Trump team mulls suspending constitutional right of habeas corpus to speed deportations

The sooner these fascists go against the Supreme Court, the sooner the public can wake up to the real character of this administration.

“The Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller told reporters outside the White House on Friday.

Stretching the definition of invasion a bit there but I suppose the usual sycophants, bootlickers and grovellers will applaud and agree.

“So, I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at," Miller said. “Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

The courts will have a better idea of what the right thing is than a PR shill like this Nosferatu-like entity.

The sooner these fascists go against the Supreme Court,

They won’t have to, they will get their wish

the sooner the public can wake up to the real character of this administration.

Which is what they voted for

Americans should be very concerned. 

Stephen Miller made this announcement in response to the Trump administration being ordered by a U.S. District Court judge to free from federal custody Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student and Turkish national.

According to the judge, the **only evidence the U.S. government produced to support detaining Öztürk was a pro-Palestinian opinion piece Öztürk co-wrote for a Tufts student newspaper. The administration has provided no evidence of criminal activity or direct support for a terrorist group, and immigration authorities have not charged her with any crime.**

Although she has been ordered released, the Trump administration’s broader deportation case against Ozturk is expected to proceed in immigration court. The judge’s ruling pertains only to Öztürk’s release from detention.

However, if Öztürk can be tossed out of the country for expressing an opinion contrary to Trump’s, American citizens with contrary opinions can also be targeted through habeas corpus suspension.

Which is what they voted for

Evidence? When did Trump ever suggest on his campaign suspending habeas corpus?

Bobby FranksToday  07:25 am JST

"Which is what they voted for"

Evidence? When did Trump ever suggest on his campaign suspending habeas corpus?

Indeed. Except for, I presume, a loud minority consisting of neo-nazis, I imagine a lot of people who voted for Trump had no idea what the true character of his new regime would turn out to be.

The country is going to the dogs.

bass4funkToday 07:15 am JST

The sooner these fascists go against the Supreme Court,

They won’t have to, they will get their wish

Right, you will get five old lawyers to just say, "That's okay, you do what you need to, Mr. President. The law comes second."

the sooner the public can wake up to the real character of this administration.

Which is what they voted for

People did not vote for troops in the street and they will punish those trying to do so.

Habeas corpus was included in the Constitution as an import from English common law. Parliament enacted the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which was meant to ensure that the king released prisoners when the law did not justify confining them.

A core constitutional document. It just shows that Trump has no interest in democracy or the constitution and is just looking at establishing a dictatorship.

Suspending habeas corpus is seen as a necessary step to restore control over a border crisis as urgent and unsustainable. The current legal process allows illegal aliens to delay or avoid deportation by challenging their detention in court, which clogs the immigration system and weakens enforcement. By suspending habeas corpus, they believe they can streamline the process, reduce backlog, and more effectively enforce immigration laws. This is not about undermining rights, but about using constitutional tools during what they define as an “invasion” to protect national sovereignty and uphold the rule of law and they should do whatever it takes, of course they should follow the appeals process, but at the same time have contingency plans ready in the event if things don’t go their way. You can’t have local judges usurping the executive at every turn, if local and district judges have that power with impunity then there is no need to having a President. Now if the roles were reversed and Republicans judges would do the same thing to a Democrat President, would the same people on this site agree with those conservative judges rulings to stop a Democrat President? I think we know the answer to what you guys would say. So patience is the key, we should hear a ruling on this by summer.

Evidence? When did Trump ever suggest on his campaign suspending habeas corpus?

Trump has a mandate,

January 2025 Axios/Ipsos poll found that 66% of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. This includes 93% of Republicans, 67% of independents, and 43% of Democrats

Now if these activist lib judges will try and slow down this administration from doing what the public voted for, then they will have to seek another way until the Supreme Court rules in their favor.

bass4funkToday 07:49 am JST

Democracy stinks, doesn't it? Maybe go back to building that wall rather than trying to send back students that speak out about Palestine.

Right, you will get five old lawyers to just say, "That's okay, you do what you need to, Mr. President. The law comes second."

And we should hear 4 old lawyers saying no, leave the illegals alone???

People did not vote for troops in the street and they will punish those trying to do so.

Well, it seems like the Dems want more punishment.

bass4funkToday 07:49 am JST

January 2025 Axios/Ipsos poll found that 66% of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. This includes 93% of Republicans, 67% of independents, and 43% of Democrats

1) January 2025 2) Now ask the question about whether they support separating families to do so.

