I mean, despite the fact that I disagree with them, I can understand the whole “No more deportations:” part of the protests. They want illegal immigration and dislike the fact that the ICE agents are enforcing the immigration laws.
But the “No King” bit is kinda stupid. It pretty much seems to be a rehashed “I hate Trump” schtick.
The very fact that the protests happy with no interference pretty much proved the No Kings part.
Happened. Sheesh -autocorrect
I can’t speak for you but most people who “don’t get it” have only been paying attention to what appeals to their world view rather than what’s really going on.
For starters, both Biden and Obama deported an impressive amount of illegal immigrants and no one was throwing a fuss. So obviously, something has changed.
Love or hate Trump, one cannot deny his salesmanship, his ability of persuasion, his charisma and his ability make his base believe things that simply are not true, or even the hold he has on them even when Mexico was never going to pay for a wall, among many other things. He is also a pro at fabricating or exasperating problems that only he can save us from.
So what we were sold was that these immigrants were not coming here to seek refuse from hostile governments and gangs nor were they coming in hopes of a better life and send money home to their families. We were sold that they were coming here to drug our children with fentanyl, rape our wives, take our jobs, kill us, and then shoot and eat our dogs and that Trump was the man to protect us. One helpful step in getting it is to understand that this was simply was not true.
But regardless, the lie really didn’t matter to many as removing criminals is what it’s all about anyway. But that’s not what they’re seeing. They’re seeing lifelong neighbors and co-workers swept up and hauled off. They’re seeing ICE thuggishly throwing U.S. citizens to the ground or up against a wall. They’re seeing their employees stay home. And they are seeing a defiance of the courts. What they’re seeing is not a search for criminals but rather a brute force roundup of brown people in order to meet a quota. They are also not particularly happy with the idea of Trump sending the military into cities.
Hope that clears a few things up.
y’know, this is the third time you have used my comments here to direct a diatribe against the Trump administration policies.
I let it go before, even answered you…., but it is becoming an issue.
Perhaps, if you wanna do repeated screeds against Trump, you should start your own blog.
Having said that, Trump promised to deport ALL illegals. And yes, these are illegal aliens….Most of us support his getting rid of people who have squatted on our territory, using the system and (despite your unverified protests) not giving back to the country or it’s citizens.
Yes, we want them gone, especially when they have the temerity to protest openly in the street while waving the flag of another country.
I don’t see a lie about who he was going to enforce immigration law against. As far as I understood it it was going to be after EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL. If I had my way we’d be rounding them up and if not under asylum and no green card, they’d be shackled, put on a bus and tossed back over the southern border. Families too. Bad decisions make for bad outcomes.
I am sorry you think that what he said was that they were all gonna “drug our children with fentanyl, rape our wives, take our jobs, kill us, and then shoot and eat our dogs”…you know, unless you are much more stupid that you appear, that that is not true, nor did he say that about all our illegal alien invaders. You can play all the word games you wish, twist his words (and who he was speaking of) and lie all you want, but you cannot do it here in my comments. (YOU sound like someone who is a leftist plant who can twist words well, and who thinks that everyone else is stupid)
If any of my fellow citizens think that it is OK that their neighbors, and co-workers should be left in peace to stay here illegally, then that is on them, and the DNC folks who tried to normalize their presence….and they are part of the problem…..(and folks like you who are sympathetic to their coming plight)…and if the employees are “staying home” because they are illegal then the employers are complicit in the immigration problem as well.
You seem to miss the fact that each and every person here without permission of the US government, that is not a citizen IS A CRIMINAL.
I hope I made myself plain on you using my comments to do an anti-Trump diatribe.
Sadly, despite all of those words, you didn’t answer the question about the “No Kings” schtick.
So here’s the thing: Stop using my comments as your soapbox. Or go away. Or get banned.
I own this space, and it isn’t a democracy.
I am all for comments, even ones that I disagree with. But you are over the line. Behave or be gone.
I am sorry you are upset that illegal alien invaders are being rounded up and deported. Too bad for you and them.
Have a really, really nice day.
