Um, no. Literally none of what other people do is relevant to if a specific person committed a crime.
And, again, there is no 'justice' here. He is not accused of a crime. Stop defending some sort of hypothetical criminal charges. You do get that this government is overtly fascist, right? They are literally deporting other people to foreign torture camps right now without a trial. They are revoking the visa of a woman they _admit_ merely wrote an entirely reasonable op-ed, and had absolutely nothing do with any protests and said nothing antisemitic, under this exact provision.
You might want to ask yourself: Wait, the fascist government clearly wants to go after foreigners and people protesting Palestine, is entirely possible this situation is a 'Things Germans were told about Jews leading up to fascism and have I been lied to' setup, that some of the things you 'know' here might be broad generalizations about isolated incidents that are used to further a political agency of outright evil against a specific group, like foreigners.
I think I'll write an article about that, something like 'Hey, now that it's clear the right has been leading us to overt fascism for years, maybe people want to re-evaluate some of the stuff that media has been saying about certain outgroups during that time'.
The ACA does not define a lot of stuff. It leaves a huge chunk of the rules that insurance companies have to follow to the executive branch. Exactly like this law does with foreign policy, also set by the executive. You really hit the nail on the head there.
However, rules that government has about health insurance and how not to beat the law are published the government itself. These are called 'regulations'. It's a whole giant metaphorical book (Really it's online) that lays out, in _excruciating_ detail, exactly what health insurance companies had to do to comply with the ACA. These regulations are something that executive agencies do, a system create a created by a set of laws that do a lot of things, but the important thing I should mention is that they take years to change, have notification and enactment periods, etc, etc, etc. There's never a surprise.
Now, let's go back to what we were talking about, which was the foreign policy of the US. It's hard to notice this, but there isn't a giant book of that. In fact, not only is some of it secret, some of it is literally classified. A good chunk of that is considered, constitutionally, outside of anyone's control besides the president...the courts probably cannot even _demand_ to know it.
And, thus, people cannot be ordered to follow it. The courts are not going to accept 'You must attempt to subvert US foreign policy goals, a thing that exists mostly inside the president's head, and in a bunch of secret places, and even when formally stated, is not actually specific enough for any individual to understand what actions they are allowed to do' as law that anyone is allowed to be held to, unlike 'You must not break these Federal regulations that were enacted and publish pursuant to a law telling the executive to make these regulations', which it will enforce.
And also that's not even what the law say, even if that does seem to be what the Trump administration is arguing. The law seems to allow deportation if you have have a foreign policy impact at all, which is wildly broader.
Also, and I feel this bears mentioning: The President had an advisor do a Na.zi salute at the inauguration. It actually isn't clear that one of the US's foreign policy goals _is_ still to reduce antisemitism. I say that mostly as joke pointing out the hypocrisy, but to be honest, this is why this does not make any sense and isn't something that would be allowed by a court. US Foreign policy exists entirely within, and at the whim of, Trump's brain. Other people cannot know it except as he states is. Which he usually does by communicating with the State Department in ways that are not particularly visible to the public.
people have been asking for this for years. now they’re getting it.
Oh, good, it's the fun trick of 'Making random insinuations that the other side does this but not actually stating what they are because it turns out the claims are incredibly weak'.
Wait, wait, I stand corrected, the president thinks we can deport citizens now.
Although I'm not sure if they'd be deportable under _this_ law, or if laws are even things that might still exist in any manner or we just operate by the whim of the president.
BTW, am I misremembering, or did an immigrant do something that resembled Na.zi salute twice at the presidential inauguration? The president of Belarus said about that, and I quote, 'They cannot say anything to justify it. This is an open Na.zi salute, the Americans and Mr. Musk have simply taken this too far.'
That feels like it might actually qualify as 'adverse foreign policy consequences', having the American people in general being accused of openly be Na.zis by a foreign leader! Clearly that gesture has damaged how Belarus sees us! Even if this 'Mr. Musk' did it _completely accidentally_ (I dunno, someone should check if he does this sort of stuff all the time), it still had adverse foreign policy consequences.
