I mean, accusing someone of being in a gang that suddenly is equated to ISIS or Al Queda and deported them to life in a de factor concentration camp in a random country seems like some fair process should occur giving the magnitude of the situation. I'm not saying that did or don't happen with the current person in the spotlight, but that seems like something reasonable.

Oh no! The consequences of my own actions! They would never run the risk of being deported if they hadn't first made the conscious decision to break our laws and illegally enter our country.

Fat Bottom Squirrels said:

---

Oh no! The consequences of my own actions! They would never run the risk of being deported if they hadn't first made the conscious decision to break our laws and illegally enter our country.

---

If you think illegally crossing the border in and of itself warrants life in a concentration camp, I don't know what to tell you.

BigOil said:

---

I mean, accusing someone of being in a gang that suddenly is equated to ISIS or Al Queda and deported them to life in a de factor concentration camp in a random country seems like some fair process should occur giving the magnitude of the situation. I'm not saying that did or don't happen with the current person in the spotlight, but that seems like something reasonable.

---

But he's illegal, so none of that matters.

What does it warrant?

First comment..

@grok, what are the core differences between the way Trump and Obama have handled deportations?
Why is one legal and the other not?

— _ (@Mic_Speaks) April 25, 2025

Kicking someone out of the country due to their legal status is not the same as convicting someone of a crime and punishing them, imo.

Returning someone to their place of origin is simply returning to status quo. The only due process I need for that is lack of any form of legal verification. You don't have it, you're out.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

First comment..

@grok, what are the core differences between the way Trump and Obama have handled deportations?
Why is one legal and the other not?

— _ (@Mic_Speaks) April 25, 2025

---

Did you read the comment?


Obama deported over 5 million people, focusing on criminals and recent border crossers, using prosecutorial discretion and DACA for balance. Trump deported about 1 million, targeting all undocumented immigrants with high-visibility raids, but faced legal limits. Both acted legally under U.S. law, but Trump's travel ban and family separations drew more court challenges, creating a perception of illegality. Obama's targeted approach faced less legal pushback, seeming more lawful despite higher numbers.

So exactly as I've said on this thread and others. The way Trump went about it his first time and is going about it this term is inviting the court/political fights. And it ultimately will be fights that I believe he will win.

BigOil said:

---

Fat Bottom Squirrels said:

---

Oh no! The consequences of my own actions! They would never run the risk of being deported if they hadn't first made the conscious decision to break our laws and illegally enter our country.

---

If you think illegally crossing the border in and of itself warrants life in a concentration camp, I don't know what to tell you.

---

They didn't just illegally cross a border. They decided to join an organized international criminal organization that's killed more Americans than either of the groups you mentioned. They were given the right to file habeas petitions to contest that affiliation. If they did, they were t deported until their case is reviewed by an
Immigration judge.

Yes, but obviously YOU didn't..

Quote:

---

Trump deported about 1 million, targeting all undocumented immigrants with high-visibility raids, but faced legal limits. Both acted legally under U.S. law, but Trump's travel ban and family separations drew more court challenges, creating a perception of illegality.

---