Do they have any responsibility to make sure there is a credible amount of "material support for a designated foreign terrorist organization"? Or is that a catchall they can use to get rid of someone for what they wrote or believed?
What fallout of the Big Beautiful Bill will be the funniest?
- Thread starter johnhugh
- Start date
Of course they have a responsibility to show credible evidence... that’s exactly why these cases go through legal review and involve immigration courts, attorneys, and due process. Visa revocation for “material support” isn’t some vague catchall. It’s defined under U.S. law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), and the government has to meet legal standards to act on it.
You can’t just point to a strongly worded tweet and deport someone. They need tangible links... financial support, coordination, advocacy with intent... something more than just a controversial opinion. If someone wants to challenge the government’s claim, they have that right in court. And many do.
So no, it’s not a blank check. If ICE overreaches, the courts are there to push back. But assuming every enforcement action is a political hit job is lazy thinking. You’re arguing from suspicion, not evidence.
Alright, we are on the same page. I am not one to assume every enforcement action is a political hit job. But you had said "but I’m standing by what I said: there’s no credible evidence they were arrested because of what they wrote or believed." And I think in the case of the Turkish student, they have come out with zero evidence they were arrested for anything other than that. Unless you've seen anything to the contrary?
This is a lot to digest. I’m sorry I hurt you by showing you that good people do exist and not everyone is as miserable as you. I love messages of positivity and inclusion, the rainbow crosswalks in midtown Atlanta are a great example of that. They bother nobody and spread happiness. Kids love seeing the rainbows and it’s not even political. It’s just love man.
As far as your instructions to donate my money, it does more good contributing via taxes. And I do good every day in caring for my patients
So your stance is you think you give enough in taxes? The same taxes that about 12% of every dollar is going to actual relief and assistances that it’s allocated for. That’s an interesting take for a smart guy. Truth is you’re a liar. I give money, clothes, furniture, services to people all year long on top of the ridiculous amount of taxes I pay because it’s important to me. You don’t have any patients that could use a few bucks for their medical bills? Help them out hoss. You’re all lip service bro. Which is nothing less than id expect from a spoiled child. Always the appearance of virtue. Never the action.
“As far as your instructions to donate my money, it does more good contributing via taxes.” - Johnny Hugh
This line deserves its own response, it’s just that good. It shows you have ZERO understanding of how anything works. To think giving money to a government is more effective than giving it to people in need is the definition of a boot licking socialist. The same government that has squandered and ruined about everything it touches. The same government that spends $10,000 on a $0.25 bag of bushings. I’d be ashamed of myself if I thought this way. It’s a dead giveaway that you’re just a clueless, virtuous leftist.
This line deserves its own response, it’s just that good. It shows you have ZERO understanding of how anything works. To think giving money to a government is more effective than giving it to people in need is the definition of a boot licking socialist. The same government that has squandered and ruined about everything it touches. The same government that spends $10,000 on a $0.25 bag of bushings. I’d be ashamed of myself if I thought this way. It’s a dead giveaway that you’re just a clueless, virtuous leftist.
I like to think that the taxes I pay every year end up paying for at least a dozen or so abortions and helped save those women from unwanted pregnancies
What church do you attend? I’m sure those are some interesting services. The gays for abortion sermon is powerful.
Not trying to be rude but I would ask the same question to leftists about asylum. That was a catch all that was exploited. They literally let anyone in that claimed asylum with zero confirmation. My entire problem during most of the Biden administration was that all the shady, back door stuff they’re setting precedent for was gonna get abused by someone that doesn’t have those same ideas, and it’s happening now and liberals are pissed. I’ve been saying all along that there’s two sets of rules, it’s so obvious. So when stuff like this happens, remember what liberals were doing from 2021-2024, they went crazy and now they’re paying the price.
I am fine with the first criticism. I've wanted a bipartisan bill on immigration reform for over a decade. Where neither side is happy and could criticize part of it, but also like parts of it. You know, compromise. Everyone knows it needs reform, but both sides aren't willing to give things up, but mostly, neither side truly wants it fixed because then they can't run on it.