Although I'm not sure if those consequences would qualify as 'serious'. But it's certainly more serious than some antisemitic said by random protestors at a protest.
Did anything ever happen with that Mr. Musk guy?
*check notes*
Oh, he's apparently a citizen now. I guess the US government can't do anything about him.
When does this end up in front of an Immigration Judge?
Luckily, it appears this one _will_ in up in front of a judge. Who will likely slap it down.
Judges have actually questioned the constitutionality of this part of immigration law, on two separate grounds. The first is the obvious 'The government is not supposed to make laws restricting freedom of speech', but there's actually a more important objection!
Specifically, that law is literally unknowable, you cannot know what behavior is disallowed under it, and thus it cannot be valid law. This is, hilariously, a level _above_ the first amendment, above constitutionality. You can't pass laws that do not clearly explain what people cannot do, that people cannot read and understand what behavior is barred.
US foreign policy is not only gigantic, it's _not entirely public_. And it's not specifically 'US foreign policy' anyway, it's 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United State'. You can be deported under it because some other country objected to something you did in a way that caused foreign policy implications for the US.
In other words, this law appears to requires an immigrant to somehow _determine the entire foreign policy of the entire planet_. How on earth is anyone supposed to know how every random country in the world is going to react to everything they say? Hell, even if they did try to research that, again, foreign policy is not a list of regulations people can follow.
Moreover, that itself has strange first amendment implications, as now other countries can punish people in the US for their speech by using US law. All Russia, for example, has to do is say 'We do not like what that immigrant in the US said about Putin, thus we are less likely to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine', and that allows the US government to somehow punish that immigrant by deporting them? What?
The US government can't punish people for their speech because the US government doesn't like it, so the idea that US government can punish people for their speech because _other countries_ do not like that speech is just flatly absurd.
The only reason this law is still on the books is that literally no one has ever been deported under _just_ it. It's been included on reasons before, but never by itself, and I'm not sure the _speech_ part (The part that requires the Sec of State to personally sign off on it.) ever has been used.
Relatedly, man, conspiracy theorizers are so keen on finding evidence of a conspiracy that they’ll latch onto literally anything. Though Slade already said that better than I.
Yeah, the thing I was pointing out is that the idea that Covid was active in Wuhan in October (Which actually, as a conspiracy theory, is not too unbelievable.) completely undermined one of the big claims about a lab leak, in that a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology got sick _after that_, which is, itself, claimed to be the lab leak.
Ad yet this article seems to think it _helps_ that theory. Because that's how conspiracy theories work. Anything that they can even vaguely paint as supportive is listed, even when it's directly contradicting other parts of the theory.
It's like how 9/11 Truthers will seize on the fact that the leaseholder of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, got an insurance policy a few months in advance that 'covered terrorism'. When in reality almost no insurance excluded terrorism at the time, and also the tower _had been the site of a previous terrorist attack_ (Which also was covered!), so, duh, probably should make sure any new insurance covers that...although taht would be easy because you'd have to deliberately find a policy that didn't. Also, he got that insurance two months before because _that is when he was required to insure the place because he had just become the leaseholder_. But this 'He got insurance right before that covered it!' allows conspiracy theorists to claim he was warned or knew about the attack.
Hey, weird idea: If the government came to me and said 'The thing you literally just signed a lease on and are now legally required to buy insurance for...might want to make sure that insurance covers terrorism', I'd be WTF are you talking about?! Do you know something? And I certainly wouldn't stay quiet when a terrorist attack happened two months later!
He lost a boatload of money there. He did manage to sue under the grounds it was two incidents instead of one so the damage-per-incident cap should be twice (Which feels like clever lawyering, but I can't object.) and got like 1.3 the damage cap, but he did not make out well on that entire thing at all. (Not that I feel sorry for billionaires, but objective it was pretty bad for him.) Trying to bring him into the conspiracy significantly weakens it, but conspiracy theorists do not actually care about logic.
It's worth pointing out how insane this article is, because it postulates this somehow _confirms_ the lab-leak theory.