Thanks for the response. I’ll respect your space, and I don’t plan to keep pressing if it’s unwelcome—but I do want to offer one clarification to answer the “No Kings” part.
The “No Kings” slogan isn’t just anti-Trump. It’s rooted in the concern that any president, especially Trump, was leaning heavily into executive power in a way that sidestepped courts, norms, and Congress. When people say “No Kings,” they’re rejecting unchecked authority—things like sending the military into cities, ignoring court orders, or threatening to defy election outcomes. That kind of centralization of power goes against what most Americans—right, left, or independent—expect in a constitutional republic.
As for my earlier point, I wasn’t twisting anything. Trump did claim immigrants were “killing and eating dogs”—it’s on record. And he’s repeatedly described immigrants as mostly criminals, even though the law clearly distinguishes asylum seekers. You acknowledged asylum as a legal pathway, which is key—because much of the protest energy is about how enforcement has treated people without first determining who is lawfully here. That’s not about open borders—it’s about due process.
Additionally, I don’t know that it was an illegal immigrant waving a foreign flag nor do I know if they were involved in the LA protests or if you prefer, riots. Seems to me that would be incredibly stupid of them if they were. But I’m reasonably sure those photos of the No King protesters were American citizens.
I’ll step back now as requested. Just thought it might help clarify where I was coming from, since you asked.
‘Twas the African immigrants (sorta legal) imported by the Biden admin that (yes, were, actually) eating pets, and using them as part of their religious rituals in Ohio…Where the settles THOUSANDS in one area. Most people are aware that it wasn’t the Mexican/South American illegals that were doing that. Sorry you can’t tell the differences even though it was made plain in the news stories.
As for Executive power, and the No Kings complainers…. that started with Barry Soetoro…(Remember his words? “We Won”. He set the rules that you now don’t like because they are being used for things you don’t like . Barry started with the overreach of the Executive orders. The next few presidents used the same Example…..If you leftists don’t like it when a Republican President does it, perhaps you should have spoken up up when Barry did it first. Or when Biden continued the practice. As for ignoring court orders, again, it was acceptable to ignore the courts when your side was in power….and if every single biased county judge can give orders to the President, then we have anarchy. Sorry, you need to see the bigger picture. The Left set the rules, now you folks get to reap what you sowed.
It may be that not all the rioters and flag wavers were illegal immigrants, but many were, and the riots started when the illegals opposed federal agents with a court order. SO yeah, I think that most of the original rioters were illegals that thought they could protest and get away with it…and it is people like you, that support them, that makes them think they can wave foreign flags with temerity. But at the end of it, something you seem to gloss over, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HERE…they are criminals.
Hold your cards everyone, I think we have a BINGO!
It seems like the issue for some people isn’t just illegal activity — it’s dissent itself. When someone says waving a foreign flag should justify deportation, even from legal immigrants or asylum seekers, what they’re really expressing is: “You don’t belong here if you don’t conform to my version of patriotism.”
That’s not about law and order. That’s about enforcing cultural loyalty. And that’s dangerous.
Let’s be clear:
Peaceful protest is a protected constitutional right, not a threat to the country. Disliking it is a personal preference — not a legal or moral justification for silencing others.
Waving a flag, even a foreign one, is not illegal. In fact, it’s often used to express pride in heritage — something millions of Americans do every St. Patrick’s Day, Cinco de Mayo, or Italian festival.
Deporting people based on political expression — even unpopular expression — goes against the First Amendment and everything the U.S. supposedly stands for.
It’s one thing to say, “I disagree with this protest” or “That symbolism offends me.” That’s your right.
But it’s another to say: “Because I don’t like it, they shouldn’t be here.”
That’s not patriotism — that’s authoritarianism, whether people realize it or not. And that cuts right into the heart of the No Kings movement, regardless if you or I agree or disagree with it.
No “Bingo” here. If you think so, you need to reread what I wrote. I never said we should deport citizens. Absolutely not,
Please don’t attempt to twist my words. You are lying.
