I wonder what does Selena Gomez have to say about this?

So what about the 124 on that flight who were not gang members but just snatched up to be taken to what is a very nasty jail in E Salvador? How do you justify them having no due process (and presumably, a normal deportation if properly decided) - now jailed indefinitely?

Were they in America illegally perhaps? 🤷‍♀️

Actually why should there be due process for migrants who arrive without due process?

Softies.

“Off you pop’.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Legal and illegal migration are two different entities.

Not to Trump. Have you read the links earlier. People who are legally allowed to be in the US are being treated like criminals, put in chains, interrogated, given cold showers etc. Also alongside the gang members deported as had been said by Wyllow there are 124 people who are not gang members. Without human rights or due process terrible injustices will be committed.
This cannot be applauded simply because some gang members were sent back. And of course migration can be dealt with effectively if people are herded onto planes regardless of their status, in chains, and without due process. That isn’t an achievement it is an obscenity.

imaround, thanks for your updates and info, on what is happening in the USA just now.
Has anyone heard recently from that other lovely poster? Think the name was Gundy USA?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Actually why should there be due process for migrants who arrive without due process?

Softies.

“Off you pop’.

Well FGT we dont know if those 124 were illegally in the country or not, as due process was not followed. There are in place rules and checks under US law to see if the person is entitled to stay or not, and deportation can follow.

Whats happening is that many suspect undocumented citizens are ih hiding camps awaiting processing. they may not all be deported.

This is proper due process at work allowing deportation. (Although whether holding many who were actually working in the USA, and cost the state nothing, but now held at the expense of the USA, is a bright idea, I doubt)

Once a democratic society crosses the boundary of "due process" (in this case by using a measure intended for wartime and used since WW2)

Then it's set a precedent of seizing who you want, in this case by Trumps definition, not by the laws of the land.

Do you not see the dangers in this? It's like Putin. Hold a member of an opposition or a member of the press or indeed anyone who strongly opposes you then becomes possible. and if you doubt this could happen, Trump is already using the words "illegal" reporting by some news sources.

second paragraph correction "in holding camps"

You never stop trying do you?

No and I can't for the life of me think why?

On and on it goes.

Didn't we have " word's getting round " re refugees trying to get to the UK. Like they are all standing around chatting about KS and his Christmas time welcome ( or whatever nonsense it was)

And on and on ‘irregular migration’ continues. Someone has to get a grip, do something different to change the narrative and instigate change. Trump is doing that. Irregular migration to be down to what it was 40 years ago? That’s pretty darned amazing in my view. Seems the laws don’t need to be changed, just enforced!

Yes, but as I've pointed out, the figures are only low because of hugely expensive military presence along the border, FGT.

But FGT, It's not saving the economy money given the costs I quoted of keeping huge numbers of the military to be permanently employed along the border?

All the cuts and the complete mess ups with federal agencies, which could well result in a very angry population with cuts in VA support, medicare and social security, and the money going to police the border?

...and can you answer an earlier question, are you really actually happy with a regime that has just removed Due Process - which is at the very heart of a legal system in any democracy - in one area and therefore can in others?

Wyllow3

Yes, but as I've pointed out, the figures are only low because of hugely expensive military presence along the border, FGT.

But FGT, It's not saving the economy money given the costs I quoted of keeping huge numbers of the military to be permanently employed along the border?

All the cuts and the complete mess ups with federal agencies, which could well result in a very angry population with cuts in VA support, medicare and social security, and the money going to police the border?

Well said.

Caught up with news on CNN. Using this ancient law, and the consequences, are explored very well in this article. Basically we are about to enter some furious legal battles becuase of what happened when the judicial court order cancelling the flight was ignored. Republicans aren't all happy!

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” Sunday that he didn’t know whether the administration had ignored the judge’s order to block the deportations.

* But he added: “We expect the executive branch to follow the law. We have said in the past that we will follow the law … we are a constitutional republic, and we will follow those laws*

edition.cnn.com/2025/03/17/politics/trump-judge-court-order-venezuelan-deportations/index.html

Wyllow3

It depends on what levels of border supervision can be maintained and for how long, FGT?

Its a huge, complex border and at the moment a mixture of border police and now the military are guarding it at great expense.

Its estimated that the military additions alone could be between one and two billion dollars

rollcall.com/2025/03/05/yearly-cost-of-trumps-border-missions-could-exceed-1-billion/

But it is the duty of government to protect its borders from illegal entrants. Nobody seems to be aware of this. If it costs a lot that's a genuine and reasonable governmental cost.

Then there's the word illegal. Quite often on GN I've seen strongly expressed posts emphasising the dangerousness and illegality of breaking speed limits in this country. People get quite hot under the collar about that kind of illegality but illegality of some immigration (and it's only some; the US is full of legal immigrants about whom no-one has an issue) seems not to be minded. Why?

Or are there different tiers of illegality now?

