Yes, well, we've all heard that one before.

> "illegal aliens."

I believe this is a common term used in the US for persons entering the country illegally. I don't think there is any implication that they are extraterrestrial. Quotes not actually necessary.

Most in the USA would be legal aliens, only a few of the natives have survived the onslaught of "civilisation".

People did bad things in the distant past, therefore lawlessness OK. Gotcha.

The quotes are because there appear to be differences between definitions of illegal aliens between the current federal government and many state governments. The quotes are used to indicate that the use of the term is quoting the federal government rather than taking a position on the legal residency status of those being deported.

If you cross the border without permission, you are there illegally.

You can *either* have an open border or have a welfare system. Choose one. Both the US and UK and many other EU countries are in the process of discovering the reality of that and it isn't great.

This is naive and factually incorrect: there are many more options.

But first, the idea that "if you cross the border without permission" is simplistic, as we would expect from the MAGAt fascists. One simple example is people who cross the border with permission, but for whom permission is then yanked without due process or even notice. Whether or not they are then there illegal is a legal question which may tilt either way.

The biggest dumbness here is the faux binary choice: the US has not had an "open border" in decades, if not centuries. Of course, the MAGAts like to screech that it has, but they're mostly dumb as a sack of rocks, so their errors are understandable if not admirable.

The other side of the faux binary choice comes down to the issue that the US really doesn't have a rational welfare system; sane systems make it substantially easier to manage costs, but that craps on the ability for huge corporations to skim money off the top. For the hard of thinking: Switzerland has pretty open borders with France, Germany and Italy...

(I'm not commenting on the wisdom of various policies, just pointing out the simplistic MAGAt frothing is... simplistic. Shocking!).

And the US has neither so I guess we can try open borders or the welfare state now?

The quotes are because there's more than enough evidence that more than a few of the people deported were not illegally in the US, including one case where a person was deported to an el salvadorean prison, despite never being convicted of a crime, nor being illegally in the country (confirmed by the US Supreme Court!).

There have even been cases of Children who are US citizens being deported alongside their parents (who may or may not have been illegal, in at least a few cases the legal status was still in front of the courts when they were ejected!).

So perhaps the brackets should have been just on the "illegal" part, but there's also some doubt as to whether they were even non-citizens in some cases...

I find it telling that we weren't having all this hand wringing when Obama was mass deporting millions of illegal immigrants. Obama good, Trump bad. Again, gotcha.

Yes, when you deport millions of people, a few are likely to be borderline or have legal status. I can guarantee that also happened under Obama. I'm not convinced by all the whataboutism.

" I can guarantee that also happened under Obama. I'm not convinced by all the whataboutism."

If you can point to cases where he ignored court orders or deported people to 3rd countries without due process, feel free to post them.

> If you can point to cases where he ignored court orders or deported people to 3rd countries without due process, feel free to post them.

https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/ones-obama-left-behind-and-deported-without-chance-be-heard

You're not too smart, are you?

Read the article. It's quite clear that the issue described is that ICE and CBP are lawless thugs and should be first up against the wall. Nothing different today.

But even your sacred evidence makes it clear that Obama didn't ignore court orders, provides no evidence of third-country deportation or blocking due process from the judiciary.

("Immigration courts" are not judicial courts. Once the immigration court has decided, THEN the judiciary gets to weight in).

> It's quite clear that the issue described is that ICE and CBP are lawless thugs and should be first up against the wall. *Nothing different today.*

Exactly my point.

The big problem with the arguments about "due process" is that they are pretty non-specific like most of the arguments from the left these days. Like using the terms racist and fascist, they aren't attempts to assert factual statements: they are just insults to be thrown around with people that you disagree with.

In a lot of cases, due process is endless court cases followed by appeal after appeal that can go on for decades involving people that are obviously here without good cause and without permission. Those that wish to apply for asylum can do it at an official crossing. The reasons why they don't do so is obvious. Multiply that by millions of illegal immigrants means that most will never be deported. It is merely an attempt to drown the process to feed their bizarre open border political project. I'll say it again: if you have a welfare system, you *cannot* have mass, illegal immigration.

But, I hear you say, "what about that heavily tattooed gang guy that admitted that he would be murdered by a rival gang if he were ever to be deported back home, that I heard about on the TV that is definitely not a member of a brutal gang? He should get 'due process' despite having been in court and being told that he should be deported." Well, yes.

> You're not too smart, are you?

Please keep the discourse civil. Insults don't really make for reasoned debate.

Due process is having access to a lawyer who can try to prevent unlawful deportation (and ALL deportation to a third country is unlawful) or represent your rights when your case is heard by an immigration judge.

There isn't much in the way of appeal possible if you are in the country illegally and an immigration judge says you can be deported. Trump is just arresting them and shipping them away. No access to a lawyer, no contact with family, no appearance before an immigration judge.

James Lankford, the very conservative republican senator in Oklahoma was mostly responsible for a bill that passed the Senate in 2023 that Biden said he supported (against the wishes of a lot of democrats) It would have beefed up funding for the border, greatly expanded the number of immigration judges so there wouldn't be a big backlog of deciding cases for people asking for asylum, etc. Trump told his pets in the House to kill it and they did, because it would screwed up one of his main campaign promises. Or at least that's what I thought. Turns out he didn't want the infrastructure set up for LEGAL deportation, he wants to make the process as cruel as possible and doesn't give a damn whether it is legal or not.

But I thought the borders were open prior to Trump..?

The difference is DUE PROCESS. Obama's DHS provided much more of it than the fascists do.

Remember the masked alleged ICE agents grabbing people off the streets under Obama? No? How about suddenly revoking valid visas without notice or hearing? No again?

Quite.

More of a charity then, than a business.

Boeing not good enough for the Unfriends of Donald Trump, who appear to be the pax?

Because with Boeing the "illegal aliens" will escape when the side panels come off.

Hilary, Obama and anyone else his rotting mind can think of at the time.

Personally, I applaud the hackers. Perhaps they could target DOGE?

What, again?

Didn't they target the script kiddies at DOGE a while back?

when all your mates are skimping on everything too ...

...We can't even deport people using American made planes.