Gerrymander based on ideology instead of race

[DBCowboy]

 


Australia treated its people lawfully via approved process of legislation and with the general publics best interests at heart, even of dissenters.

 

In the US we don't trust the government.

Thus the whole reason by the US Constitution, which you despise.

[chr0naut]

Easy then, prove the US border was closed during the Biden administration.

Or

Admit youy are wrong.

Southwest Land Border Encounters - US Customs and Border Protection

Look at recent numbers from the 2nd Trump administration. There are hardly any encounters. If there aren't many encounters, how could USC&BP be stopping anyone much?

There were 10 million encounters during Biden's administration. So the USC&BP must have been stopping lots of them (it is after all the job USC&BP exists for).

Which ever way you like to interpret the data, it doesn't conform to the idea that Trump has closed the border or that Biden opened it.

[DBCowboy]

Southwest Land Border Encounters - US Customs and Border Protection

Look at recent numbers from the 2nd Trump administration. There are hardly any encounters. If there aren't many encounters, how could USC&BP be stopping anyone much?

There were 10 million encounters during Biden's administration. So the USC&BP must have been stopping lots of them (it is after all the job USC&BP exists for).

Which ever way you like to interpret the data, it doesn't conform to the idea that Trump has closed the border or that Biden opened it.

Oh FFS.

[Harte]

What order? Trump team ignoring 1 in 3 major judicial rulings against them, analysis finds

Looking back at 2025: the Supreme Court and the Trump administration

 

Despite multiple district court judges issuing temporary injunctions to stop the administration from deporting immigrants without due process or sending them to third countries they’ve never been to, filings indicate the administration has continued its efforts.

SCOTUS found that District Courts were overreaching in these injunctions.
That's why there has been no legal action concerning them.
Others were halted while the rulings are appealed by DHS.
Perfectly normal, and District Courts do not decide if a particular action is unconstitutional.
Lastly, the law (the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) is quite clear on the due process these judges mention. It is administered by immigration courts - which are in no way affiliated with the Judicial Branch. They are administrative hearings conducted by judges who work for and answer only to the DHS, and thus the Executive Branch.
No illegal alien is granted the right to appear in a Judicial Court except in the case that they committed a crime, and even then DHS can deport them before they even see the inside of such a court.
Any illegal that can't prove they have been in the country for more than two years is subject to expedited removal (based on the cited law) and can be removed with ZERO judicial process, not even a hearing before an immigration judge.
Any illegal with a standing order for removal can be removed no matter what they have pending in a court of the Judicial Branch.
An illegal gets one hearing. If they don't show, an order for removal is automatic.
If they do show, they can appeal a negative ruling to another DHS court, 99% of which are either turned down or heard and refused.
They can also apply for asylum, but 99% of asylum claimants are turned down by a different DHS court - plus they can be deported while awaiting a pending asylum hearing.
Sending an illegal to another country they've never been to has been found to be legal. Whining about that changes nothing.
Grandstanding by liberal judges makes headlines though.

Harte

[chr0naut]

In the US we don't trust the government.

Thus the whole reason by the US Constitution, which you despise.

In the US, your government representatives get paid simply for turning up. They don't have to actually do anything for it.

And both Republican and Democrat parties are businesses that exist for the express purpose of the collection of donations bribes.

The US Constitution is mired down in that, for any review to pass, it requires a two thirds majority vote, which will never happen again as everything in US politics becomes more partisan.

While amendments like the 13th, 15th, 19th, and 26th have addressed some issues, the document still contains inherent contradictions from its original flaws.

And governments have been ignoring and reinterpreting the US Constitution for centuries. The FISA courts, the Alien and Sedition Acts, The Missouri Compromise, Racial Segregation laws... the list goes on.

In all, it has been agreed that there have been 176 acts of Congress and 493 laws that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court up to 2019.

And there are stacks more since then, but even the Supreme Court changes its mind over the Constitutionality and its definitions of what the Constitution actually meant. So, who knows anymore?

[ElitePlebeian]

Southwest Land Border Encounters - US Customs and Border Protection

Look at recent numbers from the 2nd Trump administration. There are hardly any encounters. If there aren't many encounters, how could USC&BP be stopping anyone much?

There were 10 million encounters during Biden's administration. So the USC&BP must have been stopping lots of them (it is after all the job USC&BP exists for).

Which ever way you like to interpret the data, it doesn't conform to the idea that Trump has closed the border or that Biden opened it.

So you cook up some conspiracy theory when all the numbers are supported by hundreds of news reports from the border? You can easily look up news videos from year under Biden and Trump and compare them, no need for your theories. Here is a recent CBS visit of the border for example;

https://x.com/i/status/2047696308996071845

If Trump was actually lying about closing the border all leftwing media would be screaming it from the rooftops long ago.

[chr0naut]

 
SCOTUS found that District Courts were overreaching in these injunctions.
That's why there has been no legal action concerning them.
Others were halted while the rulings are appealed by DHS.
Perfectly normal, and District Courts do not decide if a particular action is unconstitutional.
Lastly, the law (the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) is quite clear on the due process these judges mention. It is administered by immigration courts - which are in no way affiliated with the Judicial Branch. They are administrative hearings conducted by judges who work for and answer only to the DHS, and thus the Executive Branch.

Wait, so you are saying that and act in 1996 defined how the Immigration Judges answer only to the DHS, an office that was created by George W. Bush after the 911 attacks in 2001? How did they know back in 1996?

Also, the last Amendment to the US Constitution was the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992.

