politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
lol seeking asylum yet hadn’t even tried to begin citizenship pathways in the 14 years he’d been in the country illegally.
Funnily enough the stay of deportation was because of MS13 rival gangs targeting him lol. Bit of a weird one if he’s not MS13.
Right, because gangs never bother or harass non gang members.
Just another coincidence for Garcia I guess. A coincidence that he was picked up hanging out with self admitted gang members. A coincidence he was wearing known gang clothes while with them. A coincidence he has tattoos that can easily be read as MS13. A coincidence that he says he can’t go back to El Salvador, MS13s home territory, because of MS13s rival gang wanting to kill him.
This guy is just a walking talking coincidence, all with the same gang. What are the odds?!
It could very well be, yes. Guilty by association is not how to do things
And it’s not how they did things.
Except for its how they did things.
Court records show it's not.
Right, these court records of "someone" saying he is? Or the court records that had a stay of deportation?
The court records where 2 separate judges saw all the evidence, including confidential information which prove his gang affiliation. Not just one judge - 2 separate ones.
The invocation of the illegal alien act overrides the stay of deportation, hence why he was deported.
If a confidential informant, or say an undercover agent inside MS13, says that he is a MS13 member, would you believe it? Would you want that confidential informant or undercover agent to have to blow their cover, their job, and risk their life in order to get a single low level gang member deported?
Except the us isn't at war, so he shouldn't have been deported. Trump's government had no right to deport him based on the stay of deportation, sooooo he shouldn't have been deported for being a "gang" member because the stay of deportation wouldn't have happened if he was in ms13.
Except they ruled that they are at war with MS13, so he could lawfully be deported along with all the others.
Already explained - the illegal alien act.
Incorrect. The stay really only happened because he is MS13 - it was given precisely because they concluded that MS13's rival gang would seek him out and harm him if he was deported.
Whoa! Congress declared a state of war?
Which, again, not at war.
Funny that, i thought ms13 were super dangerous, why would they not only stop him from being deported, but also let him be free,
Alien Enemies Act. Google it.
Alien Enemies Act. Google it.
Because activist judges.
Nope
It requires a declaration of war. Only Congress can do that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21
Furthermore, people being legally deported under that act have protections
Once all that has legally been done, the federal courts have final say.
So, this is all illegal, and you need to read up on things you no nothing about.
It does not. As I suggested to the other person - Google it. It does not require a declaration of war:
“The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the U.S. President to detain or deport individuals from enemy nations during wartime or in response to threats against the U.S.”
Which of the protections you linked to do you think were not followed? Here they are from your own link:
"When an alien who becomes liable as an enemy, in the manner prescribed in section 21 of this title, is not chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, he shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of his goods and effects, and for his departure, the full time which is or shall be stipulated by any treaty then in force between the United States and the hostile nation or government of which he is a native citizen, denizen, or subject; and where no such treaty exists, or is in force, the President may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality."
What treaty is in force between the United States and El Salvador? What does it state? If no such treaty exists, the President decides.
The irony is just so, so delicious.
Can you read?
The actual text, from the beginning:
Don't come at me with opinions of meaning. I gave you the actual text.
It's like talking to a brick wall with that one BTW lol
Fact. Or a troll
It's been days with them, I think they are really like that. Now, I'm an obstinate mother fucker too, lol.
Fair lol. I've decided they are a troll, so I won't feed them further.
What exactly do you think in the bit you highlighted proves you right?
I'm asking myself the same thing about you based on this conversation.
Let's say that the trump admin is deporting gangs. Cool. Gangs are NOT NATIONS OR GOVERNMENTS.
love how you ignored the protections and jurisdictions bit...
Your still wrong.
Your entire point is based on the fact that only congress can declare war, and the act can only be invoked during war.
That point is 100% incorrect, as shown by your own links. Your own links say it can also be invoked during an invasion, and that an invasion can be declared by the President.
I haven't come with "feelings", I've come with facts - fact that you have also provided but misunderstood.
