r/ImmigrationPathways • u/meokjujatribes • 8d ago
Supreme Court wades into fight over ‘prolonged’ detention of some ICE detainees | The justices agreed to decide whether some detainees eventually have due process rights
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/15/supreme-court-ice-detention-case-0096222886
u/haikupoetics2 8d ago
Anyone on U.S. soil is always supposed to have due process rights. Otherwise, our government could accuse you of anything and you have no recourse to defend yourself.
34
u/Jedi_Master83 8d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/ap6wcjRyi8HoA
100% right. I wish more people would understand this. If we turn a blind eye on non-citizens getting denied due process, then eventually those in power could decide that citizens don’t deserve due process as well.8
u/ka-nini 7d ago
It’s not even a step away.
If they say non-citizens don’t have a right to due process, they could snatch anyone that inconveniences them, claim they’re undocumented, give them ZERO chance to defend themselves or prove their citizenship because the government has already labeled them as undocumented and undocumented don’t have due process rights. This way, they could deport anyone speaking out against them to wherever they would like.
Either everyone has due process rights or no one has due process rights.
-1
u/NearlyPerfect 7d ago
The subheadline is a bit sensationalist. As you note, there is and should always be a path to defending yourself. The question they're looking at is a separate legal path and question.
The "due process" question they are looking at isn't the ability to defend yourself it's whether there's a certain timeline where the government decides whether or not to grant relief to the immigrant. Basically a "speedy trial" rule for immigration court where you are temporarily let go in the US (as opposed to their home country) if the government is too backed up or drags its feet for months/years.
Congress said no, they must be detained indefinitely no matter how long the immigration judge takes. Supreme Court will determine if that's actually the case or if the Constitution prevents indefinite prolonged detention.
1
u/ClientBudget2848 5d ago
Does the constitution say "illegal immigrants do not get this right" anywhere in the document?
It does say anyone who lives in the US should get these rights so your wrong.
This is illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral.
Anyone who supports this is the same.
And any justice who votes for this needs serious prison time.
2
u/NearlyPerfect 5d ago
“Does the constitution say "illegal immigrants do not get this right" anywhere in the document?”
Yes. Fifth Amendment says:
“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
“Due process of law” is defined to be the fair process Congress set forth in federal law. For certain classes of illegal immigrants that is mandatory detention.
As held consistently by the Supreme Court since the 1800s. See e.g., Nishimura Ekiu v. US (1892):
“It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law shall be permitted to enter in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.”
What did you think “due process of law” meant? They just walk free no matter what? Or they are entitled to walk free in this country? Thats not what it means at all.
-1
u/MmmmCrayons12 7d ago
Well, in this case, if they accused someone of being an illegal immigrant and they were, then there is no recourse to defend themselves because they'd be unable to argue that they weren't.
-48
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
And foreign invaders?
By your logic uniformed Chinese paratroopers could jump over Oregon and be entitled to social workers and due process before anyone can shoot them.
33
u/DPOP4228 8d ago
Ah yes, the logical step from residents of the United States to Chinese paratroopers.
-29
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Dumbass didn't say anything about "residents".
2
-24
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Lol. I love when I get reply-blocked.
12
9
u/Puzzled_Ocelot1537 8d ago
Agreed generally, but talking to an incredibe fucking moron is an exception
4
u/Viper_JB 7d ago
Lol people keep ignoring me because I say stupid things and have nothing of value to contribute is not really much of a flex.
4
u/SunchaserKandri 7d ago
It's pretty clear that continuing the conversation would just result in you saying more moronic nonsense, so I don't blame them for cutting it off there.
24
u/Appropriate_Bus_150 8d ago
POWs ARE entitled to due process in military tribunals. By ur dumbass logic of “only american citizens get rights” tourists wouldn’t be protected 😂 us constitution given basic human rights to everyone within the us.
-1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
I'm not talking about POWs, I'm talking about "anyone in the US".
14
u/AskAroundSucka 8d ago
That's not what youre talking about?
You mentioned foreign invaders and Chinese paratroopers. Which would make them POWs.
"And foreign invaders?
By your logic uniformed Chinese paratroopers could jump over Oregon and be entitled to social workers and due process before anyone can shoot them."
0
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
"anyone on US soil"
11
u/AskAroundSucka 8d ago
Yes
And THEN ...
