So we have a US born American citizen being held without trial

[Lionfish]

Being denied bail is not a violation of anyone's civil rights. Being denied bail means they had a bail hearing and the judge determined they were a risk.

What judge? Did they face a judge?

 

[Bai Lan]

According to treaties the US is party to any member of an invading army is subject to the Geneva convention. Are you saying that gang members need to be treated as enemy combatants?

not all armies are state armies.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm not Catholic, and you aren't a priest.

Sorry about your condition, Terry, but you should know that it doesn't take a priest nor a Catholic to forgive someone.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I do, but due process isn't some magic words. It has strict limits. What you seem to argue is that it's an endless process.

Due process ends with final appeal. But it MUST start with an unbiased fact finder. The problem isn't when it ends in this case of Garcia, the problem is that it never started.

 

[Bai Lan]

Sorry about your condition, Terry, but you should know that it doesn't take a priest nor a Catholic to forgive someone.

why don't you just fuck off already.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

not all armies are state armies.

I never said they were, but if you claim they are an invading army then they are protected by the Geneva Convention and must be treated accordingly.

 

[Bai Lan]

Due process ends with final appeal. But it MUST start with an unbiased fact finder. The problem isn't when it ends in this case of Garcia, the problem is that it never started.

this is why you lost.

 

[Bai Lan]

I never said they were, but if you claim they are an invading army then they are protected by the Geneva Convention and must be treated accordingly.

not all armies are state armies.

non state armies are not covered by the geneva convention.

that's for states.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

this is why you lost.

No. That is why Trump lost in circuit court, lost at the appeals court, lost at the USSC, then lost again at the circuit court and lost again at the appeals court.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

not all armies are state armies.

non state armies are not covered by the geneva convention.

that's for states.

The convention doesn't require that it be state armies.

Art 2
...
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of
the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets
with no armed resistance.
...
Art 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in
the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict
shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: ...

 

[Bai Lan]

The convention doesn't require that it be state armies.

Art 2
...
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of
the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets
with no armed resistance.
...
Art 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in
the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict
shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: ...

non state armies are not party to the convention.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

non state armies are not party to the convention.

The US is party to the convention. They are required to abide by it even if their adversary is not party to it.

 

[Bai Lan]

The US is party to the convention. They are required to abide by it even if their adversary is not party to it.

no they aren't.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

no they aren't.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present
Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it

 

[Bai Lan]

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present
Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it

nah fuck all that.

are terrorists a POWER?

of course not.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

nah fuck all that.

are terrorists a POWER?

of course not.

An invasion requires they by a power. You are doing a good job of destroying your own argument.

 

[Truth Detector]

So we have a US born American citizen being held without trial. Everyone knows he is not an illegal alien, but illegal aliens do not have the right to question whether they are an illegal alien, so he cannot get free, even though he is not an illegal alien.

Fascism is, among other things, weird.

U.S.-born American citizen under ICE hold in Florida after driving from Georgia

Juan Carlos Gomez-Lopez is being held even though a county judge found his birth certificate “authentic” and said there wasn’t reason to consider him an “illegal alien.”

www.yahoo.com

Trump didn't have him arrested. He was handed to ICE by Florida State Troopers who had conducted the arrest.

He was released once he was able to prove he had a birth certificate. What's the big deal?

 

[Tobytone]

Some were held without bail, but not without a hearing. They were arraigned like any other criminal. Getting a hearing does not automatically mean you will get bail.


One more time, he was born in the USA. He has a birth certificate to prove it. He does not need parole from anyone. He is not an alien of any sort. He is a US citizen, as much as trump is.


Not a foreigner. Life long US citizen. US citizen from birth. Does not need parole.


trump ended citizenship? Did he do it for himself too?


Mexico does not recognize dual citizenship, so he would be a resident of Mexico, and a citizen of the USA. So I guess Mexico could deport him, but trump is not supposed to be able to.


Wow, you have really lost it.

Hey Wally, have you geniuses figured out you’ve been played like cheap fiddles yet again? Your precious "prisoner" wasn’t rotting in some gulag. He breezed through a standard 24-hour ICE hold, the kind they slap on everyone in these cases, and was out before you could finish your tantrum. This story conveniently skips every crucial fact to whip you and your fellow drones into a frothing, clueless hissy fit over absolutely nothing. So, what’s the deal when you sheep wake up and realize you’ve been suckered like brain-dead pawns for clicks and cash? Do you rage? Shrug off the betrayal? Or just pop another dose of libtard kool-aid, blissfully stumbling into the next manufactured outrage? I’m genuinely curious if you even grasp what I’m saying here.

 

[Bai Lan]

An invasion requires they by a power. You are doing a good job of destroying your own argument.

obviously not, if non powers can invade.

this is why you lost.

 

[Truth Detector]

No, you're wrong:
**
Birthright citizenship is explicitly guaranteed to anyone born under the legal "jurisdiction" of the U.S. federal government by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:


**
Source:

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suspect what you're actually getting at is Trump's opposition to this law. From the same article as above:
**
Upon taking office in 2025, President Trump issued an executive order asserting that the federal government would not recognize jus soli birthright citizenship for the children of non-citizens. The executive order has been challenged in court, and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking its implementation, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."
**

Also from the same article, a poll showed that most Americans oppose changes to the birthright citizenship law:
**
According to a January 2025 Associated Press poll, a majority (51%) of Americans oppose changes to the birthright citizenship in the United States, while 28% are in favor of Trump's Day 1 action and 20% are undecided.
**

The Constitution does not contain a birthright to citizenship. That is a fabricated argument not found in the Constitution.

It's about as lame as the Separation clause. Yet there isn't one. It's the Establishment clause.

Leftist Socialist Democrats love to redefine shit to fit their dumb narratives.