Now if these activist lib judges will try and slow down this administration from doing what the public voted for, then they will have to seek another way until the Supreme Court rules in their favor.

1) They're not going to rule in your favor and 2) the law takes precedence over polls.

Democracy stinks, doesn't it?

Rhetorical question? I was about to ask you the exact same thing.

Maybe go back to building that wall

It’s mostly done

rather than trying to send back students that speak out about Palestine.

They can speak out as long as it’s legal, they do it properly and with a permit and don’t intimidate or harm other students particularly Jewish students.

1) January 2025 2) Now ask the question about whether they support separating families to do so.

They are not, debunked again. The parents will be with the child when they are deported, so the family that will be deported together stays together

1) They're not going to rule in your favor and 2) the law takes precedence over polls

You also said, Trump won’t be President and you said that the Dems will retain the House and Senate….anyway, you say a lot of things

Trump has a mandate, 

*January 2025 Axios/Ipsos poll found that *66% of Americans support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Is Rümeysa Öztürk, the detained Tufts University doctoral student and Turkish national, in the U.S. illegally?

No.

Here’s the question for you Bass:

Is it acceptable for the Trump administration to deport a foreign national in the U.S. legally if the foreign national expresses an opinion that is contrary to Trump’s?

Is it acceptable for the Trump administration to deport a foreign national in the U.S. legally if the foreign national expresses an opinion that is contrary to Trump’s?

Look, while I respect free speech, we have to be honest—being in the U.S. as a foreign national is a privilege, not a guaranteed right. If someone is here on a visa and uses their time in this country to actively oppose U.S. policy or criticize its leaders in ways that could be seen as disruptive or damaging, then it’s fair for the government to take a closer look at whether that person should still be here, so the answer is yes.

We have the right to control who stays in this country, especially when national interest or security might be involved. Citizenship comes with full constitutional protections—but a visa doesn’t guarantee you unlimited freedom to say whatever you want without consequences. Just like any country, the U.S. has the authority to set boundaries.

Perhaps the Supreme Court judges may wish to examine whether Miller and Project 2025 amounts to a concerted attempt to undermine the constitution by indirect means, and could thus be considered a coup attempt.

Look, while I respect free speech, we have to be honest—being in the U.S. as a foreign national is a privilege, not a guaranteed right. If someone is here on a visa and uses their time in this country to actively oppose U.S. policy or criticize its leaders in ways that could be seen as disruptive or damaging, then it’s fair for the government to take a closer look at whether that person should still be here, so the answer is yes.

Fair, that’s the Little Marco response I was expecting.

Stepping forward, is it acceptable for the Trump administration to detain a U.S. citizen who expresses an opinion that, using your words, “actively opposes U.S. policy or criticizes its leaders in ways that could be seen as disruptive or damaging”?

bass4funk

Look, while I respect free speech, we have to be honest—being in the U.S. as a foreign national is a privilege, not a guaranteed right. If someone is here on a visa and uses their time in this country to actively oppose U.S. policy or criticize its leaders in ways that could be seen as disruptive or damaging, then it’s fair for the government to take a closer look at whether that person should still be here, so the answer is yes.

Nope. Free speech is a right for all people in the US, a citizen or on a visa.

bass4funk

Citizenship comes with full constitutional protections—but a visa doesn’t guarantee you unlimited freedom to say whatever you want without consequences.

Actually it does.

bass4funkToday 07:53 am JST

They can speak out as long as it’s legal, they do it properly and with a permit and don’t intimidate or harm other students particularly Jewish students.

47 has tried to send back students writing columns in newspapers. That doesn't need a permit and doesn't intimidate or harm Jewish students.

Trump team mulls suspending constitutional right of habeas corpus to speed deportations

Perfect troll of the liberals by Trump. Let them pop their heads off, posting, commenting, and MSM talking heads blabbing about this so Team Elon can keep cutting the waste and fraud.

bass4funkToday 07:56 am JST

1) January 2025 2) Now ask the question about whether they support separating families to do so.

They are not, debunked again. The parents will be with the child when they are deported, so the family that will be deported together stays together

Utter nonsense. Somewhere someone is choosing to leave a spouse and child in the US because the country they are being deported to is that bad.

1) They're not going to rule in your favor and 2) the law takes precedence over polls

You also said, Trump won’t be President and you said that the Dems will retain the House and Senate….anyway, you say a lot of things

I didn't make any hard predictions about the 2024 election and the polls didn't say Harris was winning either.