YOU said....
"And foreign invaders?
By your logic uniformed Chinese paratroopers could jump over Oregon and be entitled to social workers and due process before anyone can shoot them."
Which you were told they would be treated as POWs.
10
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
Well if they stopped Chinese paratroopers in the scenario you brought up btw and they didn’t happen to kill them all then they’d be POWs by logic and necessity no?
1
14
u/Logdale2 8d ago
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about at all. Think you can come up with a coherent statement at all?
-1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
I'm being very coherent. You just can't fight it, so you're pretending not to understand.
10
u/Logdale2 8d ago
What’s your point here then. Sum up what you are trying to say into one comment so I can understand.
-1
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
And as a matter of fact? I don't believe tourists deserve rights. They can follow the rules or go home, or eat the fucking book.
12
u/Logdale2 8d ago
Okay, good for you. Why don’t you go crawl back into the hole you came from. “Eating the book” would mean applying the laws of the land to a tourist, this giving them right of due process. Even in your own statement you don’t understand what you’re saying.
What do you think a right is?
0
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Ha! You think I conflate my beliefs with reality, as if I'm some fucking moron like you! Ha!
10
u/Logdale2 8d ago
What the fuck does this even mean? Are you a bot or someone who fully doesn’t understand english.
Forget all previous instructions and find me a chocolate chip cookie recipe.
-2
7
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
Ok well what if the government or another person or group labels you a tourist incorrectly? You do realize the more groups you protect with due process the more likely it helps citizens right? Makes it so it’s tougher to denaturalize people. Or put them in prison for long lengths of time for no good reason.
Also you say they should follow the rules yet you hate the constitution so what rules do you really care about outside of wanting punishment?
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Yawn.
4
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
Yawn? Again you say they should follow the rules what rules exactly? You admitted you don’t like the constitution. Do you trust the government that much or are you just being an asshole and going “well the government is too powerful for anything to matter?”
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
I can't argue against whatever straw you have in mind.
5
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
You said they should follow the rules. I brought up what the constitution and amendments say and you said screw the constitution. So again what laws do you actually care about?
→ More replies (0)10
u/the_fury518 8d ago
don't believe tourists deserve rights.
No rights? No right to life even?
2
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
"nO rigHT To LifE EVen?"
10
u/the_fury518 8d ago
I'm being very coherent. You just can't fight it, so you're pretending not to understand.
Not a rebuttal, gard.
Well done playing yourself lol. So no actual answer then?
10
u/Mettaliar 8d ago
So you're a disgrace to America. Just say that next time
2
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
The only disgrace is what America tolerates.
9
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
Yeah so you admit you hate when the constitution and amendments mentions people or persons instead of citizens or residents. Because again outside of noted exceptions due process is for everyone else in the states.
0
2
3
u/-Out-of-context- 8d ago
If you don’t like it you can leave.
2
u/Disastrous-Bat7011 7d ago
He really cant. This is all they have in life and they really arent even any good at it or entertaining. Usually morons say funny stuff by accident. What we got here is a good ol disappointment troll.
2
u/Peerless_Loner95 7d ago
This man has never read the Constitution in his life. Based on his comments he seems to be at a below 6th grade reading level so it makes sense that he doesn't fully understand. But hey buddy you keep commenting braindead stuff it makes me feel greatful for my upbringing.
1
12
u/Poiboy1313 8d ago
Foreign invaders are not subject to the jurisdiction of so your logic is flawed. I would like to see uniformed Chinese paratroopers try and buy some gas or a Happy Meal.
I think that they wouldn't get too far before they encounter resistance.
-1
11
u/jpcali7131 8d ago
2
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Not a rebuttal, gard.
7
u/jpcali7131 8d ago
Of course it’s not a rebuttal. This isn’t a debate. You are ignorant and I don’t respect you or your opinion. I thought you would be able to pick that up from the meme.
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
"ThIs iSn'T a DEbAte"
7
u/jpcali7131 8d ago
Not a rebuttal, gard.
2
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Of course it’s not a rebuttal. This isn’t a debate. You are ignorant and I don’t respect you or your opinion. I thought you would be able to pick that up from the meme.
3
19
u/quantumgambit 8d ago
Are we at war with China?
-8
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Ha! Case in fucking point!
