when they were deported. They had been de-naturalized. 

 

The problem, as we are seeing in real time, is that they would no longer be within US jurisdiction and they may become unable to return, even if new evidence arose that questions their conviction or were otherwise deserving of a new trial. 

10 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

The Nazis weren't US citizens when they were deported. They had been de-naturalized. 

 

The problem, as we are seeing in real time, is that they would no longer be within US jurisdiction and they may become unable to return, even if new evidence arose that questions their conviction or were otherwise deserving of a new trial. 

 

Good points. 

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not advocating that we stick US inmates in CECOT in El Salvador and let them rot.  But if El Salvador was willing to build prisons that meet US (and international) requirements for humane treatment and could do it for a small fraction of the operating cost of a US prison, I wouldn't object to sending them there.  Of course, they'd still have to have access to their attorneys, and libraries, and contact with relatives, but that could all be facilitated online.  The US could probably also arrange visitation by relatives by air and still come out way cheaper than the expensive (and corrupt) contracted prison systems around the US.

 

Besides, if the inmate was from Florida, El Salvador is closer to home than being put in a SuperMax in Colorado or California.

 

58 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Good points. 

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not advocating that we stick US inmates in CECOT in El Salvador and let them rot.  But if El Salvador was willing to build prisons that meet US (and international) requirements for humane treatment and could do it for a small fraction of the operating cost of a US prison, I wouldn't object to sending them there.  Of course, they'd still have to have access to their attorneys, and libraries, and contact with relatives, but that could all be facilitated online.  The US could probably also arrange visitation by relatives by air and still come out way cheaper than the expensive (and corrupt) contracted prison systems around the US.

 

Besides, if the inmate was from Florida, El Salvador is closer to home than being put in a SuperMax in Colorado or California.

 

 

This assumes that relations between the US and the "host" country remain amicable. Governments change and the prisoners could become pawns for a newly hostile foreign government to exploit.

9 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

This story makes no sense on its face. He's going to deport a "Micheroni" while there's tens of millions of anchor babies from South America still in the country?

Tens of millions?

And no matter how many anchor babies there are, the Constitution is quite clear about their status. They are American citizens. As the Supreme Court has ruled.

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Tens of millions?

And no matter how many anchor babies there are, the Constitution is quite clear about their status. They are American citizens. As the Supreme Court has ruled.

That's the 14th amendment, not the constitution. I think it's cut and dry that it was never intended for the children of illegal aliens (go read it yourself).

 

If that fails then at least repeal the civil rights  laws so that Americans can reject these illegitimate citizens within their own particular region.

 

As it stands now the government can give citizenship under any false pretense and then when they arrive in your town you must interact with them. This is a whole new level tyranny which the people who drafted the 14th amendment could never conceive of.

Just now, NorthernRyland said:

That's the 14th amendment, not the constitution. I think it's cut and dry that it was never intended for the children of illegal aliens (go read it yourself).

 

If that fails then at least repeal the civil rights  laws so that Americans can reject these illegitimate citizens within their own particular region.

 

As it stands now the government can give citizenship under any false pretense and then when they arrive in your town you must interact with them. This is a whole new level tyranny which the people who drafted the 14th amendment could never conceive of.

In what way are amendments not  part of the Constitution? If a contract is amended, is the new contract not a contract?

Actually, this very issue was debated in Congress before it was passed. So there was no doubt that it was known who the amendment entailed and who it didn't. And by the way, the reason why there is a  "jurisdiction thereof" exception is also answered as clearly referring to foreign diplomats' children born in the usa.

You can read about it here:

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjustice/ch5/01/

16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, what are the "facts"? 

Read the OP then post your question to Yagoda as he seems to be the one questioning the facts. You can discuss it with him since you seem to want to jump on his bandwagon

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In what way are amendments not  part of the Constitution? If a contract is amended, is the new contract not a contract?

Actually, this very issue was debated in Congress before it was passed. So there was no doubt that it was known who the amendment entailed and who it didn't. And by the way, the reason why there is a  "jurisdiction thereof" exception is also answered as clearly referring to foreign diplomats' children born in the usa.

You can read about it here:

https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/libertyandjustice/ch5/01/

 

ok I see what you mean but this is not an immovable part of the countries history or anything. If you polled Americans what would they think? I bet a strong majority would disagree with citizenship for children of illegal aliens. Imagine being so brainwashed you think a  person who broke the law should be rewarded but many are.