Perhaps the Supreme Court judges may wish to examine whether Miller and Project 2025

It was never implemented

amounts to a concerted attempt to undermine the constitution by indirect means, and could thus be considered a coup attempt.

They haven’t that’s why the Dems are frustrated, again, they have 4 years, patience is the key and the Supreme Court has this on their desks already. That’s a critical distinction and now here’s an explanation of why it’s fully acceptable for the government to deport a foreign national for disruptive speech, but not acceptable to detain a U.S. citizen for the same thing and it clearly states this:

Citizenship vs. Legal Presence: U.S. citizens have an unconditional right to live in the country and enjoy full constitutional protections, including the First Amendment right to free speech—even if that speech is critical, unpopular, or politically charged. In contrast, foreign nationals—such as students or visitors—are in the country conditionally, through visas or other temporary statuses. Their presence depends on complying with U.S. laws and the terms of their stay, including conduct that doesn’t raise concerns for public safety, national interest, or immigration integrity.

Sovereign Control Over Borders: The U.S. government has broad authority to regulate immigration and decide who can enter or remain in the country. Deporting a foreign national for violating visa terms—or for engaging in speech or behavior that is considered inconsistent with U.S. interests—is an exercise of sovereign immigration power, not a violation of rights. That same standard cannot and should not apply to U.S. citizens.

Public Safety vs. Political Speech: For foreign nationals, especially those temporarily residing in the U.S., speech that the government interprets as “disruptive” might be seen as grounds for removal—not because of censorship, but because it reflects conduct that contradicts the purpose or conditions of their stay. For citizens, however, “disruptive” political speech is part of democratic life and cannot legally be punished with detention.

In short: It’s fully acceptable to deport a non-citizen for speech deemed harmful by the government because their stay is a privilege, not a right. But it would be unconstitutional to detain a citizen for the same speech, because their rights are not conditional—they’re protected by the very principles that define American democracy.

Every day a new brick in our democracy is being dismantled...and the push towards authoritarianism and fascism continues by Trump and his cabal of criminals...

Miller is one of the creepiest, most sick, degenerates in all of MAGA-fascist-world...

The only savior is our courts, where even Trump's own appointed judges are refusing to go along with his assault and trampling on the Constitution...

bass4funk

Look, while I respect free speech, we have to be honest—being in the U.S. as a foreign national is a privilege, not a guaranteed right. If someone is here on a visa and uses their time in this country to actively oppose U.S. policy or criticize its leaders in ways that could be seen as disruptive or damaging, then it’s fair for the government to take a closer look at whether that person should still be here, so the answer is yes.

You could say the same for American expats and other foreigners living in Japan, but that does not stop you from posting comments about the culture and its leaders.

47 has tried to send back students writing columns in newspapers. That doesn't need a permit and doesn't intimidate or harm Jewish students.

Again, if Jewish students feel threatened or if the protest is illegal and doesn’t follow the guidelines of public assembly and their causing angst and anxiety, they’re breaking the law.

Utter nonsense.

Because you don’t like it? Oh, well…

Somewhere someone is choosing to leave a spouse and child in the US because the country they are being deported to is that bad.

Again, parents and children will not be separated and speaking of separation, the last administration and officials still never mentioned about the whereabouts of the 300k children they lost through their illegal activities of letting millions into our sovereign nation. They never spoke up or about it and that’s because they don’t care, they never did.

I didn't make any hard predictions about the 2024 election

You did

and the polls didn't say Harris was winning either.

They did.

You could say the same for American expats and other foreigners living in Japan,

I don’t protest in Japan

but that does not stop you from posting comments about the culture and its leaders.

When it involves my country, I will, always.

"Oh, that Trump is such a scallywag! He'd never really do that, he's just demonstrating how lovable unpredictable and fun he is! And if he ever really does it, it will only be used for good, like throwing people into jail who are mean to him and who don't donate enough to his coffers. And democrats, all democrats should be jailed!"

bass4funk

You could say the same for American expats and other foreigners living in Japan,

> I don’t protest in Japan

A Turkish female student was arrested for writing an article on Palestinians. A federal judge had her released. She didn't protest but thought the US had free speech.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus will affect all the people, not just illegals.

bass4funk

In short: It’s fully acceptable to deport a non-citizen for speech deemed harmful by the government because their stay is a privilege, not a right. But it would be unconstitutional to detain a citizen for the same speech, because their rights are not conditional—they’re protected by the very principles that define American democracy.