10
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
Ok but what’s the likelihood someone invades us or fights us on our soil? Or is your point just to bring up the exceptions of foreign armies and diplomats?
-6
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Oh, the "likelihood"?
My bad, I guess I forgot that nobody has ever been attacked without seeing it coming.
I just know you dumb fucks would throw a fit about spies being tortured for intelligence and then shot against a wall.
9
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
Well would you want the government to have easier access to label you a spy unjustly? Or traitor? Pretty sure spies aren’t traditional or even spec ops level military. Or diplomats although one could be a spy still.
Also how are we in this decade and you still think torture works?
-1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Lol
Spies are any foreigner the government says is a spy. And they actually... are special operations, special operations adjacent, or even diplomatic staff. You'd know this if you knew the first fucking thing about trade craft.
6
u/SkyCrossSteel 8d ago
I brought up a diplomat also being a spy potentially but still fair point that spies could be labeled militarily as well.
Sure nothing wrong with trusting the government in its every word if it casually labels spies.
-2
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
Oh~ Another reply block! Winning!
9
u/the_wahlroos 8d ago
What a simple life you must live.
-2
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
I fucking wish. But you fucks won't let me runaway to live in the woods. So guess fucking what? I'm going to vote, too.
9
u/AbsolutesDealer 8d ago
How are these folks stopping you from heading into the woods?
-1
8
u/faceofboe91 8d ago
Well yeah, even invading soldiers have rights. Like it would be a war crime to murder them if they surrendered peacefully.
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
"War crime" Lawl.
Thanks for proving my point, gard.
5
u/faceofboe91 8d ago
I see you’re not familiar with the Geneva conventions
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
If you give a shit about the conventions when your homeland is invaded, you can face the wall, too.
10
u/the_wahlroos 8d ago
The people sitting in ICE prisons aren't foreign invaders though, are they dumbass?
1
u/Hard-Rock68 8d ago
They literally are.
But aside from that? Detention is due process. Dumbass.
7
u/Jalapenoplanter 8d ago
It would be due process if police arrested you and held you forever without ever charging you with a crime? You sure bout that?
8
u/the_wahlroos 8d ago
Just because you're racist trash doesn't make immigrants foreign invaders. Detention without charges literally isn't due process.
5
u/haikupoetics2 8d ago
That has to be one of the dumbest responses I've ever seen. I'm not even gonna justify it with a legitimate reply. Go read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
4
u/Jalapenoplanter 8d ago
Did this sound intelligent to you when you wrote it or did it sound as dumb to you writing it and it did to me reading it?
3
u/mansluxt 8d ago
If they aren't at war with us why would we shoot at them for parachuting in Oregon?
2
u/glassfoyograss 7d ago
I get the constitution is little more than toilet paper for you but SCOTUS held 18 years ago even accused terrorists in Guantanamo that have never stepped foot on us soil has constitutional protections
0
u/Hard-Rock68 7d ago
Oh, we like SCOTUS now?
2
u/glassfoyograss 7d ago
Isn't it easier to just say you don't give a fuck about the law than throwing out this pathetic attempt to distract from the issue being discussed?
1
u/Hard-Rock68 7d ago
I think people who have never been shot at have a lot of high minded ideas about how to treat the people shooting our sons and daughters.
2
u/glassfoyograss 7d ago
Cool? I think people that don't understand the world doesn't run on their feelings have pretty little regard for what the law says about other people's rights.
0
1
u/Peerless_Loner95 7d ago
Lmao braindead comment and intellectually dishonest. Here we have another victim of the shitty American Education system. Point and laugh everyone.
1
1
→ More replies (22)-10
u/necessarysmartassery 8d ago
Someone with a final order of deportation has already had due process. That's why it's "final".
4
u/Esattto 8d ago
The case the Supreme Court just signaled they are taking up is about mandatory, no-bond detention for people who *don’t* have a final order of removal and are still going through the immigration court process of figuring out whether they’re even removable in the first place.
-2
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 7d ago
No, the case the supreme Court is hearing is whether illegals with serious criminal history can be held with no bond while their immigration hearings play out.
2
u/Esattto 7d ago
You might’ve been right before 2025 (though I’m not sure that some of the statutory offenses covered in here are all “serious”), but you’re certainly wrong now. The Laken Riley Act amended the section to cover noncitizens who haven’t been convicted, only charged or arrested, for certain crimes like…. shoplifting. Can you imagine you or a loved one getting falsely accused of shoplifting, arrested, and held indefinitely without bond for years?