So the Immigration Judges as you describe them now, are both extra-Constitutional, and external to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

No illegal alien is granted the right to appear in a Judicial Court except in the case that they committed a crime, and even then DHS can deport them before they even see the inside of such a court.

But wait, if they haven't committed a crime, then how could they be illegals? It seems to me that if you want call them illegals, then they must have at least broken a law?

And if they have broken a law, then they do have a right to appear in a Judicial Court, according the clearly stated exception in the statute that you quoted.

And now, apparently, you have a government office (DHS) that is extra to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, who are summarily deporting people (who have, or have not, committed a crime), before they have redress to the process of law? You have a law that says that the law doesn't apply?

Any illegal that can't prove they have been in the country for more than two years is subject to expedited removal (based on the cited law) and can be removed with ZERO judicial process, not even a hearing before an immigration judge.

And how do they prove anything if they are given no chance to present their case before the law, and are just deported without reasonable due process?

Any illegal with a standing order for removal can be removed no matter what they have pending in a court of the Judicial Branch.

An illegal gets one hearing. If they don't show, an order for removal is automatic.

So even if they have a court date set, they can be deported, so they can't attend court, and if they cant attend court, they are immediately 'bad' and it was a damned good idea to deport them pre-emptively.

That is the very cleverest of stupid!

You don't want that bad sort of riff-raff being charged with something (or not) in court of law!!!

If they do show, they can appeal a negative ruling to another DHS court, 99% of which are either turned down or heard and refused.
They can also apply for asylum, but 99% of asylum claimants are turned down by a different DHS court - plus they can be deported while awaiting a pending asylum hearing.

And if they can't attend their appeal for asylum, they are obviously bad for wasting the court's time, so it's fair enough to have, once again, completely ignored any legal process and human rights.

Sending an illegal to another country they've never been to has been found to be legal.

Its worse! They have broken the (unwritten) law by crossing the border while being ethnic!

But of course if they had really broken the law, then they have a right (by the quoted statute) to a Judicial trial and since that right is withheld from them, then they have to be guilty of something that isn't breaking the law... they do look... very... 'ethnic', though?

Whining about that changes nothing.
Grandstanding by liberal judges makes headlines though.

Harte

Are you sure that the 'liberal' judges heads aren't exploding at the circular nonsense they must try and decide?

You know, these law abiding illegal people will just keep coming back across the border. If only there was a final solution?



Or, perhaps it is your concepts of what US law is about that is your problem? To me, it seems that what you describe is highly irrational.

[chr0naut]

So you cook up some conspiracy theory when all the numbers are supported by hundreds of news reports from the border?

I directly linked to the US Customs and Border protection reporting site.

You can easily look up news videos from year under Biden and Trump and compare them, no need for your theories. Here is a recent CBS visit of the border for example;

https://x.com/i/status/2047696308996071845

So, the billions being paid to ICE and Border Patrol (8 times what he paid them in his first term), is all for nothing, and there is no border crisis.

Face it, he made it up during his first term (which got all the racists on side). He amped up the rhetoric saying the USA was being invaded, and they were almost all bad rapists and drug dealers.

Then he said that Biden was letting them all flood in (while USC&BP were saying they were being intercepted far more efficiently than when Trump was first in office).

And now Trump is saying that they have just stopped, and there is video footage that appears to show no-one crossing the border. But Trump is bankrupting the country, and doing stupid stuff like sending ICE into Minnesota of all places, to fight a crime wave there that no-one agrees is, or was, happening, to remove the criminal immigrants, of which there has always been almost none.

If Trump was actually lying about closing the border all leftwing media would be screaming it from the rooftops long ago.

They have been since 2016. There are multiple news outlets that have put together lists of his obvious publicly broadcast lies. There were apparently 30,573 lies by Trump in his first term. His lies even get a Wikipedia page of their own:

False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Trump Lies Scorecard (2015–2025): A Pretty Comprehensive Fact-Checked Report

Donald Trump’s Top 25 Lies of the Year

Why does Donald Trump tell such blatant lies?

What are the most egregious lies told by Donald Trump during his presidency?

50 lies Donald Trump told in his unhinged 18 minute address to the nation - one every 22 seconds

Top 10 Lies President Donald Trump Has Told Since Taking Office

CNN humiliates Donald Trump as host lists 13 lies president made in just one meeting

Trump's 'lifetime of lies' laid bare in damning 4 minute video

Fact check: Debunking 100 Trump false claims from his first 100 days

In four years, President Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims

T r u m p ’ s L i e s

Trump versus the truth: The most outrageous falsehoods of his presidency

162 lies and distortions in a news conference. NPR fact-checks former President Trump

Trump’s drumbeat of lies about the 2020 election keeps getting louder. Here are the facts

The first 5,276 false things Donald Trump said as U.S. president

... and so on...

[David64]

Which is why people in the US will risk death and disability for intangibles like 'the freedom to refuse life-saving medicine', or 'the freedom to not avoid danger', while at the same time arming 'the insane and the criminal'. - a death-cult with its own flag.

What happened to My Body My Choice ? Is it ok for a woman to keep her baby instead of aborting it, even if it puts her life in danger ? Even if they know there is a good chance the child may be born with disabilities ?

Or does that just apply to what you approve of ?

[chr0naut]

What happened to My Body My Choice ? Is it ok for a woman to keep her baby instead of aborting it, even if it puts her life in danger ? Even if they know there is a good chance the child may be born with disabilities ?

Or does that just apply to what you approve of ?

My guess is that doctors know who has the best survival likelihood and therefore prioritize things to ensure that the most likely to survive, does.

But the fittest might still die, or both might die, or neither. Nature has its way, whatever.

Of course, the doctors would deny it.