Nope. The first amendment covers all people, citizens and non-citizens.

Anyway, let him do it. Supreme Court probably won't stop it, and if they do he'll just ignore them as usual. America needs the ultimate hard reset. If that means it takes a period of straight up authoritarianism to get the idiots to see what's happening, then so be it. Seventy-something million of them will welcome it anyway, another seventy-something million will oppose it, and the rest will just wonder when Monster Trucks is on TV. I'm almost certainly never going to go back there, so it's easier for me to say, but the country is basically just begging for a dictator type figure to do all their thinking for them.

Stick a fork in the place. It's done.

here’s an explanation of why it’s fully acceptable for the government to deport a foreign national for disruptive speech, but not acceptable to detain a U.S. citizen for the same thing and it clearly states this:

Citizenship vs. Legal Presence: 

Bass, we can all feed questions into our AI apps and get these responses. You don’t need to do that for us.

What do YOU think? Can you generate a response without AI?

YOU are not required to have fealty to Trump. YOU are not required to post the administration’s talking points. YOU can think independently!

Disagreeing with Trump is acceptable.

YOU never answered my question, by the way. Care to to take a swing?

Is it acceptable for the Trump administration to detain a U.S. citizen who expresses an opinion that, using your words, “actively opposes U.S. policy or criticizes its leaders in ways that could be seen as disruptive or damaging”?

A Turkish female student was arrested for writing an article on Palestinians. A federal judge had her released. She didn't protest but thought the US had free speech.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus will affect all the people, not just illegals.

No, just the ones that are disruptive to the order of the U.S. and as I have outlined, foreign students are not immune from deportation. We are not talking about American citizens.

bass4funk

*Again, if Jewish students feel threatened, they [legal foreign residents] are breaking the law.*

So whenever a national feels threatened by the presence of a foreigner, the foreigner should be charged with “breaking the law”?

Bass, really?

I know you don’t truly believe that.

Think independently. Stop trying to support and justify a poor position. You’re not a robot!

Anyway, let him do it.

Absolutely

Supreme Court probably won't stop it, and if they do he'll just ignore them as usual.

To keep his mandate promise, in some form or fashion to go around it, probably, but I don’t think it will come to that.

America needs the ultimate hard reset.

We just had one, couldn’t have been more clearer last November.

If that means it takes a period of straight up authoritarianism to get the idiots to see what's happening, then so be it. Seventy-something million of them will welcome it anyway, another seventy-something million will oppose it, and the rest will just wonder when Monster Trucks is on TV. I'm almost certainly never going to go back there, so it's easier for me to say, but the country is basically just begging for a dictator type figure to do all their thinking for them.*

That kind of thinking—welcoming authoritarianism as some kind of “reset”—is not only reckless, it’s fundamentally un-American. The Constitution wasn’t written for when times are easy—it was built to protect our rights especially when things get hard. Calling for a dictator just because democracy feels messy or slow is a betrayal of every principle that built the country in the first place, libs just throw words around and call people anything when they have a fit, you guys aren’t kids.

And yes, America is divided. Yes, a lot of people are frustrated. But abandoning the rule of law, encouraging a president to ignore the Supreme Court, and cheering on authoritarianism doesn’t fix anything—it destroys what little is left. The idea that 70 million people would cheer for a dictator assumes they actually want to be ruled, not represented. That’s a gross underestimation of the American people, even the ones you disagree with, come on now! Lol

Stick a fork in the place. It's done

And no, America isn’t “done.” It’s challenged. And if you care about it—even from a distance—you should be rooting for reform, not ruin. Letting go of democracy to “teach a lesson” is exactly how countries fall into chaos, not how they rebuild.

*So whenever a national feels threatened by the presence of a foreigner, the foreigner should be charged with “breaking the law”?*

Depending on the situation.

Bass, really? 

Yes Bobby, really.

I know you don’t truly believe that. 

I have always believed that since I was in college

Think independently. Stop trying to support and justify a poor position. You’re not a robot!

I am and always have been a proud independent American Nationalist.

No, just the ones that are disruptive to the order of the U.S.

And who determines “the ones that are disruptive”? The Trump administration, right?

And habeas corpus can be suspended for U.S. citizens too. There’s precedent. Question your AI app.

Bass, we can all feed questions into our AI apps and get these responses. You don’t need to do that for us.

Well, if that is something you feel like doing, then that is your prerogative, is it not?

What do YOU think? Can you generate a response without AI?