Ugh "max comment depth".....response to your NEXT comment is here:
Huh? I literally just responded to your comment:
to point out that the act is allowed to be invoked when there is an invasion or predatory incursion coming from a foreign nation. I was pointing out where your point is wrong.......and you then start talking about planes full of migrants?
Love the choice of language too - "migrants" rather than what they all are, which is "illegal immigrants". "without due process" has already been explained - the act that we're talking about means that a different "due process" is now in play, one which they did follow.
The invasion or predatory incursion is coming from a foreign nation, El Salvador.
I'm sorry but I don't understand how one person can be wrong about basically every single thing they point out.
Coincidentally this happened literally an hour ago:
https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/05/08/long-island-ms-13-sentence-omar-antonio-villalta-central-islip-murder/
You do realize I'm talking about the planes full of migrants deported without due process, not just one case, right?
Explain how your Mental gymnastics is twisting the literal text into something it's not, and I'll apologize. Give me a line by line of the actual text, not an interpretation. I came with facts. You've come with feelings.
Yes, not at war, nor is there an invasion
Yes again, not at war, nor is there an invasion
Yes activist judges, like the ones who wanted him deported? Or are they only activist judges when it goes against your views?
Alien Enemies Act. Google it.
You think it's only activist judges that order illegal immigrants to be deported? To be clear - he wasn't ordered to be deported because he was determined to be MS13. He was ordered to be deported because he was an illegal immigrant.
Yes the wartime Act? Is the us at war?
No i never said that hahahaha
Oh so, the stay of deportation was perfectly fine, not by an "activist" judge.
"The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the U.S. President to detain or deport individuals from enemy nations during wartime or in response to threats against the U.S."
Congress is the only one that can declare war, correct, but the President doesn't need a war to be declared by congress in order to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. A quick google, which I have repeatedly encouraged you to do if you doubt what I'm saying, would have shown you this information right away. It's not hidden.
Irellevant. Activist judge or not, the stay of deportation is overruled by the Alien Enemies Act.
It's literally a wartime Act.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alien-enemies-act-explained
You should try googling sometime yourself.
Irrelevant when an activist president used a wartime Act outside of war.
The government isn’t invading.
The President of the USA decides if there is an invasion or predatory incursion, that’s the point. Not congress, not you - the president.
Yes And the precedent of is an incursion or predatory invasion are clear, what else is clear is that this situation is neither of those, so the act was used under false presences, so the president is, as per usual flaunting the rule of law, it was invoked incorrectly, and falsely, as there is no incursion or predatory invasion
According to you, but you don't get to decide that. According to the President however, who DOES get to decide if there is, there is. Your own links say this.
If you don't like that the President has the power to do this under the Alien Enemy Act, you should say that instead of saying that the President doesn't have the power to do it when he clearly does.
No, not according to me according to the real world and what's happening
The president does have the power during wartime.... which the president doesnt get to decide, congress does.
Ok i dont know what the deal is with this "max comment depth" error since you can clearly still go further.
The president is the one that gets to decide if an invasion is happening, per the act.
No
I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out to you, because even your own links specifically say it, but you're wrong. It can be invoked during wartime OR when there is an invasion or predatory incursion which is at the discretion of the President. "Or" is the key word here that you don't seem to be understanding.
Congress decides when it is "wartime".
The President decides when there is an ongoing invasion or predatory incursion.
There isn't an invasion or predatory incursions though, that's just factual. Otherwise the president of El Salvador couldn't have come to the us, as they are the "enemy" "invading". That's what you don't seem to be understanding
apparently we've reached "max comment depth" down below so I'll reply here:
You mean did I keep reading the very next sentence? I sure did!
Kay cause clearly you didn't.
again "max comment depth":
Are you pretending that the last 2 sentences of the text on that image, which I have already pointed out, do not exist? Here, I'll point it out again:
This is what the President did, and the act allows for it.
I did, there is no ongoing invasion OR predatory incursion. There's the issue
FROM YOUR OWN LINK:
Yes? And did you keep reading? How those words are specifically used during wartime or invasion which this is clearly not?