patrick.net

HeadSet says

Republicans want to remove the cheap illegal labor

No way. Thats not generally true. Maybe you. But look at the county by county maps... who votes republican and who employs the immigrants?

These guys work on farms and agricultural jobs. Red red red. There is no way your fantasy is true. Republicans utilize the cheap illegal labor more than anyone.

DeficitHawk says

Neither side cares about laws.

Do not throw a phony moral equvilency here. Laws were flagrantly violated to get those illegals in and steps need to be taken to remove them. This is like giving lockpicks to and encouraging someone to break into someone's home and then crying "squatter's rights" when the owner tries to remove the trespasser.

HeadSet says

Do not throw a phony moral equvilency here.

Oh come off it. Your tangerine messiah is out there flouting court orders and sending people to gulags without due process. Dont try to claim moral high ground.

DeficitHawk says

Due process is simply to have an outside party check the facts, and compare them to our laws. As you say, the facts themselves are typically not hard verify.

Do you have any doubt that Maryland man is a criminal gang member criminal alien?

Onvacation says

DeficitHawk says

Due process is simply to have an outside party check the facts, and compare them to our laws. As you say, the facts themselves are typically not hard verify.

Do you have any doubt that Maryland man is a criminal gang member criminal alien?

Yes, because I have doubt this was checked and verified by someone other than an administration I dont trust.

everyone keeps repeating this type of question... "If it is apparent to the arresting officer or ICE officer, why do we need any judges involved?" This is craziness!!

yawaraf says

@DeficitHawk,

I hope you stick around, I appreciate that you answer all pertinent questions.

Me too. I really want to understand people who seem rational but have, what I consider, irrational views.
Convince us of the error of our ways.

Onvacation says

Convince us of the error of our ways.

do you agree people should get due process? that is the crux of the question here. Its not about whether htis individual should be deported or not.

Do you agree with giving people due process?

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-update-statue-of-liberty-to-say-give-me-your-wife-beaters

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-says-no-evidence-demon-horned-man-with-sith-tattoos-and-red-lightsaber-a-member-of-the-sith

DeficitHawk says

Do you agree with giving people due process?

World should go back to old days style, shoot at sight if no official documents were found and start whatever "due process" he or anyone wanted to start.
Perhaps that would be very quick and efficient also help many illegals who is counting on "due process" assuming which is equivalent to citizenship;)

.

get the Democrat candidate for Virginia governor's race to comment on this and MS 13

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/05/04/virginia-prison-la-mara-salvatrucha-attack/83447260007/

.

Patrick says

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-says-no-evidence-demon-horned-man-with-sith-tattoos-and-red-lightsaber-a-member-of-the-sith

The irony... Trump actually believed the letters MS13 were on the guys hand.. he was totally fooled/confused by his own teams photoshop job. Or he was just lying. My interpretation was he was fooled/confused.

DeficitHawk says

Do you agree with giving people due process?

yep. But I don't think that is your motive or you would be more concerned about peaceful J6 protesters being thrown in the DC Gulag without trial than you are with an illegal alien criminal gang member being sent home. But you're not,

yawaraf says

Finally, why are we, American citizens expected to submit to the law but illegal aliens are exempt?

They are not exempt from the law, and they are not exempt from due process.

The law is that people who have a credible threat of persecution in their home country are not to be deported, even if they arrived in the us illegally. That is literally the law, enacted by congress. Thats why the judge ordered what they did.

Onvacation says

yep. But I don't think that is your motive or you would be more concerned about peaceful J6 protesters being thrown in the DC Gulag without trial than you are with an illegal alien criminal gang member being sent home. But you're not,

Back to this whataboutism, and again questioning my motives. You don't have to trust me. Thats fine.

Lets finish this topic. If you agree that people should get due process... then should THIS 'maryland man' we are discussing get due process?

AD says

.

get the Democrat candidate for Virginia governor's race to comment on this and MS 13

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/05/04/virginia-prison-la-mara-salvatrucha-attack/83447260007/

.

Yes, Abrego Garcia had status granted in 2019 by a federal judge to not be deported to his home country of El Salvador. He was arrested in March 2025 while driving home from work by immigration agents, and he has a work permit to make him a documented worker in the USA.

During or after his 2019 immigration hearing, there was a police informant stating Abrego Garcia was a gang member. There is no other information on this, and the allegations may lack evidence and/or credibility.

.

.

DeficitHawk says

PeopleUnited says

Trump shut the border without Congress.

Thats good. I support stopping illegal border crossings.

Okay, so you admit he was here illegally. Should Kamala Harris be put in jail for allowing illegal crossings? They happen, but she allowed it. How about Joe Biden? How about hundreds of billions laundered to Ukraine the last 4 years basically?