Can you ask a question without AI?

YOU are not required to have fealty to Trump. YOU are not required to post the administration’s talking points. YOU can think independently!

Which is what I am doing, so I’m not sure what else I can tell you.

Disagreeing with Trump is acceptable.

And I will do so when I think there is an issue which needs to have disagreement

YOU never answered my question, by the way. Care to to take a swing?

Which is something I do best

Is it acceptable for the Trump administration to detain a U.S. citizen who expresses an opinion that, using your words, “actively opposes U.S. policy or criticizes its leaders in ways that could be seen as disruptive or damaging”?

I answered your question already. Scroll up.

--Anyway, let him do it. 

Absolutely

Habeas corpus can only be suspended by Congress, not the President or Steven Miller or Pam Bondi.

In times of war or invasion.

The U.S. facing neither.

Steven Miller is one sick puppy.

Habeas corpus can only be suspended by Congress, not the President or Steven Miller or Pam Bondi.

Did Biden consult congress when he allowed in millions of illegals? Yes or no?

In times of war or invasion.

Bingo!

The U.S. facing neither.

That’s not what 66% of Americans feel.

Steven Miller is one sick puppy.

Well, that’s how many of us felt about Myorkas

Did Biden consult congress when he allowed in millions of illegals? Yes or no?

No. Because that was not an act of President Biden. Allowing something to happen is not a presidential act.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

--The U.S. facing neither.

That’s not what 66% of Americans feel.

I doubt that's an accurate assessment. And besides, the law is not adjudicated on the basis of what people feel.

We are not talking about U.S. citizens.

Yes, we are!

You pasted, “For citizens, however, ‘disruptive’ political speech is part of democratic life and cannot legally be punished with detention.”

YOU wrote “For citizens.” You can’t suddenly claim “we’re not talking about citizens.”

Why so fearful of answering a simple question? Here it is again:

Are YOU are in agreement with what you pasted above: “‘disruptive’ political speech [by U.S. citizens] is part of democratic life and cannot legally be punished with detention.” 

Would YOU support any moves by the Trump administration contrary to this precept?

I always have the courage to respond, never met a lib that intimidated me yet.

First, I’m not liberal. Second, you ran from both questions. That’s fear, not courage.

Step up, Bass.

No. Because that was not an act of President Biden.

He allowed it though

Allowing something to happen is not a presidential act.

Doesn’t matter, he didn’t stop it

This has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

And to you as well.

I doubt that's an accurate assessment.

It was, it was from Axios, not exactly a bastion of a conservative news outlet

And besides, the law is not adjudicated on the basis of what people feel

Gosh, I wish Dems would have follow their own words the last 4 years…but no…

Yes, we are! 

No, we’re not

You pasted, “For citizens, however, ‘disruptive’ political speech is part of democratic life and cannot legally be punished with detention.”

That does not apply or extend to non-citizens particularly if they have engaged in disruptive and political activities

YOU wrote “For citizens.” You can’t suddenly claim “we’re not talking about citizens.”

But we are not.

Why so fearful of answering a simple question? Here it is again:

I am not fearful, no reason to be.

Are YOU are in agreement with what you pasted above: “‘disruptive’ political speech [by U.S. citizens] is part of democratic life and cannot legally be punished with detention.” 

Would YOU support any moves by the Trump administration contrary to this precept?

**I answered already**.

First, I’m not liberal.

Well, you are definitely not a conservative, so that kind of narrows it down…

Second, you ran from both questions.

I didn’t and wouldn’t

That’s fear, not courage.

I’m debating you now, so wrong again.

Step up, Bass.

Always.

We voted for getting all these illegals out of our country.

so if habeas corpus needs to be suspended to do it, let’s get on with it.

the generous offer to self deport was mad.

so anyone who didn’t take advantage of that is an “invader” who has shown their intention to never leave.

And we also need to work on some laws.

ones that say no due process for non citizens and that allow canceling of visas for anti-American speech or action.

immediate deportation for both.

bass4funkToday  09:20 am JST

So whenever a national **feels** threatened by the presence of a foreigner, the foreigner should be charged with “breaking the law”?

Depending on the situation.

Don't you think that when someone is charged with a crime, there should be at least a strong possibility that they have actually committed a crime? There doesn't seem to be any crime at all in this case.

"I know you don’t truly believe that."

I have always believed that since I was in college

Did you ever report any foreigners to the police because you felt threatened by them, or ever hear of anyone else doing the same? How did it work out?