I agree it's bad, and yes, the government admitted they shouldn't have done it. But regardless, the question was about if it has happened to a citizen, not a person who maybe could be a citizen one day but is not, and you responded with them "doing just that" when they did not, in fact, "do just that".

I'm not sure why there's a need to mislead when what's actually happening is bad enough.

It's not a need to mislead. You're grasping at a technicality. Citizenship is irrelevant if you're not given the chance to demonstrate it, which he wasn't, and again, he was actually deported because of the administrative error, not an on-purpose action, the correctness of which is irrelevant.

You're arguing whether a car wrapped around a tree has a bad alternator. Surely a fact useful to someone, somewhere, and worth knowing. But also certainly not the reason there's a problem.

100% this. To echo another poster below, it's really important to read the Supreme Court's own words here.

>"The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. " From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

I suspect that is one of the main reasons behind the order. It's very obvious that citizen vs legal resident matters very little here, if due process is not given.

You would agree that this whole discussion would be considered insanity in America like 4 months ago, right?

I thought that’s what half of America wanted just 6 months ago?

Trump didn't even win 50% of the vote.

Less than 25% of people who were eligible to vote voted for him.

Yes, he won the election and was the most popular candidate.

That doesn't mean "half of America wanted him".

Yet his approval rating back in January and February was over 50%. So even those who didn’t bother to vote for him still supported him.

It’s still ~45% now when in any sane world it would be in the single digits..

If they can ignore due process in this case what's to say they cannot do it to proper citizens? It's clear they're probing their way into creating a blueprint to get rid of people critical of trump.

But the administration has now stated they are investigating how to deport citizens as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8gYlWcV6wE&t=1s

She says only the most violent dangerous criminals -- although I feel like we've heard that line before...

So.. the very post you share prooves it's not happening. Incredulously, I gotta wounder: Did/ do you really believe your link supports your claim that it's been happening?

What did I claim? Read what i wrote. The video says EXACTLY what I stated.

So, I think, the courts ruled just 2 days ago that people can get sent abroad so long as they get to 'petition' it in... Texas. Right? So like, if their was an investigation, it closed one day prior to the interview; which is why she didnt say what you think she did. Trump said Would do it, and supposedly now he Can do it. All this is 'fact'in her eyes prior to the interview. An important distinction, no?

So you think it’s sane to do nothing and wait till it’s happening when they are explicitly saying they are looking for ways to make it happen? Really?

At this when they say something absurdly unhinged and unthinkable and if you still don’t believe they will try it.. well.. maybe you’re in the market for a bridge?

None of the Trump admin's excuses for why they "can't" bring back that guy depend on his citizenship status.

>He's married to a citizen which gives him an avenue towards legal residency and full citizenship.

You seem as if you're trying to leverage that to actual citizen rights... "look, he could be a citizen someday, so that means he has these same rights reserved to citizens". But it does not work that way.

>there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens.

Be sure to raise the alarm when they do. I'd be curious if it ever got that far. I think that some on the left worry that it might not, because if they don't have the absurd slippery slope argument then many people would never be concerned about this at all.