I simply don't care about one guy here illegally probably getting money off the $73k in taxes I paid in 2024. He didn't pay a dime in Federal taxes. We have laws and I follow them. I literally cannot be arrested or jailed. Due process isn't needed if you follow laws. He's also not held to the same standard as a citizen is.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal#:~:text=Any%20noncitizen%20who%20entered%20without,that%20they%20are%20inadmissible%20for

Lack of Judicial Review

Individuals placed in expedited removal generally have no right to challenge their deportation in federal court, thanks to jurisdiction-stripping provisions in the 1996 law which created the process. This means that even where an immigration officer acted unlawfully in issuing an order of expedited removal, a noncitizen is severely restricted in their ability to challenge that decision. Individuals may only bring a lawsuit challenging their expedited removal order if they are a lawful permanent resident, or someone already determined to be a refugee or granted asylum, who has been wrongfully subject to expedited removal. In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld this law, finding that it did not violate the right to habeas corpus or due process.

Expedited removal has become a bedrock of the United States’ processing of noncitizens, particularly at our southern border. Procedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that the process does not result in the removal of people—particularly those seeking protection—contrary to United States law and international obligations.

Note how they hide this at the bottom of the page. They know that no one will read everything. He was here illegally. Whatever job he got they should be sued. He attacked his girlfriend or spouse and it was reported. There is no due process needed. They expedited his ass out of here legally.

As Kulak said he can just try to get back in from El Salvador. This guy was likely going kill that woman at some point. These aren't the types we want in this country. If an illegal hits my widowed sister. They're dead. He's lucky to be going back to El Salvador and thanking the gods there was no family member around willing to step up for her and off his ass. With my family it would not end well. That's how my due process works.

WookieMan says

Due process isn't needed if you follow laws

WookieMan says

That's how my due process works.

I mean... I dont know what to say to this. Clearly we aren't going to agree on this topic.

The president has the right and discretion to set enforcement priority for immigration. He can decide to target various categories of illegal immigrants for enforcement. He can decide to prioritize immigrants with criminal records, which I think is totally reasonable. Or he can decide to go for whomever is easiest to locate easily. Those decisions are at the discretion of the president and his administration.

But the enforcement priorities and tactics have to comply with our laws (including asylum laws) and our constitution (including the 5th amendment.) "Arriving" immigrants are treated differently from "Already here" immigrants, and 'Arriving" immigrants can be turned away and denied entry without full due process. "Already here" immigrants get due process before deportation. Border enforcement to prevent "arriving" immigrants is more efficient than removal of "already here" people for this reason. Deportation can not be selectively enforced as a threat against free speech or other protected rights (that not relevant to this case, but throwing it out there because I suspect it will be relevant soon).

Those are our laws and our constitution. Im not making it up.

The 'maryland man' guy is by all definitions one of the 'already here' people who is entitled due process. He gets to go to court, judge decides and gives an order, administration needs to follow the order. Simple as that.

Anyone saying otherwise is promoting unamerican principles and compromising our core values.

As for why Trump is doing this type of thing, knowing full well that it is illegal and unconstitutional? I will offer my take: I dont think its because he is stupid, and I don't think he misunderstands the constitution. I think he is an excellent showman, and knows how to work the cameras and find messaging that resonates with his supporters like the many of the people on Patnet. He is creating a spectacle where he can blame and vilify the 'other side' for why he cant do what he wants rather than trying to do the right thing. He hasn't even tried to make this right because the spectacle IS his objective. The outrage you echo in this echo chamber in support of his actions IS his objective.

DeficitHawk says

Do you agree with giving people due process?

@DeficitHawk

"People"?

US citizens are entitled to due process.

Invaders are entitled to be shot at the border.

Patrick says

"People"?

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

DeficitHawk says

I think he is an excellent showman, and knows how to work the cameras, and find messaging that resonates with his supporters, like the many of the people on Patnet.

Trump supporters are generally liberal or libertarian. Or independent. The left has gone so far left it's insanity. I would not call this a right wing site based on user comments. I'd say most here just don't want illegals here. Get them out. Birth Certificate. Passport. You can't get those as an illegal. That's your due process. End of discussion. Don't have one or the other you're gone which is 100% legal.

I really don't get this story and why you defend it via due process. This guy doesn't get due process. Along with many others.

I like that you fight for your beliefs, but the guy can and was removed legally. Due process isn't bad for American citizens, we'll agree there. He got a free flight home after beating his partner up, what's the problem? Not free as American citizens paid for it, but either way I'm not sure the problem here. Talking in circles at this point.