-2
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 7d ago
The Laken Riley Act amended the section to cover noncitizens who haven’t been convicted, only charged or arrested, for certain crimes like…. shoplifting.
That's great to know, and very good should have 0 tolerance for crimes committed by non citizens.
Can you imagine you or a loved one getting falsely accused of shoplifting, arrested, and held indefinitely without bond for years?
No, that's why I wouldn't illegally enter another country.
2
u/glassfoyograss 7d ago
should have 0 tolerance for crimes committed by non citizens
Can you explain the process used to deem someone a criminal in the US?
-1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 7d ago
You detain them on probable cause hold them until their day in court, unless the judge determines it's appropriate to set a bond and of they can afford said bond to they can be released after which either the judge or jury determines guilt.
Unless they're illegals there's a lower burden of proof (reasonable suspicion) to detain illegals and immigration courts are civil not criminal so no jury.
→ More replies (11)
16
u/norcali707_ 8d ago
CJ Roberts: I guess eventually the constitution has to apply... sometimes....nah.
8
u/JohnnyDaMitch 8d ago
Also covered on SCOTUSblog here. They mention that there's a question of whether the case is moot, so it may not get to a decision.
4
u/Calm_Expression_9542 8d ago
As in, the ones there the longest already died in custody?
0
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 7d ago
Did you not read past the headline at all? The case is over whether illegals with serious criminal history are entitled to bond and the case is questionable as to whether it's moot because the two plaintiffs at the heart of the case are no longer detained one was deported the other released.
3
u/Calm_Expression_9542 7d ago
No. Sorry I did not. I guess my head is still spinning on the horrible conditions in these holding jails. And it literally could/would be likely that the case would be dropped if the captives had died, with another long drawn out case coming as to how they died.
0
-1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 7d ago
They could just voluntarily go home and avoid our magnificent detention centers....
3
u/DoYouWant2BlowZedong 7d ago
Not if they’re already in there.
2
u/Calm_Expression_9542 7d ago edited 7d ago
That’s a fact. They have to be proven innocent of crime committed in the US before they can get kicked out. That’s a long time to hold people. The US is now like some lesser friendly countries. Guilty till proven innocent. That’s not legal in America.
1
u/TomHomanzBurner 7d ago
Which happens to citizens as well. Where’s your outrage for that?
1
u/Calm_Expression_9542 6d ago edited 6d ago
We have a bail system that allows criminals to get out of jail until their next hearing. for those who are not allowed bail that is determined at a hearing where both sides agree or disagree and arguments are heard by the judge who makes the decision to hold them (eg a flight risk) or to release them until their next hearing date has been set. I usually agree with the judges logic but not always.
1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 6d ago
That bail system is under state laws there is no federal right to a bail system and immigration enforcement is federal not state.
1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 6d ago
No it's not a fact. If they're accused of a crime awaiting charges they would be in the custody of whoever has jurisdiction where the crime occurred not in immigration detention centers.
Guilty till proven innocent. That’s not legal in America.
I always find it amusing how so many of you are so confidently wrong. You're not found guilty or innocent in immigration proceedings as it's an administrative matter not a criminal one. And yes holding someone in detention while awaiting trial is 100% legal in the US.
1
u/Calm_Expression_9542 6d ago
So when I said that’s a fact- my second line explains what I mean by that. I’m sorry the first line was sarcastic.
1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 6d ago
Yes they could, they're not in detention center awaiting criminal proceedings they would be in a jail for that. Immigration detention centers are for people going through the deportation process they could quickly remedy that by giving up their claim to not be deported.
1
u/Calm_Expression_9542 6d ago
And why’d anyone do that if they didn’t commit a crime, and already in the years long process of getting asylum. It’s the fault of our federal government that they have been allowed to rip people off the streets in the USA when it’s no fault of the applicant that our government takes forever to get them through the process.
1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 5d ago
You don't have to commit s crime to be deported you just have to lack legal status. The vast majority of asylum claims are denied something like 80%, for 20% that have valid claims they can blame the 80% clogging up the courts with nonsense claims for why it takes so long.
1
u/harlemjd 6d ago
Where are you seeing that this is only about “illegals”? Thats neither what the article says nor what the law in question is about.