Illegals and (possibly) green card holders, yes, If they can’t behave the can get the hell out. They are GUESTS here at best. They should act as a guest would and not disrespect their host.
Us citizens DO have 1st amendment rights. Visitors and “Permanent Residents” not so much. Same-same “Asylum Seekers”. If they hate the US or like their home country more, then they can politely leave. They are here on sufferance after all.
Again, don’t ever try again to twist what I say. Ever again. You are here because I allow it for debate purposes, Behave or go away.
You are acting exactly like the leftist agitators do. Cheaply twisting words. So either stop or leave.
I am not gonna state it again.
If you are not an American citizen, you have no “rights” in fact subverting the government is a legal reason for deportation.
Americans have a right for peaceful assembly , illegals don’t.
To be clear, I’ve not endorsed illegal immigrants. I’ve repeatedly said I agree with the removal if here illegally. I did admit I found deporting immigrants who were brought illegally as children was cruel and unnecessary but I also said I respected opinions that differ. My response was regarding the massive turnout of protesting “No Kings” to the dismay of those seeing Trump as doing an excellent job.
I don’t know how some interpret the arguments of a “constitutional crises” or an “authoritarian regime” or Trump’s promise of “becoming a dictator on day one”. Perhaps a hoax or propaganda? But there are many people who obviously beg to differ.
Let’s start with the military and what has changed. Ronald Reagan declared in 1981 that “it is dictatorships, not democracies, that need militarism to control their own people and impose their system on others.” George H. W. Bush, confronting the Warsaw Pact, had been “lashed together by occupation troops and quisling governments and, when all else failed, the use of tanks against its own people.” Bill Clinton said that Hussein had used his arsenal “against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.” GWB also said Hussein’s government “practices terror against its own people.” Obama warned that Qaddafi had said “he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people.” Even as SD Gov, Kristi Noem said; “If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard, that would be a direct attack on states’ rights”.
So while you may not agree, many view the LA military use as a “tyrant test”.
It isn’t spin or twisting to say that Trump campaign heavily that the asylum seekers were hardened criminals (which there was no evidence of) and that he could fix the problem. I’d surmise that’s what got him elected and what the people wanted. But again, that’s not what we’re seeing. So now that we’ve established that asylum seekers are not here illegally, at what point is ICE not acting as a secret police when entering a business without a warrant, detain whoever they want without legal counsel, fly them off to a foreign gulag without due process, and refuses to bring them back after a Supreme Court order? Who gets to determine if they are here illegally or not? And it isn’t helpful when Trump declares that “homegrowns” are fair game as well.
This isn’t hyperbole. It isn’t made up nor is it twisting reality. Those are real issues worth addressing. It’s among several reasons, which I’ve previously argued, that many Americans are concerned of an abuse of power.
Apparently the courts agree with Trump on the national guard so…
It’s actually ongoing as the Ninth Court has stayed a Federal District court ruling of an overreach of power.
You do bring up a good point which is that ultimately, we have to abide with court decisions, particularly the SCOTUS if we like it or not which brings us back to the infamous Garcia deported to CECOT. There were a lot of arguments but once the high court ruled that he was deprived due process and a return must be facilitated, our opinions go out the window and as a nation of law and order, we must accept it- unless it’s overturned by 2/3 of Congress. Trump’s response to that decision was another grave concern to those who truly cherish and respect our constitution and democracy.
When did Trump “promise to Become a dictator on Day One? I must have missed that. Perhaps a cite to show you aren’t just having more leftist delusions?
I see the use pf the National Guard and the military as a way to keep the peace when illegal invaders think they can fight the police and Federal agents….and I fail to understand why you think ICE needs a warrant to enter a business where crimes are being committed.
I think you are conflating “Asylum seekers” already in the country with illegal border crossers. Even if asking for asylum, they crossed the border illegally (which is a criminal act) vs applying for asylum outside of the country and waiting for permission to enter. Big difference.
Your delusion that it is an abuse of power is just that, a delusion. When Barry did his abuses because “We Won” , you and your ilk were OK with it because you approved of the actions. Now that the shoe is on the other hand, you scream and cry like little girls that the same sort of unilateral action is an “abuse of power”. Funny that.