Do you have some examples of back door stuff that set precedent that are just now being exploited I could engage with?
What " It involved material support for a designated foreign terrorist organization" evidence do you have for this?
Was she sending money there? Was she spying for them? What evidence do you have to support this allegation?
You seem to find excuses for the government to enforce policy as laws, but never defer to the due process side of our rights.
Yes, I would support closing loopholes on asylum assuming they don't shut down the process all together. The political theater though, of congress folks blocking solutions while blaming the executive branch was and continues to be so tiresome to watch.
Obviously. So why are you so concerned with what Christians think and how are you so confident in how they should react to things. You seem to be implying that free healthcare for everyone at the taxpayer’s expense is something that the church should support right?? How’d you come to that conclusion when you have no idea what goes on in churches?
The easiest one is immigration. Lefties let them all in with no vetting by circumventing the system for asylum. Pubs turned around and used an old law to deport them. So libs circumvent the law and tell everyone to pipe down, then the pubs do it and they’re trying to murder ICE agents. How’d you guys not see this coming?
Expounding on that, libs back doored a lot of healthcare and benefits for those illegals that cost billions to American taxpayers with nothing to show for it. Now pubs are making it much more difficult and introducing accountability into the handout programs and guess who’s freaking out? Yep, liberals.
This would be great but yall don’t enforce any laws. Shoplifting? Nah it’s ok as long as it’s under a 1000? Immigration? Cmon over, we’d love to pay for you. Vandalism? As long as it’s against Elon. Race based hiring and acceptance? Sure why not.
Were the 12-20 illegals asked about their asylum? No, so why do the conservatives have to do it.
You guys want the conservatives to follow the rules by the letter while you’re charging a guy with 32 counts of a felony which no one agreed with. You want the right to follow the rules while yall do whatever the hell you want. That’s over. America spoke. Stop whining.
Other than more coming in than you would like, do you have any examples of "let them all in with no vetting by circumventing the system" or is it just your assumption due to the numbers? Not being snarky, but that still reads like an assumption to me. Were there any lawsuits challenging that?
I also am always going to struggle with the "you did X badly so therefore anything illegal I do is allowable" argument.
I am fine with policy, and working on new laws, provided they follow the constitution. All for accountability. Wish so many IG's hadn't been fired for example.
Examples? There are literally thousands of people here illegally and convicted of crimes being deported every day. Are you suggesting we did vet them and still let them in? Or will you admit those people weren't vetted at all?
I don't think we would have let in violent criminals if we knew they were violent criminals. But then again, they let pretty much everyone in so maybe they did.
So you're saying the Biden admin what? Like had a check box that said "Are you a violent criminal?" and just ignored it? What vetting were you looking for that they did not complete?
I honestly don't know enough about what the "vetting" of people's claims for asylum would be. I am not saying I am an expert. But if there are specifics you can provide other than "a lot came in, and some of them committing violent crimes once they got here" I am all eyes.
They literally pulled the border patrol off the border. Are you serious? We’ve never experienced anything like that and they let it happen. You think that was coincidental? How’d border crossings go from 10’s of thousands a month to zero with absolutely no change in the immigration laws. You’re either lying intentionally or you’re uninformed.
0/10
You are either trolling or can't read. So i assume you are trolling.
They let millions come in. They did not vet them. If they did vet them, they did a horrendous job. The Biden admin was a complete failure on immigation, among other things, and the voters spoke loud and clear. If the democrat party takes your approach of ignoring reality, they will once again lose in a landslide.
Moderate my ***.
During the Biden administration, Border Patrol faced numerous challenges and criticisms regarding its effectiveness and operational environment
.
Here are some key points of contention:
1. Shift in enforcement priorities and policies
- The Biden administration rolled back several Trump-era immigration policies aimed at deterring illegal immigration, such as the "Remain in Mexico" policy and Safe Third Country Asylum Agreements.
- Critics argue that these policy changes led to a decrease in enforcement and created a perception of "open borders", contributing to increased migrant surges at the border.
