LA explodes over ICE raids. More peaceful protesting by law-abiding illegals. HAHAHA

T. A. Gardner said:
It's more that "four blocks."

www.newsweek.com

LA riots map shows where National Guard clashes are taking place

President Donald Trump called for more troops to enter Los Angeles amid rioting that stemmed from protests against immigration raids.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

There's a map embedded in the article.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t, look at your map, the got nine encounters over four or five blocks, the map depicts where the Guard’d deployment, not activity, and it pales in comparison of whole neighborhoods in conflict back during the riots

Bottom line, L A didn’t need the Guard, their employment was strictly a political move motivated move by Trump
 
archives said:
Bullshit, four blocks of LA for four nights is incomparable to the attempted coup of 1/6, in fact, the whole incident might have subsided by now if your Messiah didn’t purposely escalate the event by sending in the Marines
Click to expand...
J6 coup? HAHAHAHA. They were just protesting a stolen election. It was pelosi's goon squad that turned it into a riot.
 
archives said:
They are not even close, ain’t any buildings burning, an entire city on edge, in fact, these “riots” are pretty much contained to just four blocks, that is four blocks in a city close to 500 Sq miles, life in the rest of LA goes on as normal

You got to turn the channel every now tha then
Click to expand...
I think you're right. The corporate media is making a huge fuss over this in hopes it will make trump look bad. It's not working.
 
Earl said:
Expedited removal is a process that allows immigration authorities to quickly deport certain non-citizens who are deemed inadmissible, often without a hearing before an immigration judge.
Click to expand...
Try reading carefully and comprehensively before your fingers hit the keys, genius. I highlighted the parts that folk like you are too willfully ignorant to look up themselves:

... Undocumented immigrants placed in expedited removal proceedings are entitled to access the asylum system if they express fear of persecution, torture, or of returning to their home country.
... However, the expedited removal statute has certain narrow protections for people who indicate a fear of persecution or torture, or an intent to apply for asylum.

... If an individual seeks to apply for asylum, or is afraid of returning to their home country, an immigration officer must refer them to a credible fear interview (CFI). An asylum officer must then conduct a CFI, which is usually over the phone as individuals in custody are often detained far from the asylum officers.

... Before deportation, the individual may challenge the asylum officer’s finding by requesting a hearing before an immigration judge, who must review the case “to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days.” The judge’s review is limited solely to assessing whether the individual’s fear is credible.

... The use of expedited removal to deport people has generally risen substantially over the past two decades. Numbers peaked in FY 2013 when approximately 197,000 people were deported from the United States through expedited removal, which represented 46 percent of the 432,000 removals from the United States that year. The use of expedited removal fell significantly during fiscal years 2020 to 2023 when “Title 42” (a pandemic-related health policy permitting the rapid expulsion of migrants without access to asylum) was in effect. Since Title 42 ended in May 2023, immigration officers have placed over 20,000 migrants each month in the expedited removal process.

... Individuals placed in expedited removal generally have no right to challenge their deportation in federal court, thanks to jurisdiction-stripping provisions in the 1996 law which created the process. This means that even where an immigration officer acted unlawfully in issuing an order of expedited removal, a noncitizen is severely restricted in their ability to challenge that decision. Individuals may only bring a lawsuit challenging their expedited removal order if they are a lawful permanent resident, or someone already determined to be a refugee or granted asylum, who has been wrongfully subject to expedited removal. In 2020, the Supreme Court upheld this law, finding that it did not violate the right to habeas corpus or due process.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/expedited-removal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top