You folks seem to think that only your way is ok, and that anyone elses’ viewpoints and methods are somehow wrong and should be stopped. You get all fussy when your side’s methods are used for things you don’t like….Childish of you, really to think that.
You seem to think that there are two standards….what is right for those governments officials with whom you agree, and another for those whose methods you opposed…even when they were legally elected (unlike Slow Joe, but that is another discussion for another time)…
You still haven’t backed off (nor apologized) for trying to twist my words regarding illegals vs citizen regarding free speech though.
You’re right to expect that your words not be twisted — and I haven’t done that. I fully acknowledged that you were referring to immigrants, not citizens, and I clarified that in my very next comment.
My concern wasn’t with who you said should be deported, but rather the reasoning behind it — namely, expressing disagreement, carrying a foreign flag, or participating in protest. You’ve said that non-citizens don’t have full First Amendment protections — but what you’re describing isn’t criminal behavior; it’s political expression. And punishing political expression with deportation is something that deserves scrutiny, especially in a country that prides itself on free speech.
As for Trump’s “dictator on day one” remark — it was made on December 5, 2023, at a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity. When Hannity asked him to reassure voters that he wouldn’t be a dictator, Trump responded, quote:
“No, no, no — other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I’m not a dictator.”
That was a real moment — not made up, not twisted — and many Americans found it chilling, even if meant as a quip. Because we’ve seen how his rhetoric blurs the line between sarcasm and intent.
I don’t dispute that immigration needs management or that border security matters. But there’s a difference between enforcement and targeting entire communities for political gain. When ICE conducts raids without clear legal process, detains people indefinitely, or ignores court orders — that’s not about safety, that’s about power. And history has taught us that power unchecked is something to be feared, no matter which party holds it.
I’ll leave it at that for now. If anyone else is reading along, I hope they’ll consider both perspectives — and look deeper into the facts, not just the rhetoric. These are serious issues, and we should all be willing to debate them without demanding silence or apology for sincere disagreement.
See, there ya go,.
That’s not “A dictator from Day One” which is what you said. You lied. Twisting words and their meanings seems to be a pattern for you. Go do that somewhere else. It won’t fly here.
Why don’t you go be a guest in another country, and decry that countries laws, and customs. Fight the police when they try to enforce the laws. Demand things from that country and the citizens, never learn the language even after years of living there illegally, all the while waving a US flag. Spit on the citizens of that country. Show you hate the country you are squatting in. See what their reaction is.
Especially if you are already there illegally, having criminally crossed the border or overstayed a visa.
Why do you think that illegal invaders have any constitutional rights? Especially to “Political Expression”? They are NOT citizens, not legal residents, they are invaders. Criminals. They get no say in our politics. That is reserved for citizens.
It is the JOB of ICE, (the old Border Patrol) to enforce our borders and our immigration laws. These people have no constitutional rights, ICE doesn’t need a warrant to enter a business that employs illegals…there is already a crime being committed.
You seem to equate illegals to US citizens. They are not the same. They are criminals. They should be treated as such. They are NOT equal to US citizens.
You’ve made your view very clear, B. But to everyone else reading:
Let’s separate the facts from the fury.
Yes — people in the U.S., regardless of immigration status, have constitutional protections.
That includes the right to due process and protections against unlawful searches and seizures. That’s not my opinion — that’s the Supreme Court’s repeated position. Courts have ruled in cases like Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and Plyler v. Doe (1982) that undocumented immigrants are still entitled to basic constitutional rights. That’s part of what it means to be a nation of laws, not one ruled by raw emotion or scapegoating.
ICE is not exempt from the Constitution.
They can enter a business under specific legal circumstances, but they are not granted unlimited power to detain anyone without cause. Warrants and procedures do apply — as ruled in Immigration and Customs Enforcement v. New York and others. Abuse of that power, especially in ways that violate court orders or detain people without due process, is exactly what many Americans are concerned about — not because they “side with criminals,” but because they side with the Constitution.