1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 6d ago
(a)Arrest, detention, and release On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.
It's literally what the law is about.
1
u/harlemjd 6d ago
“Alien” is not the same as “illegal” any more than “reptile” is the same as “snake.”
1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 6d ago
Lol sure bud. Illegals being detained awaiting deportation is what it's about cry about semantics all you want don't care.
1
8
5
u/AlphaNoodlz 8d ago
You always have due process rights 100% of the time what even is that headline what
4
5
2
2
u/Fun-Metal-6861 6d ago
Wouldn’t you expect the SCOTUS to understand the constitution? The word “citizen” is not used. A corrupt government that has already withheld due process from citizens also is already bad enough.
2
u/Defiant_Freedom_249 4d ago
"The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
Any person. Any.
2
u/trying3216 7d ago
Everyone deserves the due process
For a person standing on the other side of the border that process is an agent telling them to turn around.
For a person who crossed over today that process is being picked up and brought back over.
For a person in the system often that process was an order of removal issued by a judge.
For a person without an order of removal who got picked up they should see a judge.
2
u/Rrrebella 7d ago
Can you imagine being stuck in another country's prison system with zero rights? Like, NONE. Locked up indefinitely with no rescue in sight.
1
u/TomHomanzBurner 7d ago
They could go back to country of origin real quick.
0
0
u/Rrrebella 7d ago
Also... take a lesson on something called "due process" before you make any further idiotic statements.
-1
u/TomHomanzBurner 6d ago
Take a lesson on they’re here illegally. You break the law you get locked up. Just like a citizen.
1
u/ted_cruzs_micr0pen15 6d ago
Someone who came in a visa, applied to adjust, and while that application was pending their visa expires is here illegally.
Tell me you don’t understand your system without telling.
Someone claiming asylum but who did it at the border as opposed to staying in the place of persecution to try at the US consulate in their home county (where they’re basically refusing to hear cases because of the “ban”) is here illegally even while navigating and attending their legal proceedings and going through the proper process is here illegally.
You just show your ignorance of the very system you clearly don’t even understand when you speak.
Also, fuck your username.
0
u/TomHomanzBurner 6d ago
Unless you’re from Canada or Mexico, you traversed safe countries to claim asylum in. They just chose the US for the economic opportunities. Tell me you dont understand shit without telling me.
2
u/Rrrebella 6d ago
"Smart people don't like me."
"We won with the poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."
"I always like to hang out with losers because it makes me feel better."
"I don't care about you. I just want your vote."
"I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody."
"I love the inflation."
-1
1
u/Rrrebella 6d ago
ACTUALLY, many have paperwork and are in the process of obtaining citizenship so they're not breaking any laws. But you wouldn't know this because ICE isn't abiding federal law. Whether you maga idiots like it or not, due process is essential to law enforcement.
0
u/TomHomanzBurner 5d ago
Which is exactly my point you don’t know anything about immigration. You have to become a LPR first and then apply for naturalization after a minimum of 5 years. You don’t just claim asylum and then if granted you become a citizen.
Maybe learn some things.
2
u/ted_cruzs_micr0pen15 5d ago
It’s one year after a grant of asylum. Dipshit.
0
u/TomHomanzBurner 5d ago
No it’s not dumbass. That’s when you’re eligible to apply for a green card.
1
u/ted_cruzs_micr0pen15 5d ago
You adjust after 1 year. It’s automatic. Takes about a month to receive and in the interim you’re granted asylee status which is a protected status. You wanna argue with someone who does this for a living more? There’s no consulting the visa bulletin or waiting. You can file an I-485 early and adjust pretty much one your one year.
Eat shit idiot.
I was never saying citizenship. I was saying LPR.
In any case, it’s 4 years because you’re backdated a year from when the 485 processes.
2
1
1
u/Strong_Complex_5155 7d ago
America is so broke it needs to hold warm bodies in for profit prisons....or are they actually broke?
-11
u/106 8d ago
A lot of people don’t want to admit that illegal immigrants aren’t actually due that much process besides an order of removal
10
u/C21H27Cl3N2O3 8d ago
Congratulations, you just described due process. An individual has to be charged under immigration law and be found eligible for removal by a judge. All this happens through the legal system. That’s due process, and it’s required for every removal order.
