People being detained and "exported" by ICE

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean, come on, even Nazi war criminals got due process. Or does due process only really matter when Trump is on trial for defrauding people? JMO
SBM.

Victor Antonio Martinez Hernandez received his due process. The court found him guilty of murder, rape, and kidnapping. Rachel Morin's family is seeing justice served.

That's how it works. If the evidence is there, then let the courts do their jobs. Clothing, tattoos, a car load of people that looked like human trafficking....this is circumstantial evidence at best, and it's how we wrongly convict people.
 
I don't know why people are actively choosing to ignore the full context of what Abrego Garcia's wife is saying about the protection order.
What makes their opinion superior to the facts that she has provided?
To ignore or disregard the information that she has given to multiple media outlets is bizarre to me. Why believe an administration who is far from truthful or accurate about things they share over the person who was actually there!? How does that even make sense?

Moo
There’s only one reason she took photos and videos as she has stated. Two things can be true. He injured her and she forgave him. imo
 
There’s only one reason she took photos and videos as she has stated. Two things can be true. He injured her and she forgave him. imo
She said that she acted out of caution due to a previous relationship.
If he's injured her and she's forgiven him, along with no criminal charges being brought against him, then it shouldn't be up for discussion, they've resolved it.
Let it go.
In the eyes of the law it plays absolutely no bearing on what's happening currently with Abrego Garcia.

Moo
 
Here are a couple of more recent studies. And I am unable to see a STUDY that says otherwise.


A study with the most recent data available ....

The American Immigration Council compared crime data to demographic data from 1980 to 2022, the most recent data available.
The data showed that as the immigrant share of the population grew, the crime rate declined.
In 1980, immigrants made up 6.2 percent of the U.S. population, and the total crime rate was 5,900 crimes per 100,000 people.
By 2022, the share of immigrants had more than doubled, to 13.9 percent, while the total crime rate had dropped by 60.4 percent, to 2,335 crimes per 100,000 people. Specifically, the violent crime rate fell by 34.5 percent and the property crime rate fell by 63.3 percent.
Debunking the Myth of Immigrants and Crime


A study from 2014 ....

The results from fixed-effects regression models reveal that undocumented immigration does not increase violence.
Rather, the relationship between undocumented immigration and violent crime is generally negative, although not significant in all specifications.
Using supplemental models of victimization data and instrumental variable methods, we find little evidence that these results are due to decreased reporting or selective migration to avoid crime.
DOES UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME?

Thank you for sharing.

I still stand by my original assertion: Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are not more inherently dangerous or violent than native citizens. No data supports that belief; if anything, there is evidence to support the opposite.

The notion that foreigners are a threat to us or all secretly members of gangs, cartels, jihads, etc. is xenophobia, pure and simple.
 
Thank you for sharing.

I still stand by my original assertion: Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are not more inherently dangerous or violent than native citizens. No data supports that belief; if anything, there is evidence to support the opposite.

The notion that foreigners are a threat to us or all secretly members of gangs, cartels, jihads, etc. is xenophobia, pure and simple.

I'm fairly confident that more Americans commit domestic violence against spouses than immigrants (legal or illegal) do. So we should kick all those people out of the country? Or better yet, we should convict them without a trial or anything. Just lock them up because the state said so.
 
You said let it go. I’m not prepared to sweep it under the rug.

The point your trying to argue is meaningless here. If he's an immigrant in this country illegally, then he still is owed due process. Just because dear leader says he has tattoos doesn't mean he gets kicked out without any chance to defend himself. The Supreme Court has voted 9-0 regarding this issue. Is your assertion then that the Supreme Court should be ignored? That's kind of funny for someone who is so law & order. JMO
 
The point you’re trying to argue is meaningless here. If he's an immigrant in this country illegally, then he still is owed due process. Just because dear leader says he has tattoos doesn't mean he gets kicked out without any chance to defend himself. The Supreme Court has voted 9-0 regarding this issue. Is your assertion then that the Supreme Court should be ignored? That's kind of funny for someone who is so law & order. JMO
My point isn’t meaningless. If he is sent back to the US, the spousal abuse will be relevant in determining if he is allowed to remain here. imo

Others may choose to ignore the wife’s claims because it suits their narrative but I don’t think anyone here is okay with abuse.
 
My point isn’t meaningless. If he is sent back to the US, the spousal abuse will be relevant in determining if he is allowed to remain here. imo

Others may choose to ignore the wife’s claims because it suits their narrative but I don’t think anyone here is okay with abuse.
The case was dropped, there is no conviction for spousal abuse, in fact he has no convictions for any crime.

The wife has stated her reasons for the report and also that they had counselling.
 
I'm fairly confident that more Americans commit domestic violence against spouses than immigrants (legal or illegal) do. So we should kick all those people out of the country? Or better yet, we should convict them without a trial or anything. Just lock them up because the state said so.

Really, the thought should be this: does a violent and horrific act committed by one member of the population against another reflect on either gender, ethnicity, etc. involved? Does one act by one person reflect the group as a whole?

White males perpetrate 99% of all mass shootings in this country. By this logic, no white male in America should have access to a gun, full stop. Funny how I don’t hear this administration making similar claims, or even bothering to discuss gun control seriously in any way, shape, or form. Law enforcement officers have higher rates of domestic violence than the average male; yet I don’t see anyone in this administration fretting over the notion that all men in law enforcement are violent abusers who need to be regulated.

These kind of sweeping generalizations about immigrants are an excuse to exercise racist and xenophobic beliefs under force of law. There is nothing to justify what this administration is doing. Citizens, including immigrants, have the right to express their beliefs without fear of repercussions. To do otherwise is a direct assault on democracy.
 
