Yep, would be pretty bad if they were deporting random people off the street. Silver lining from having a surveillance state that knows everything about you.

But practically, is that feasible when illegal immigration goes unchecked for four years and you have millions of people to process? Seems to me that that becomes a point of failure that is being exploited. Bury the other political party with an insurmountable amount of work and endless negative publicity.

How long to determine how they arrived?

America was created by settlers who built a nation from scratch, which is a tad bit different from Guatemalans walking across the border in the year 2025.

With that understanding of the world and history, I’m sure you’re constantly bewildered

The blue collar U.S. citizen that dares to speak his mind

nostr:nevent1qqsr8hwhrh2rc4u9x5yzqwsvtjeh4039gae5ngwrdsmmu3xa7vwv2zgpz3mhxw309ucnydewxqhrqt338g6rsd3e9upzqqgd7ry53l56k4xjedl2gg8l5zx409vfsxmw568g8248avka8uz6qvzqqqqqqyfpyz8t

From my understanding, those numbers were greatly distorted because they were counting turnaway’s as deportations. That is no longer happening.

Have you listened to the latest Common Sense with Dan Carlin Lyn? Carlin was the first person I ever sent bitcoin to and he's been talking about civil liberties being stripped away for 30 years. He calls this his bias.

He read a letter from Abraham Lincoln to William H. Herndon, 15 February 1848. It's a powerful letter and I've been thinking about it in the context of the new administration ever sense. Trump is taking the opposite side of the first Republican president on this issue. I would love to hear your thoughts about it.

"Dear William:

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night- Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you– Let me first state what I understand to be your position– It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the constitution, cross the line, and invade the teritory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge–

Before going further, consider well whether this is, or is not your position– If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken– Their only positions are first, that the soil was ours where hostilities commenced, and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President, for that reason was bound to defend it, both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact, as you can prove that your house is not mine. That soil was not ours; and Congress did not annex or attempt to

(Page 2)

annex it– But to return to your position: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, is to and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose– and you allow him to make war at pleasure– Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose– If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you dont"–

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons—Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object– This, our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us– But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where Kings have always stood. Write soon again–

Yours truly,

A Lincoln"

“due process” is a term leftists like to throw around when their “Maryland Man” narrative broke down. Same with the word “democracy”.

I suppose it’s how we define it. If someone is caught with no documentation, they have a right to a hearing before deportation in case they’ve lost their papers or there’s some administrative mistake. Fine. But years of release during multiple appeals should be out.

In theory due process sounds like the right thing but have you seen due process in the States? It's a shit show. Without a costly lawyer to defend you from the judicial tyrants the end result will likely be the same. I'm guessing most immigrants are not able to afford that kind of help.

I'm not suggesting skip due process... simply that in this case it won't matter much.