• FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    What exactly do you think in the bit you highlighted proves you right?

    Can you read?

    I’m asking myself the same thing about you based on this conversation.

    • JonsJava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Let’s say that the trump admin is deporting gangs. Cool. Gangs are NOT NATIONS OR GOVERNMENTS.

      love how you ignored the protections and jurisdictions bit…

      Your still wrong.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Explain how your Mental gymnastics is twisting the literal text into something it’s not, and I’ll apologize. Give me a line by line of the actual text, not an interpretation. I came with facts. You’ve come with feelings.

        Your entire point is based on the fact that only congress can declare war, and the act can only be invoked during war.

        That point is 100% incorrect, as shown by your own links. Your own links say it can also be invoked during an invasion, and that an invasion can be declared by the President.

        I haven’t come with “feelings”, I’ve come with facts - fact that you have also provided but misunderstood.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Ugh “max comment depth”…response to your NEXT comment is here:

        Huh? I literally just responded to your comment:

        Gangs are NOT NATIONS OR GOVERNMENTS

        to point out that the act is allowed to be invoked when there is an invasion or predatory incursion coming from a foreign nation. I was pointing out where your point is wrong…and you then start talking about planes full of migrants?

        Love the choice of language too - “migrants” rather than what they all are, which is “illegal immigrants”. “without due process” has already been explained - the act that we’re talking about means that a different “due process” is now in play, one which they did follow.

        • JonsJava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          You do realize I’m talking about the planes full of migrants deported without due process, not just one case, right?

        • JonsJava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Explain how your Mental gymnastics is twisting the literal text into something it’s not, and I’ll apologize. Give me a line by line of the actual text, not an interpretation. I came with facts. You’ve come with feelings.