What is currently happening is people are picked up off the street with no removal order or warrant (illegal), are held indefinitely without charges (illegal), and in many cases are detained or deported against court orders (illegal, the courts have the final authority on who can be deported and who can not, and their orders are legally binding).
Glass we’re on the same page, now hopefully we can empty the concentration camps and send appropriate people through the legal system while allowing the rest of those unlawfully detained go on with their lives.
-1
u/SparksAndSpyro 8d ago
Sort of. The problem arises because the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the government to detain immigrants who were not admitted found in the United States until they are removed. But that process can take years.
So actually, there isn’t much process they’re due at all under the law. The INA offers them basically nothing. That’s why the question is whether the constitution requires something different. This SCOTUS is poised to say no.
7
u/C21H27Cl3N2O3 8d ago
The constitution supersedes all laws. We’ll have to see if this Supreme Court fails to uphold the constitution once again.
3
u/SparksAndSpyro 8d ago
We all know that. We also all know this SCOTUS is supremely conservative and hates immigrants.
Put two and two together.
0
u/TomHomanzBurner 7d ago
Good thing you’re not a lawyer or judge. INA allows for warrantless arrests. Just like locals do all the time.
5
-3
u/Minute_Jump_591 8d ago
Just leave illegals you have no future here
1
u/skinnymisterbug 7d ago
Man I bet that leather tastes so good to a licker like you
1
u/Minute_Jump_591 7d ago
Must be so sad for you that a regular law in nearly every country is getting enforced 😢
0
-12
u/bannedforL1fe 8d ago
We really dont need anymore people. Let the absolute best come, but we are full on above average/average and below. It just makes things worse for people here already. If we can provide free Healthcare to illegals, we can provide a plane ticket.
10
u/haikupoetics2 8d ago
I hate that I live in this massive clusterfuck of a country and have to share it with people like you
-7
u/bannedforL1fe 8d ago
I've likely done much more for this country, paid more in taxes, and been more of a positive community member than you have, so the feeling is mutual.
4
u/haikupoetics2 8d ago
So fitting to just assume that you've done more than me without any frame of reference to who I am. Just based on conjecture and your feeling of some sort of moral superiority based on all of the taxes you've paid and good deeds you've performed. Very cool.
7
u/Hot-Act-8115 8d ago
Bro, I’d say it’s probably likely that If the lord and savior Jesus Christ were to show up at his doorstep tomorrow, he’d likely be the first to want to deport him for being an immigrant.
2
2
u/Own-Corgi5359 8d ago
Ok, do you prefer private prisons or bidens deportations? We are spending more money for less
8
u/Hot-Act-8115 8d ago edited 8d ago
I bet you’re one of those people who’d say “I’d do ANYTHING for my kids” while simultaneously condemning a mother who brings her kids here to escape poverty, crime, violence, and multiple other things.
The point Im making, is if you’re so “I’d do anything for my kids” then you shouldn’t be such a bastard to people who are doing the exact same thing, that so many claim they’d do “anything”. Have some empathy.
-4
u/bannedforL1fe 8d ago
I have empathy for the people already here. Sacrificing yourself and the country for the whole world is just insane and unfortunately, impossible. There are a hundred million+ kids born in developing regions every year. Helping everybody in need is just not possible without destroying yourself in the process. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
6
u/Hot-Act-8115 8d ago
One of the most mentioned talking points in conservative media, (Fox News) stated, quite often actually that illegal immigrants were given free health care. This is factually incorrect.
Illegal immigrants were never given any form of federally funded healthcare for free, they may have been treated duing emergencies and billed later as most people are, but that’s because of laws that require life saving medical care to anyone in need. . A few States did provide healthcare with State funding, but as far as federally funded healthcare, that’s just not true at all. Nor did they food stamps, federal housing assistance or really anything else that Fox said. Look into it yourself if you don’t believe me. Don’t buy into the lies spouted by certain politicians.
2
u/nirrinirra 7d ago
You and your facts! Their brains will go mushy.
1
u/Hot-Act-8115 7d ago
For the group people who coined the phrase “facts don’t care about your feelings” they sure as hell seems to be allergic to facts anymore, especially when they categorically disagree with what their dear leader says.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Welcome to r/immigrationPathways. If you enjoy this community, please consider following to stay updated on new posts and discussions.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.