 

These laws are never complete by nature and people mistakes. Do you really think the average American in 1965 or the government would agree to idea of the children of illegal aliens receiving citizenship? It was always sold to the population the numbers would be small and not change the ethnic composition of the country yet we are today with those white Americans on track to be a minority in their children's lifetimes.

 

Clearly something has gone seriously wrong here and Americans have been deceived and taken advantage of.

4 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

ok I see what you mean but this is not an immovable part of the countries history or anything. If you polled Americans what would they think? I bet a strong majority would disagree with citizenship for children of illegal aliens. Imagine being so brainwashed you think a  person who broke the law should be rewarded but many are.

 

These laws are never complete by nature and people mistakes. Do you really think the average American in 1965 or the government would agree to idea of the children of illegal aliens receiving citizenship? It was always sold to the population the numbers would be small and not change the ethnic composition of the country yet we are today with those white Americans on track to be a minority in their children's lifetimes.

 

Clearly something has gone seriously wrong here and Americans have been deceived and taken advantage of.

A new poll reveals that Americans are deeply divided on which groups of children should automatically receive United States citizenship at birth.

The survey found that a slight majority, 51 percent of respondents, support the view that "all children born in the U.S. should automatically become citizens."

https://www.newsweek.com/us-birthright-citizenship-poll-americans-split-2038730

 

Given that Ronald Reagan made it possible for undocumented aliens to become citizens I'd say that your reading of past American attitudes is seriously wrong.

 

And maybe you think maintaining the ethnic composition of the United States is a legitimate concern but the history of American shows that the ethnic composition has always been changing.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A new poll reveals that Americans are deeply divided on which groups of children should automatically receive United States citizenship at birth.

The survey found that a slight majority, 51 percent of respondents, support the view that "all children born in the U.S. should automatically become citizens."

https://www.newsweek.com/us-birthright-citizenship-poll-americans-split-2038730

 

Given that Ronald Reagan made it possible for undocumented aliens to become citizens I'd say that your reading of past American attitudes is seriously wrong.

 

And maybe you think maintaining the ethnic composition of the United States is a legitimate concern but the history of American shows that the ethnic composition has always been changing.

 

The average American really doesn't care who breaks into their country and starts having kids? I somehow doubt that but those people are badly brainwashed. If you poll by region/race it would swing wildly though.

 

The Republican Ronald Reagan also turned CA in to a state which Republicans could never win again so clearly not very wise people. It's going to be incredible when Texas flips blue due to the immigration also. Once Trump is gone the Republicans are back to business as usual and Texas doesn't have any white people left to win elections for Republicans.

 

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

That's the 14th amendment, not the constitution. I think it's cut and dry that it was never intended for the children of illegal aliens (go read it yourself).

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does apply to them. 

 

As stated in the pleadings currently before the court: 

 

Quote

For over 100 years, this Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch have all agreed that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in this country, including those born to undocumented or non-permanent immigrants

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/354797/20250404145223563_2025 0404 Birthright SCOTUS SPA Opp File.pdf

 

New Jersey v. Trump - in the Supreme Court of the United States 

30 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

ok I see what you mean but this is not an immovable part of the countries history or anything. If you polled Americans what would they think? I bet a strong majority would disagree with citizenship for children of illegal aliens. Imagine being so brainwashed you think a  person who broke the law should be rewarded but many are.

 

These laws are never complete by nature and people mistakes. Do you really think the average American in 1965 or the government would agree to idea of the children of illegal aliens receiving citizenship? It was always sold to the population the numbers would be small and not change the ethnic composition of the country yet we are today with those white Americans on track to be a minority in their children's lifetimes.

 

Clearly something has gone seriously wrong here and Americans have been deceived and taken advantage of.

Should be easy then to overturn it with a new amendment.

6 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does apply to them. 

 

As stated in the pleadings currently before the court: 

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/354797/20250404145223563_2025 0404 Birthright SCOTUS SPA Opp File.pdf

 

New Jersey v. Trump - in the Supreme Court of the United States 

 

Well Americans need to figure out a way to end this or it will end them.

 

This means the government has legalized invasion essentially. Anyone in the world can sneak in to America, have children and then start voting against the interests of the original population. This is nullifies all laws in my opinion and makes the definition of citizenship meaningless.

4 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:

 

Well Americans need to figure out a way to end this or it will end them.

 

This means the government has legalized invasion essentially. Anyone in the world can sneak in to America, have children and then start voting against the interests of the original population. This is nullifies all laws in my opinion and makes the definition of citizenship meaningless.

Haha. You are speaking blasphemy sir. That’s definitely not the lefts plan at all, how dare you