5th amendment says "No person" and the supreme court has found that this applies to non citizens, INCLUDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, though it differentiates between 'Arriving' and 'Already here' in this regard.

WookieMan says

Don't have one or the other you're gone which is 100% legal.

I really don't get this story and why you defend it via due process. This guy doesn't get due process. Along with many others.

I like that you fight for your beliefs, but the guy can and was removed legally.

Someone earlier in this thread asked why I had dropped off and stopped participating for a while. I said it was because I felt like I was talking to rocks and it was unsatisfying for me.

Wookie, I've cited the laws, supreme court decisions, etc for why what you are saying is not true. But you continue to say it. You have not addressed the laws or supreme court decisions I cited. Those decisions ARE the law. And the supreme court has even ruled that THIS SPECIFIC CASE was not legal and ordered Trump to facilitate his return so the mistake can be corrected. You have not provided any explanation for why you still feel this is legal, despite all of the research and sources I have provided to you. You WANT it to be legal. But it isnt!

You have to do more to justify your position than just wishing it were true and repeating it over and over. You have to acknowledge that there are actual laws, and an actual constitution that has real, defined meaning. Otherwise you are just a rock in this conversation.

I'm done talking to rocks.

@DeficitHawk you do not have the right to evict invaders from your own house, not even from your bedroom.

You must allow them to remain in your bedroom until a court of law can hear the case. Sadly, the courts are quite backed up, so it could be several years.

The police also have no right to intervene on your behalf until due process has been observed.

There is theory, and there is practice. Theory is modified by practice. A prime example is "music theory," or "jazz theory." It's just a synthesis/generalization of practice. Musicians fucking around and creating new shit a hundred years ago. Now people pay $$$$ to study the Cliff's Notes to get a degree in it.

So to with the law. It is a codification of what people agree is necessary to preserve a society and order. When the law fails, practice takes up the slack. Yeah none of it is legal, but it is necessary, and ultimately, the law embraces what is necessary. Call it "meta-law" - it used to be called "common law" until lawyers and judges decided that they, and they alone, knew what "the laws" are.

EDIT: Clausewitz said it best, "War is politics by other means."

DeficitHawk says

I'm done talking to rocks.

I posted a source that is an immigrant activist group. They buried it at the end of their page. Even they admit you can get booted immediately.

Go to Costa Rica. Ex Pats have to do a border run every 6 months, usually to Nicaragua. No other country allows what we do. Is there due process in parking your car at the airport and it gets booted if you don't return? No. They made your property unusable. This happens to US citizens everyday.

Yet you think someone here illegally is allowed due process? I posted a link. Just because precedent was set in a lower court doesn't mean it's law. The government has a right to boot you, even if an asylum seeker. We don't have to accept anyone into this country.

Call us rocks, but I don't want any woman beater in this country. Immigration be damned illegally in this case. I don't want a US citizen woman beater here.

DeficitHawk says

Someone earlier in this thread asked why I had dropped off and stopped participating for a while. I said it was because I felt like I was talking to rocks and it was unsatisfying for me.

As mentioned earlier due process isn't necessary in case of an invasion. Millions of illegals pouring across the border every year certainly qualifies as one. Once we're down to hundreds or a thousand total the US may be able to grant most or all of them a trial

Patrick says

you do not have the right to evict invaders from your own house, not even from your bedroom.

You must allow them to remain in your bedroom until a court of law can hear the case. Sadly, the courts are quite backed up, so it could be several years.

The police also have no right to intervene on your behalf until due process has been observed.

Are you talking about squatters rights? Funny we actually had to deal with a squatter once.

The analogy to squatters rights is sort of true. If someone is invading your house and you deal with it promptly, you can defend yourself, and repel them from your home.. no courts needed. But if you let them take up residence and they are living in your property for a period of time unchallenged or with permission, they gain rights and it becomes harder to remove them. I do'nt know all the laws for squatters, but there is a good analogy there to immigration laws. I've heard of short term rentals where people stay longer than 30 days, and there are a bunch of laws that kick in after 30 days that make eviction hard.

In California, if squatters live in your property for 10 years, and you do not assert your ownership rights against them, they can become the owner of the property. Some people were trying to do this to get houses back during the subprime crisis.

WookieMan says

I posted a source that is an immigrant activist group. They buried it at the end of their page. Even they admit you can get booted immediately.

Were you referring to the "Expedited removal for arriving immigrants" section of the 1996 immigration reform laws?

mell says

As mentioned earlier due process isn't necessary in case of an invasion. Millions of illegals pouring across the border every year certainly qualifies as one. Once we're down to hundreds or a thousand total the US may be able to grant most or all of them a trial

You mean the Alien enemies act? Courts have ruled it can not be used for these deportations because it only applies to an organized military force. I am sure there are more court cases to come on this topic, but as it stands, use of this statue for immigration enforcement is not legal.

