- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Another activist judge rules against deporting pro-Palestinian academics illegal
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:01 am to hansenthered1
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:01 am to hansenthered1
The constitution applies to american citizens, not Illegal immigrants, visa holders are here as a guest, granted to them by the US GOVT
This frickin due process shite is bullshite, they ain't American citizens, example the school board guy in Iowa had a deportation order in affect, somebody knew it and allowed him cover
This frickin due process shite is bullshite, they ain't American citizens, example the school board guy in Iowa had a deportation order in affect, somebody knew it and allowed him cover
1
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:21 am to coolpapaboze
quote:
Young described this as his "most important" ruling in 30 years on the bench.
What happens when your most important ruling in 30 years gets shot down?
I will say this for the millionth time...congress needs to act on some of these judges. They are absolutely out of control.
quote:
The constitution applies to american citizens, not Illegal immigrants, visa holders are here as a guest, granted to them by the US GOVT
You are mistaken...the Constitution applies to them in most respects. For example...the people involved here have free speach rights and will not be arrested for their speech. That does not mean that the privilege of being here cannot be revoked for that speech. Also, 4th applies etc...
This post was edited on 10/1/25 at 7:24 am
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:23 am to hansenthered1
quote:
The constitution applies to everyone in the USA. If you don't like that get out. Some of yall never had a basic civics class or you failed the one you took.
The God Given Rights expressed in the Bill of Rights and Constitution are not something that apply to only citizens.
This is some really rich bullshite from people who arrested a citizen for a meme, and forced the closing of Churches.
Funny you defend foreigners "rights" to protest/riot out laws, but tell a citizen to get out for just discussing his opinion.
I'm sure you are still melting over the Colombian President having his visa yanked for his megaphone speech in NYC.
Keep up your anti-American agenda pinko.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:24 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
If you engage in wrongthink on certain subjects, this administration wants you gone.
Just tired of you terrorists.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:30 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
If you engage in wrongthink on certain subjects, this administration wants you gone.
To be fair, that goes for all administrations.
In the Executive branch typically it's the State Department via the CiC that gets to decide what is wrong speech for non-citizens, under the umbrella of "national security".
National security in practice seems to trump the 1st amendment especially for non-citizens. It also trumps the 1st amendment for citizens but in those incidences the situation is usually kept on the down low and typically resolved before the public notices.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:39 am to The Maj
quote:
Tell the judge to enforce his order...
This quote gets thrown around a lot as a great example of how to flex power.
We all realize this led to the Trail of Tears right?
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:43 am to loogaroo
assholes in the thread mangling the Constitution to justify keeping these creeps here
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:44 am to antibarner
quote:
If they are here illegally
Is this case about people here illegally? Or people here legally being deported for speech?
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:47 am to ole man
quote:
This frickin due process shite is bullshite
Oh, they're entitled to due process. The question is whether the process due them is the same as for a citizen. It is not.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 7:48 am to loogaroo
quote:
deliberate attack on free speech meant to “strike fear” into non-citizen students and chill campus protests.
“The effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day,” U.S. District Judge William Young concluded,
yer honer - might I point out that they are NOT citizens. - they are here supposedly to take courses in our colleges.
They do NOT have the 'right' to PROTEST anything - they only way they can protest something they really do not want to tolerate is to get back on the same boat they came on and GO BACK to their own country.
They are here at our pleasure - they have NO RIGHT to be here without our permission.
The CERTAINLY have 'no right' to come here and PROTEST anything at all.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 8:03 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
assholes in the thread mangling the Constitution to justify keeping these creeps here
Assholes arguing that these people have constitutional rights are just aligning themselves with what the constitution says and what the Supreme Court has confirmed multiple times
constitution.congress.gov
quote:
In 1903, the Court in the Japanese Immigrant Case reviewed the legality of deporting an alien who had lawfully entered the United States, clarifying that an alien who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population could not be deported without an opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States.1 In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court maintained the notion that once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.2
LINK
quote:
Once situated lawfully in the United States, aliens enjoy First Amendment rights. As Justice Francis W. Murphy described the law in his concurrence in Bridges v. Wixon (1945), “the Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” In that case, the Court reversed the deportation of labor activist Harry Bridges, an Australian, because of statements he had made that prosecutors charged indicated “affiliation” with the Communist Party. Writing for the Court, Justice William O. Douglas concluded that “freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country. . . .
