> NEW: @aclu.org obtained ICE's "Alien Enemies Act Validation Guide," confirming all it takes to be sent to rot in prison in El Salvador is being Venezuelan and 1) having a tattoo an ICE officer says is a "gang tattoo" and 2) displaying "logos," "symbols" or clothes an ICE officer says are gang signs.
That's actually not quite true according to the guide. It looks like they're required consult their legal department if all the points come from that category, even if they're above the threshold.
> In order for ICE to declare someone an "Alien Enemy," ICE must first determine they are a Venezuelan over age 14, and then second find 8 points on a scoring guide they made up.
Isn't that typically how a bureaucracy works, including ones we like? They get ordered to do something, make up policy and procedures to do that thing, then execute those procedures.
"The President has found that Tren de Aragua is perpetrating, attempting, or threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States" [1]
A certain political bent seems to believe that everyone in the world has some undeniable right to emigrate wherever, whenever.
An American illegally immigrating to Europe for financial gain (work) would be deported forthwith just for having done so.
Now imagine if that same American were involved in violent crime - is this a desirable element? Should their offspring automatically become citizens of said European country?
> An American illegally immigrating to Europe for financial gain (work) would be deported forthwith just for having done so.
They would be afforded a way to challenge their deportation, not be denied access to a lawyer, sent to a foreign gulag on the account of a random guys interpretation of their tattoos, then having videos of themselves in chain gangs posted on the governments social media.
> They would be afforded a way to challenge their deportation
So all one has to do is obtain a critical mass of illegal immigrants who "challenge" their deportations, clog up any court system created for this purpose, and they're good to go - continue working illegally for years?
This argument is all very well, and I think there would be little appetite for complaining if it was only deporting people convicted of crimes.
But that's not what's happening. In particular, the incidents of revoking student visas for exercising their first amendment rights and then deporting people with no further process are very concerning.
Alien visitors are entitled to all rights in the soil of the USA, citizenship increases their means to participate in civics but it's not citizenship who grants rights like freedom of speech, etc.
> You have the right to free speech - and you will not be prosecuted, fined, or put into prison: deportation isn't prison.
Oh damn, what a nice loophole you found there, deporting them to a gulag in El Salvador isn't technically imprisonment in some twisted legal semantics game... To every other functioning mature democracy it's imprisonment.
> Alien visitors are entitled to all rights in the soil of the USA
Except voting, firearms ownership, the ability to work, etc. What else? (* sans LPR status - they're not 'rights' if someone can take them away, though.)
I love how "behave or go home" now equals "imprisonment."
Please keep espousing this nonsense: 2028 will be fun.
> Except voting, firearms ownership, the ability to work, etc. What else? (* sans LPR status - they're not 'rights' if someone can take them away, though.)
Those are further regulated in other laws, freedom of speech is clearly defined in your Constitution to be unregulated by any laws the government shall pass.
You're saying that is completely fine for the US government to regulate speech of non-citizens, rather surprising to see an American spouting this position but glad to see you clearly stand for it, ironic though it's quite anti-American to believe speech can be curtailed by the government when it fits your wants :)
> Please keep espousing this nonsense: 2028 will be fun.
You seem to be too compromised ideologically to have any rational discussion around this topic. Sad to see Americans subscribing to anti-freedom ideology whole-heartedly but it seems to be the way in 2025.
Not very fun to watch, just quite sad to see that even on this corner of the internet where one expects more leveled discourse to have gone this way.
> Please keep espousing this nonsense: 2028 will be fun.
I hope our little pushback against deporting random legally present gay bakers to the foreign gulag doesn't force you to support Trump's 2028 22nd amendment violation.
I was a tourist in the US and got a state ID card. In Walmart I got a photo holding an assault rifle because I was stunned.
The guy said with my state ID card I could buy it right then and as much ammo as I wanted.
The guy at Walmart might have been mistaken about the law (surprise?): if you are a resident you may own and purchase firearms, a tourist would not be eligible - but there's nothing stopping you from lying on forms (besides the penalty of perjury.)
> The USA is not a democracy. The USA is a larger republic of a union of republics.
"The USA is a democracy" is a perfectly valid and correct statement. "No, it's a republic" is kind of a nonsensical retort, and I'm not sure how it got so popular.
There literally are no democracies which do not have representative elements, and "constitutional republic" and "constitutional monarchy" are concepts that are both perfectly compatible with the separate concept of democracy.
> The USA is not a democracy. The USA is a larger republic of a union of republics.
Democracy is a system for choosing government representation, republic is a "res publica" or a "thing of the people" where political power is bestowed upon the people by representatives, they are two sides of keeping a democratic republic.
If the USA isn't democratic but a republic then you don't select your representatives through voting, you can have representatives selected for you, and I don't believe that's the current system of government selection in place, is it?
US citizens do have a right to listen to the opinions of others under the first amendment so if the US government does have a visa program then it needs to be run in a way that is viewpoint neutral. so the US government can't revoke the visa's of people who have controversial opinions. of course the funny thing is being lectured about this by people from Europe or other countries like NZ, AU, CA or UK where it is common place for the government to revoke or deny visas for people who have the wrong opinions.
> US citizens do have a right to listen to the opinions of others under the first amendment so if the US government does have a visa program then it needs to be run in a way that is viewpoint neutral.
Got it, so because Americans have the right to free speech, everyone is entitled to be in the United States so that they can be heard? Get real.
Visitors have the right to free speech without imprisonment: the United States has the right to revoke visas for any or no reason at all. Visas are a privilege.
"The people", who originally were (and are today) the lawful citizens of the several states are party to the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights. Foreigners enjoy 1st Amendment protections at the discretion of the federal government, at best.
> A certain political bent seems to believe that everyone in the world has some undeniable right to emigrate wherever, whenever.
A straw man argument. (No doubt such people exist, but on the fringe.) From that you build an unfounded binary argument.
It’s just basic logic: just because it’s not a good idea to let anyone immigrate anywhere without restriction doesn’t make it a good idea to put people in prison on scant evidence.
(I wonder why do you image that when basic principles of justice and the rule of law like due process are gone, this won’t be turned on you and yours?)
> …involved in violent crime. Should their offspring automatically become citizens of said European country?
An entirely separate question, is it not? Unless you’re saying criminality is inherited?