Personally I don't think that should be used in peacetime. (I'm not so sure we should have used it in WW2 either).

DeficitHawk says

mell says

As mentioned earlier due process isn't necessary in case of an invasion. Millions of illegals pouring across the border every year certainly qualifies as one. Once we're down to hundreds or a thousand total the US may be able to grant most or all of them a trial

You mean the Alien enemies act? Courts have ruled it can not be used for these deportations because it only applies to an organized military force. I am sure there are more court cases to come on this topic, but as it stands, use of this statue for immigration enforcement is not legal.

Personally I don't think that should be used in peacetime. (I'm not so sure we should have used it in WW2 either).

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump as long as they get notice, they can also challenge it, but don't necessarily need to remain on US soil for that. Or if they do they obviously can be detained for the time being. If you're coming into the country to wreak havoc and partake in organized crime you are de facto an enemy combatant / terrorist. The sheer number of offenders justifies the use of The Alien enemies act (also confirmed by SCOTUS) as combating an invasion.

mell says

The sheer number of offenders justifies the use of The Alien enemies act (also confirmed by SCOTUS) as combating an invasion.

Quoted for troof

I agree as well.

It's obviously an invasion.

mell says

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Trump as long as they get notice, they can also challenge it, but don't necessarily need to remain on US soil for that.

This is the current status of the case, per SCOTUS and the district courts as far as I know.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf

The supreme court has issued an order not to deport any of the people in this case based on alien enemies act while it is being litigated, and the lower court has ruled that the alien enemies act does not apply. I am sure there will be further appeals.

Do you know of any ruling more recent than this?

Patrick says

I agree as well.

It's obviously an invasion.

But it is worse than that. The Biden Democrats weaponized immigration: ignoring the law, trafficking people, and their facilitation and exploitation of the illegal immegrants is both treasonous and a war crime.

Patrick says

Nice cartoon, but would you like to try to add some correct facts to it?

If you are startled by a burglar in your home and feel threatened, you can use force, including deadly force to defend yourself. You have no duty to retreat and no duty to avoid a confrontation (At least thats true in California)

If you have a tenant, or resident who is residing in your property and you want them out, there are all kinds of eviction hoops to work through and they do have rights.

If you have a squatter who has lived in your property for 10 years, you are at risk of losing ownership rights to them.

It seems like you are conflating a burglar scenario with a tenant rights scenario.

Edit: A better analogy to the "maryland man" case would be if you had a vagrant come in and sit on the couch, and the homeowner DIDNT confront him about it... the homeowner sat down next to him and said 'hey, yeah, whatever". Instead the vagrant stayed in the house for years and years, lived normally, got married, and raised kids in the house... and now the homeowner has decided he wants the guy to leave. But he's become a tenant. The homeowner will have to use eviction proceedings.

If the homeowner had confronted him about it promptly, he had every right to demand the person to leave, and escalate the confrontation to compel the person to leave... But if the homeowner allows the person to stay and turn into a long term tenant, the person gains rights.

Its the same with immigration law. The analogy is reasonable.

DeficitHawk says

A better analogy to the "maryland man" case would be if you had a vagrant come in and sit on the couch, and the homeowner DIDNT confront him about it..

A more correct analogy would be while the homeowner was on vacation for two weeks, a local advocate for the poor gave a vagrant a lock pick, some groceries, and pointed him toward the vacationer's abode. When the vacationer returns the vagrant refuses to leave and the advocate brings in attorneys to press squatter's rights. All laws against breaking and entry are ignored while strict adherence and liberal determination is applied to squatter's rights.

The part where Biden flew at least 320,000 into the country would be analogous to the local sheriff opening the doors to several vacationer's home and then using city attorneys to fight any evictions, Biden giving SS benefits to these flown in illegals is like the sheriff requiring the homeowners to keep paying the utility bills for the squatters.

DeficitHawk says

and the lower court has ruled that the alien enemies act does not apply.

So lower court judges get to rule our country. Not voted in. You're talking about appointed justices. POTUS can do what he wants against illegals. Did you vote for those judges? I didn't. I voted for Trump. Not some random NY or CA judge.

WookieMan says

So lower court judges get to rule our country.

I would guess the administration will appeal and ultimately SCOTUS will have to decide this one. Just my guess.

In the mean time, the ruling from the lower court is the law of the land. (its Texas for this case... tell me you didnt read the ruling without telling me you didnt read the ruling...)