When in fact it does the opposite, because a huge chunk of the lab leak theory is that a researcher in the Wuhan Institute of Virology because sick with something that might have been Covid (although it was tested and appears not, but let's ignore that) in _November_ 2019.
Work the timeline with me here:
The incubation period for covid is 2-3 days, and we can postulate a few more days before it becomes bad enough that someone is going to the hospital for what would appear to be a cold. So let's say a week. And let's pick the first possible interpretation of 'November' and go with November 1st. That means the first possible date they could have it and be infecting people is October 24th or so.
So, if that researcher who got sick is Patient Zero...those seven service member, all of who had left the country by October 27th, would all have to be infected by that researcher, right? Literally all of them? Because there's no time for someone else to have been infected and passed it on.
What, is the premise that this researcher somehow _participated_ in these war games? That seems very unlikely and something someone would have mentioned.
Even if you try to fit one additional infection in there, it still seems incredibly unlikely. Basically, this is postulating that of the first ten or so people infected by Covid, 70% somehow happened to be visiting US soldiers! That can't make sense. (Barring additional conspiracies, but you have now officially left 'lab leak'.)
And this is on top of the idea that the researcher got sick November 1st, which...probably isn't true. Like, that's a pretty silly assumption to have allowed to start with.
No, if you have the virus around enough to infect _seven American service members_, people who presumably did not have free reign of the city and would be with the US military, then it seems extremely likely that Covid was pretty widespread by that point.
Which is in fact what a lot of people actually think, that China covered up the infection for a month or so. Which honestly doesn't sound implausible, and I think that theory, unlike a lot of conspiracy theories, could easily be true, although it as it's almost impossible to tell the difference between 'did not know' and 'willfully ignored', we'll never know.
But the virus starting that early completely destroys one of the main premises of the lab leak theory, because that sick researcher is way too late to be the cause of anything.
You know, these phrases it much better than I can:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/04/today-on-the-shadow-docket-assisting-trumps-arbitrary-deportations-to-slave-prisons
Seriously, imagine saying this with a straight face: The majority also said detainees under the act “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” The majority emphasized that it wasn’t ruling on the government’s interpretation of the act itself.
In other words, what is happening is not legal, the government must allow people to seek habeas relief before removal, but we're going to remove the TRO currently stopping the government from continuing its actions of removing people without habeas relief. But they better not do that anymore!
What the utter hell are the conservatives on the court smoking? How is this even slightly supposed to be credible?
2 weeks ago
The conservatives on the Supreme Court go for 'complete and abject rejection of reality' as a way to deal with things:
They are openly asserting that of course 'the detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal', while their decision removes the only thing stopping the only order from being removed without challenge.
They're basically just trying to pretend 'Yes, the Trump administration has to follow the constitution, and OF COURSE we would stop them from failing to do so, if challenged, but until that point we're not going to let the lower court restrict their behavior'
Or, to quote them: "This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country — the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through TROs"
SENDING PEOPLE TO A FOREIGN PRISON IS NOT TIME-SENSITIVE, YOU FASCIST APOLOGISTS. NO ONE IS SAYING THEY CANNOT BE DETAINED, JUST THAT THEY CANNOT BE SHIPPED TO A PLACE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS LITERALLY CURRENTLY ARGUING IN COURT IT CANNOT RECOVER PEOPLE FROM IF SENT THERE BY ACCIDENT.
It's honestly amazing. I would point out they are burning their crediblity on this, but that would require pretending they had any to start with.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Um, no. Literally none of what other people do is relevant to if a specific person committed a crime.
And, again, there is no 'justice' here. He is not accused of a crime. Stop defending some sort of hypothetical criminal charges. You do get that this government is overtly fascist, right? They are literally deporting other people to foreign torture camps right now without a trial. They are revoking the visa of a woman they _admit_ merely wrote an entirely reasonable op-ed, and had absolutely nothing do with any protests and said nothing antisemitic, under this exact provision.