Last edited:
My point isn’t meaningless. If he is sent back to the US, the spousal abuse will be relevant in determining if he is allowed to remain here. imo

Others may choose to ignore the wife’s claims because it suits their narrative but I don’t think anyone here is okay with abuse.
Others who are current have read the wife's information. She came right out and cleared that misconception up. The old info doesn't and won't stick as it is not the truth. Current.
 
My point isn’t meaningless. If he is sent back to the US, the spousal abuse will be relevant in determining if he is allowed to remain here. imo

Others may choose to ignore the wife’s claims because it suits their narrative but I don’t think anyone here is okay with abuse.

Okay? Great. That's the whole point here. At least he'd have a trial and due process instead of being shipped off without any evidence other than the President's press secretary screaming "He's a terrorist, a gang member and he's never coming back". She's already lied multiple times so I'm not gonna just blindly swallow what she feeds me and be a good little bootlicker. They lost a Supreme Court case 9-0 and they still come out and say "oh yeah, we won". Also, if his wife didn't want to pursue the charges further, who are you to judge her? She's an American, she has that right doesn't she?
 
I’m not judging her. I think two things can be true.

What is true? He wasn't convicted for spousal abuse. He has zero convictions. Does that mean he's a squeaky clean choirboy? No, it doesn't, but it also doesn't mean he is what you claim he is without any evidence. Oh wait, there is evidence of someone saying he was in a gang but a judge already ruled on that matter and didn't believe it. I know that Republicans are in the business of completely ignoring judge's rulings against them at this point and crying that any judge who doesn't blindly agree with them should be impeached. Can you explain to me why they think they can ignore some judge's rulings based on who appointed the judge? Checks and balances -- it's in every sixth grade social studies textbook. Something they will somehow ignore and blame on big bad DEI.
 
Incorrect information used to bolster the rhetoric of the followers of current administration, as everything is. IMO
It's like the "human trafficking" thing the DOJ put out. If he was, indeed trafficking people, why wasn't he arrested and tried then? Where is that court case? Spoiler: It doesn't exist. Just like the DV, which the wife has explained and that explanation has posted here ad nauseum.

I have a tattoo that is a Chinese character. I guess that makes me a member of the Yakuza, by ICE standards.
 
It's like the "human trafficking" thing the DOJ put out. If he was, indeed trafficking people, why wasn't he arrested and tried then? Where is that court case? Spoiler: It doesn't exist. Just like the DV, which the wife has explained and that explanation has posted here ad nauseum.

I have a tattoo that is a Chinese character. I guess that makes me a member of the Yakuza, by ICE standards.
Just don't get caught car pooling anywhere or bringing a few friends in your car someplace either.
 
From Mehdi Hasan’s article:

In the eyes of this administration, immigrants who are undocumented are all “illegal immigrants” and these “illegal immigrants”, ergo, are all “criminals”.

But, on so many levels, it’s just not true. It’s a popular myth pushed by the right that needs urgent debunking.

First, people are not, are never, illegal. It was the Nobel laureate and former Auschwitz prisoner Elie Wiesel who pointed out how “no human being is ‘illegal’” because it is “a contradiction in terms. People can be beautiful or less beautiful, they can be just or unjust, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?”

An act can be illegal; people cannot inherently be illegal.

Second, the anti-immigrant right has not only gotten the language wrong but the law wrong, too. Under the US criminal code, as the ACLU has noted: “The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime.” Why? Because illegal entry is considered a misdemeanor not a felony, under 8 US Code § 1325, and is subject to civil, and not criminal, penalties. It is the “reentry of removed aliens”, under 8 US Code § 1326, that is considered a felony and subject to criminal punishment.

Meanwhile, almost half of undocumented immigrants in the United States did not even enter the country illegally to begin with; many of them are “overstays” who arrived with a legal work, student, or travel visa but failed to leave the US, for a multiplicity of reasons, before their visas expired.

The inconvenient truth for the anti-immigrant right is that it is not a crime for immigrants simply to be present in the United States without proper documentation. They are not “illegals”. Don’t take my word for it. Or the ACLU’s. Take the word – the 5-3 majority ruling! – of the supreme court of the United States. In 2012, in Arizona v United States, the highest court in the land ruled that “as a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States”.

Got that? Not. A. Crime.
 
What don't you understand about due process? I don't care if the guy ate his children and cut his wife into a million pieces. The Constitution still entitles you to due process in this country. Funny how ya'll love crying about free speech and gun rights in the Constitution but conveniently ignoring it when it comes to this. I mean, come on, even Nazi war criminals got due process. Or does due process only really matter when Trump is on trial for defrauding people? JMO
This.

IMO charging people without process is a dangerous route that no country wants to follow . It is about constitution and human rights . Everyone deserves to have a fair process no matter what they did if we start not caring about that it is first step to authoritarian country . IMO
 
My point isn’t meaningless. If he is sent back to the US, the spousal abuse will be relevant in determining if he is allowed to remain here. imo

Others may choose to ignore the wife’s claims because it suits their narrative but I don’t think anyone here is okay with abuse.
There was no conviction.
It was dropped.
So, what, are we denying him due process due to DV allegations, or alleged gang affiliations, or because he was standing around with $1100 in his pocket?
Folks who are against his coming back need to make up their minds on exactly WHY he should be denied his constitutional rights, it's getting confusing.
IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
501
Total visitors
662

Forum statistics

Threads
625,577
Messages
18,506,451
Members
240,817
Latest member
chalise
Back
Top