No one here equated undocumented immigrants with citizens.
What I said — and still stand by — is that respect for rights, due process, and legal procedure shouldn’t be based on anger, fear, or politics. The moment we allow one group to be denied rights based on status or background, it’s only a matter of time before those same tactics are used against others.
And finally, regarding the “dictator” quote:
Trump literally said, “No, no, no — other than day one,” when asked if he would be a dictator. That’s what I referenced. That’s what I quoted. Calling that a lie because it doesn’t fit your narrative isn’t a debate tactic — it’s just denial.
You don’t have to agree with me — but if people reading this care about facts, law, and reason, they can decide for themselves who’s twisting what.
“No Kings” was a focus group tested idea meant to give the liberals a reason to get excited…….
exactly. They needed something t rally for that wasn’t “I Hate Trump” and I be that “support of illegals” didn’t work well in the focus groups.
RJ: An interesting viewpoint: That Noncitizens have the same rights as US citizens. Did I get that right?
I disagree, and so do many of my fellow citizens. You seem to think, (and many leftist do as well) that noncitizens, ILLEGAL entrants, Squatters, if you will) are equal to citizens in every way.
I, and the majority of our fellow citizens (at least those who voted) feel otherwise. SO do the courts.
Let us look at the two cases you cited: Zadvydas v. Davis said the “Indefinite Detention” of illegals that no other country will accept is illegal. Hardly what you claim it said. (Feel free to look it up).. Plyler v. Doe says that illegal immigrant children “cannot be denied an education”. Neither court case discusses Constitutional rights in any other way. Either you did not read the court cases or you were lying when you claimed that they gave Constitutional rights to non-citizens.
Illegal aliens are not citizens, they have basic Miranda rights, and basic human rights, but the Constitution does not apply to them because they are not citizens.
They have the following rights as declared by the courts:
The right to apply for asylum or other forms of protection;
The right to be represented by legal counsel at their own expense;
Protection against indefinite detention.
The other rights are at least so far, reserved for citizens, the courts have not (so far) rules that they have any other right.
(For instance, they cannot vote in elections)
Therefore the Constitutional protections do not apply to noncitizens in the same way that they apply to citizens.
Once again, you are lying in your claims about Constitutional rights granted by the courts to illegals. Even the court cases cited did not apply to Constitutional right….Nice try.
I think we have gone far enough, I really don’t have the time to continue to correct your “misinterpretations” here (be they purposeful or simply ignorant).
Again, if you want to expound on this, or any other topic, and make false claims then you can get your own blog, stop using mine as a way to present your views. Blogger is easy to use. You can set it up in about 15 minutes. It is free. I’ll even link you..
Before moving on, I think it’s fair for me to address being called a liar. You got my take on noncitizen’s rights partially correct but not entirely. If I said they had all the same rights, I misspoke or poorly advocated. Noncitizens do not have all the same rights but they are protected under many of the same constitutional principles—especially when it comes to basic civil liberties and legal protections. And this isn’t simply my opinion focused on my presumed ideology but is grounded in fact and backed up by our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
1.Due Process (5th & 14th Amendments)
All people in the U.S.—citizens or not—are entitled to due process of law.
That includes protections against arbitrary detention or unfair legal proceedings.
2. Equal Protection (14th Amendment)
Noncitizens are protected against discrimination by the government.
Courts have ruled that “person” under the 14th Amendment includes noncitizens.
3. Freedom of Speech and Religion (1st Amendment)
Noncitizens have the right to speak freely, practice religion, assemble, and petition the government.
4. Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures (4th Amendment)
Applies to all people, not just citizens. Law enforcement must follow legal procedures when searching or detaining noncitizens.
5. Right to Legal Counsel (6th Amendment)
Noncitizens facing criminal charges are entitled to a lawyer, a fair trial, and to know the charges against them.
In immigration court, however, there is no guaranteed free attorney—noncitizens can have legal representation, but they must pay for it themselves or find a nonprofit.
Finally got your facts straight.
Good.