You might want to ask yourself: Wait, the fascist government clearly wants to go after foreigners and people protesting Palestine, is entirely possible this situation is a 'Things Germans were told about Jews leading up to fascism and have I been lied to' setup, that some of the things you 'know' here might be broad generalizations about isolated incidents that are used to further a political agency of outright evil against a specific group, like foreigners.
I think I'll write an article about that, something like 'Hey, now that it's clear the right has been leading us to overt fascism for years, maybe people want to re-evaluate some of the stuff that media has been saying about certain outgroups during that time'.
That was just the immigration judge saying it wasn't her job to question the determination.
That always was going to be the outcome there.
There's another court case, apparently, challenging the law itself. Which is the correct thing to challenge.
The ACA does not define a lot of stuff. It leaves a huge chunk of the rules that insurance companies have to follow to the executive branch. Exactly like this law does with foreign policy, also set by the executive. You really hit the nail on the head there.
However, rules that government has about health insurance and how not to beat the law are published the government itself. These are called 'regulations'. It's a whole giant metaphorical book (Really it's online) that lays out, in _excruciating_ detail, exactly what health insurance companies had to do to comply with the ACA. These regulations are something that executive agencies do, a system create a created by a set of laws that do a lot of things, but the important thing I should mention is that they take years to change, have notification and enactment periods, etc, etc, etc. There's never a surprise.
Now, let's go back to what we were talking about, which was the foreign policy of the US. It's hard to notice this, but there isn't a giant book of that. In fact, not only is some of it secret, some of it is literally classified. A good chunk of that is considered, constitutionally, outside of anyone's control besides the president...the courts probably cannot even _demand_ to know it.
And, thus, people cannot be ordered to follow it. The courts are not going to accept 'You must attempt to subvert US foreign policy goals, a thing that exists mostly inside the president's head, and in a bunch of secret places, and even when formally stated, is not actually specific enough for any individual to understand what actions they are allowed to do' as law that anyone is allowed to be held to, unlike 'You must not break these Federal regulations that were enacted and publish pursuant to a law telling the executive to make these regulations', which it will enforce.
And also that's not even what the law say, even if that does seem to be what the Trump administration is arguing. The law seems to allow deportation if you have have a foreign policy impact at all, which is wildly broader.
Also, and I feel this bears mentioning: The President had an advisor do a Na.zi salute at the inauguration. It actually isn't clear that one of the US's foreign policy goals _is_ still to reduce antisemitism. I say that mostly as joke pointing out the hypocrisy, but to be honest, this is why this does not make any sense and isn't something that would be allowed by a court. US Foreign policy exists entirely within, and at the whim of, Trump's brain. Other people cannot know it except as he states is. Which he usually does by communicating with the State Department in ways that are not particularly visible to the public.
Oh, good, it's the fun trick of 'Making random insinuations that the other side does this but not actually stating what they are because it turns out the claims are incredibly weak'.
Do you know how we determine that people do illegal activities in this country?
We charge them with crimes and convict them of those crimes.
He has not even been charged with any crimes. At all.
Wait, wait, I stand corrected, the president thinks we can deport citizens now.
Although I'm not sure if they'd be deportable under _this_ law, or if laws are even things that might still exist in any manner or we just operate by the whim of the president.
BTW, am I misremembering, or did an immigrant do something that resembled Na.zi salute twice at the presidential inauguration? The president of Belarus said about that, and I quote, 'They cannot say anything to justify it. This is an open Na.zi salute, the Americans and Mr. Musk have simply taken this too far.'
That feels like it might actually qualify as 'adverse foreign policy consequences', having the American people in general being accused of openly be Na.zis by a foreign leader! Clearly that gesture has damaged how Belarus sees us! Even if this 'Mr. Musk' did it _completely accidentally_ (I dunno, someone should check if he does this sort of stuff all the time), it still had adverse foreign policy consequences.
Although I'm not sure if those consequences would qualify as 'serious'. But it's certainly more serious than some antisemitic said by random protestors at a protest.
Did anything ever happen with that Mr. Musk guy?