- Record numbers of migrants at the border overwhelmed Border Patrol's capacity, forcing agents to divert their attention from patrolling to processing and caring for individuals and families, according to a report by the United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
- Border Patrol experienced staffing shortages and increased attrition rates, with some agents retiring early due to low morale and frustration with their changing duties.
- According to the Washington Examiner, more than 4,000 federal agents left Border Patrol between October 2020 and April 2024, representing a significant loss of personnel.
- Multiple reports indicate low morale among Border Patrol agents due to feeling overwhelmed, frustrated by the focus on processing and releasing migrants, and facing increased public and political scrutiny, according to CBS8.
- Some agents expressed feeling unable to effectively perform their law enforcement duties and protect the border due to the sheer volume of migrants and operational shifts, according to a hearing wrap-up from the United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
- Critics argue that the administration's early focus on a more "humane" approach, including expanding some legal pathways and ending certain deterrent policies, led to a chaotic situation at the border.
- Some argue that the administration failed to adequately plan for the increased influx of migrants and lacked the capacity to process and manage them effectively.
- However, others contend that the border crisis was driven by factors beyond the administration's control, such as a strong U.S. labor market, and access to information about migration through the internet and social media.
Great, so we agree Biden did a **** job on the border. All the information you pulled from AI above doesn't say "They literally pulled the border patrol off the border." He didn't. He should have done more. He should have pushed for the bipartisan immigration bill much earlier before Trump had a chance to kill it. One of the things about that not perfect bill I liked was significantly more resources for staffing. Adding a bunch of judges so things could be processed much quicker (so they didn't have to release them until a future date) and a lot more resources for the BP. That is why the BP endorsed it before it was killed by Trump. Y'all seem to be in your feels real strong today.
Y'all are getting real worked up because I am asking for actual details not just feelings and broad statements. I've never once said the Biden admin did well on immigration. They didn't. I'm not ignoring anything. But them doing poorly doesn't mean I have to agree with any over the top description of anything.
Dude.
Biden elected > rolls back immigration reform bc it’s Trumps > borders overrun and BP goes from enforcement to healthcare > millions pour into the country with no BP at border.
He didn’t have a press conference and announce it, you’re right I guess. But his direct actions caused it period. No debating that.
You see how there is a difference though right? Between "he showed piss poor leadership, his messaging was horrible, and therefore the border was so much worse than it should have been" and "they literally pulled the border patrol off the border".
Maybe they have the same consequences. But there is still a difference. One is incompetence, one is malicious. Which is how I feel about the Trump administrations handling of the Texas disaster. I don't think they waited 3 days to send in search and rescue out of maliciousness. I could say "they literally didn't send search and rescue teams to save those children for 3 days" as if it was a choice they made in a specific moment. But I didn't and I won't. Because it does matter. It's incompetence. Same with the contractors at the call center. But y'all keep doing you.
Why'd Noem tell the FEMA search and rescue teams not to find those children?
Not sure, but hopefully it doesn’t take 3.5 years and 12 million more people being lost before they figure it out boss. The mask is off now.
She did not, but those were the consequences. Was using it as an analogy for what he was saying.
Explain how you think letting 3.5 years and 12+ million invade the country is comparable to what you’re insinuating happened.
So why did you say that's what she said?
"She did not, but those were the consequences. Was using it as an analogy for what he was saying."
Pretty ****** analogy. This has been the problem for decades. Y'all can just make **** up.
YOU just flat out told us you are a LIAR.
lol that was the entire point of my analogy
I wasn't lying, it was an analogy.
You saying this, is like me saying this. My original comment on it was this..."Maybe they have the same consequences. But there is still a difference. One is incompetence, one is malicious. Which is how I feel about the Trump administrations handling of the Texas disaster. I don't think they waited 3 days to send in search and rescue out of maliciousness. I could say "they literally didn't send search and rescue teams to save those children for 3 days" as if it was a choice they made in a specific moment. But I didn't and I won't. Because it does matter. It's incompetence. Same with the contractors at the call center. But y'all keep doing you." I wasn't trying to act like she actually said that. I said it was incompetence.
Blah, Blah, Blah.
I thought you were a common sense lib. That's gone now. You're now blaming the Texas floods on Trump? You need ****ing help.