The bottom line is that your belief in free speech only goes as far as your willingness to allow others to say things you strongly disagree with. As a proponent of free speech you absolutely don’t have to agree with, listen to, or ignore speech you disagree with, but you should not be in favor of the government restricting speech that you disagree with.
Assuming these people are here legally, we don’t have to agree with the idea that these people are speaking to, but if their speech is not inciting immediate harm to others it should absolutely be tolerated by the government
This post was edited on 10/1/25 at 8:15 am
Posted on 10/1/25 at 8:06 am to GumboPot
I'm not even disputing any of that. But, having little Marco and his team comb social media for speech they don't like and kicking the person out is so lame and such a waste of time, especially when that speech pertains to our greatest ally. It's not America First. The Ozturk case is a disgrace. I'm mostly saying, don't cry when a Dem SOS ships your friend or relative for saying something bad about Zelensky.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 10:31 am to Bunk Moreland
I love when threads on this board get disputed with legitimate reasoning and facts because then they’re just totally ignored 
That’s how you know you won the argument
That’s how you know you won the argument
This post was edited on 10/1/25 at 10:39 am
Posted on 10/1/25 at 10:49 am to HagaDaga
You hate the constitution and then call people who support the constitution pinko and anti-American.
Keep sucking Trumps dick
Keep sucking Trumps dick
Posted on 10/1/25 at 10:52 am to shinerfan
quote:
This frickin due process shite is bullshite
quote:yeah, they don't complain about 'due process' when they are due deportation as the end result of that process.
Oh, they're entitled to due process. The question is whether the process due them is the same as for a citizen. It is not.
And I second what ChineseBandits58 posted, 100%
Posted on 10/1/25 at 10:56 am to Tiger1242
I think the argument would be aligned with the execution of section 212(g) of the Immigration and Nationality act. If one commits fraud while applying for their visa--are they entitled to stay in the United States?
"(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-"
(i) and (ii) aren't relevant to the point
"(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible."
I can agree that people who are here legally have rights, however, if they committed fraud to get here, are they still here legally? That is the question that needs answered and might be difficult to prove. Hard to prove these folks came here with the intent to oppose U.S. policy. But it's probably worth the courts time.
"(A) In general.-Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in-"
(i) and (ii) aren't relevant to the point
"(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible."
I can agree that people who are here legally have rights, however, if they committed fraud to get here, are they still here legally? That is the question that needs answered and might be difficult to prove. Hard to prove these folks came here with the intent to oppose U.S. policy. But it's probably worth the courts time.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is about the constitutionally granted power of the executive to revoke visas at will and thus changing their status.
Is this case about people here illegally? Or people here legally being deported for speech?
1A discussion is deflection.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 10:59 am to antibarner
quote:
They are here illegally and they can chill in their home countries.
Where does it say they're here illegally?
Posted on 10/1/25 at 3:15 pm to hansenthered1
I hate anti-Americans like you who don’t see a difference between a Citizen and non-citizen
Keep wiping that curry and moslim spooge off your chin, Comrade.
Keep wiping that curry and moslim spooge off your chin, Comrade.
Posted on 10/1/25 at 6:02 pm to HagaDaga
I'm pro American and pro constitution.
Sorry you hate the constitution and the idea that America was founded upon.
You are loyal to a man, not the idea not the law not the constitution.
Sorry you hate the constitution and the idea that America was founded upon.
You are loyal to a man, not the idea not the law not the constitution.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News