Seems the laws don't need to be changed, just enforced!

Oh dear. The whole point FGT is that Trump is flouting existing immigration laws and bludgeoning ahead with mass expulsions of law abiding people, some of whom he has barred from legal re-entry to the USA after they have travelled abroad for holidays.

Are these the actions of a man with the good of the USA at heart or a megalomaniac?

Incidentally, I have just read that Trump is costing the American tax payer huge amounts of money to pay for him to make frequent visits to his golf clubs in Florida. He charges the tax payer for security staff including their accommodation and expenses.

Seriously, what is there to like?

Baggs

Wyllow3

It depends on what levels of border supervision can be maintained and for how long, FGT?

Its a huge, complex border and at the moment a mixture of border police and now the military are guarding it at great expense.

Its estimated that the military additions alone could be between one and two billion dollars

rollcall.com/2025/03/05/yearly-cost-of-trumps-border-missions-could-exceed-1-billion/

But it is the duty of government to protect its borders from illegal entrants. Nobody seems to be aware of this. If it costs a lot that's a genuine and reasonable governmental cost.

Then there's the word illegal. Quite often on GN I've seen strongly expressed posts emphasising the dangerousness and illegality of breaking speed limits in this country. People get quite hot under the collar about that kind of illegality but illegality of some immigration (and it's only some; the US is full of legal immigrants about whom no-one has an issue) seems not to be minded. Why?

Or are there different tiers of illegality now?

Its not a matter of one or two tiers, its actually a very complicated system of relative types of documentation Baggs which include green cards, documents which give sanctuary (as in cities of Sanctuary)

as well of course as undocumented, some of whom might be law abiding and working and some who might be criminals.

thats why they have due process and deportations can happen with this of course but its definitely not "legal or illegal".

"complicated system of relative types of documentation"

Aye, right. How convenient for people who didn't go through the due process in the first place.

Is it really that hard to do it properly? British, Chinese, Canadian and Peruvian members of my extended family have managed.

They have been allowed to work whilst going through the long process for some considerable time. Criminalising those who are not criminals especially those with Green Cards is unwarranted when there are proper processes.

I ca t believe I have to say this, but I am also not surprised.

They are rounding up people here that HAVE been through the process LEGALLY.

They are rounding up US Citizens. They are rounding up Native Americans.

But that is OK because, other people crossed the border illegally? It is ok to deny people their right to prove they are in the US legally, because "someone" has to secure the border.

Ok, let's ask. What rights are you willing to give up because other people came into your country illegally? If you support Trump stripping away rights of US citizens and the people her legally, then I think you should also be willing to answer what you would be ok giving up?

Are you ok with your relative being taken without a judges order, placed in a white van and taken 1,000 miles away with no contact with family? With no attorney to represent them?

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT TRUMP IS DOING!

imaround

I ca t believe I have to say this, but I am also not surprised.

They are rounding up people here that HAVE been through the process LEGALLY.

They are rounding up US Citizens. They are rounding up Native Americans.

But that is OK because, other people crossed the border illegally? It is ok to deny people their right to prove they are in the US legally, because "someone" has to secure the border.

Ok, let's ask. What rights are you willing to give up because other people came into your country illegally? If you support Trump stripping away rights of US citizens and the people her legally, then I think you should also be willing to answer what you would be ok giving up?

Are you ok with your relative being taken without a judges order, placed in a white van and taken 1,000 miles away with no contact with family? With no attorney to represent them?

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT TRUMP IS DOING!

It’s not OK to me, it will never be OK.

There’s so many variables. It’s very hard to actually leave some countries in order to seek asylum, it’s also pretty hard to get into some countries legally, and given that one has to actually be in the country at the time of claiming asylum, I can see some people have little choice!

What Trump is doing is immoral and in some cases illegal.

imaround

I ca t believe I have to say this, but I am also not surprised.

They are rounding up people here that HAVE been through the process LEGALLY.

They are rounding up US Citizens. They are rounding up Native Americans.

But that is OK because, other people crossed the border illegally? It is ok to deny people their right to prove they are in the US legally, because "someone" has to secure the border.

Ok, let's ask. What rights are you willing to give up because other people came into your country illegally? If you support Trump stripping away rights of US citizens and the people her legally, then I think you should also be willing to answer what you would be ok giving up?

Are you ok with your relative being taken without a judges order, placed in a white van and taken 1,000 miles away with no contact with family? With no attorney to represent them?

BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT TRUMP IS DOING!

Well said.
So utterly short sighted to believe this is a good thing, is far from good and what none of us know is whose rights he will strip away next.
He is already attempting to silence news outlets in the US.
This is not a man who will stop at just getting rid of those from South American countries, he’s on a roll.

It is not ok for the majority of people Cossy, thank goodness.

In case anyone has forgotten this or the resonances it has today -

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Isn't the EU looking for some far flung country or area where they can place these immigrants?