*check notes*
Oh, he's apparently a citizen now. I guess the US government can't do anything about him.
Luckily, it appears this one _will_ in up in front of a judge. Who will likely slap it down.
Judges have actually questioned the constitutionality of this part of immigration law, on two separate grounds. The first is the obvious 'The government is not supposed to make laws restricting freedom of speech', but there's actually a more important objection!
Specifically, that law is literally unknowable, you cannot know what behavior is disallowed under it, and thus it cannot be valid law. This is, hilariously, a level _above_ the first amendment, above constitutionality. You can't pass laws that do not clearly explain what people cannot do, that people cannot read and understand what behavior is barred.
US foreign policy is not only gigantic, it's _not entirely public_. And it's not specifically 'US foreign policy' anyway, it's 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United State'. You can be deported under it because some other country objected to something you did in a way that caused foreign policy implications for the US.
In other words, this law appears to requires an immigrant to somehow _determine the entire foreign policy of the entire planet_. How on earth is anyone supposed to know how every random country in the world is going to react to everything they say? Hell, even if they did try to research that, again, foreign policy is not a list of regulations people can follow.
Moreover, that itself has strange first amendment implications, as now other countries can punish people in the US for their speech by using US law. All Russia, for example, has to do is say 'We do not like what that immigrant in the US said about Putin, thus we are less likely to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine', and that allows the US government to somehow punish that immigrant by deporting them? What?
The US government can't punish people for their speech because the US government doesn't like it, so the idea that US government can punish people for their speech because _other countries_ do not like that speech is just flatly absurd.
The only reason this law is still on the books is that literally no one has ever been deported under _just_ it. It's been included on reasons before, but never by itself, and I'm not sure the _speech_ part (The part that requires the Sec of State to personally sign off on it.) ever has been used.
Everyone understands the Trump administration could just ask and get him back.
The question is what happens when they claim they cannot.
You...think he's lying about the people he directly quoted and usually linked to the quotes of int he article?
Go anti-woke, go broke:
https://www.vox.com/on-the-right-newsletter/407623/trump-tariff-culture-war-hanania-khan-ferguson
Yeah, the thing I was pointing out is that the idea that Covid was active in Wuhan in October (Which actually, as a conspiracy theory, is not too unbelievable.) completely undermined one of the big claims about a lab leak, in that a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology got sick _after that_, which is, itself, claimed to be the lab leak.
Ad yet this article seems to think it _helps_ that theory. Because that's how conspiracy theories work. Anything that they can even vaguely paint as supportive is listed, even when it's directly contradicting other parts of the theory.
It's like how 9/11 Truthers will seize on the fact that the leaseholder of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, got an insurance policy a few months in advance that 'covered terrorism'. When in reality almost no insurance excluded terrorism at the time, and also the tower _had been the site of a previous terrorist attack_ (Which also was covered!), so, duh, probably should make sure any new insurance covers that...although taht would be easy because you'd have to deliberately find a policy that didn't. Also, he got that insurance two months before because _that is when he was required to insure the place because he had just become the leaseholder_. But this 'He got insurance right before that covered it!' allows conspiracy theorists to claim he was warned or knew about the attack.
Hey, weird idea: If the government came to me and said 'The thing you literally just signed a lease on and are now legally required to buy insurance for...might want to make sure that insurance covers terrorism', I'd be WTF are you talking about?! Do you know something? And I certainly wouldn't stay quiet when a terrorist attack happened two months later!
He lost a boatload of money there. He did manage to sue under the grounds it was two incidents instead of one so the damage-per-incident cap should be twice (Which feels like clever lawyering, but I can't object.) and got like 1.3 the damage cap, but he did not make out well on that entire thing at all. (Not that I feel sorry for billionaires, but objective it was pretty bad for him.) Trying to bring him into the conspiracy significantly weakens it, but conspiracy theorists do not actually care about logic.
It's worth pointing out how insane this article is, because it postulates this somehow _confirms_ the lab-leak theory.
When in fact it does the opposite, because a huge chunk of the lab leak theory is that a researcher in the Wuhan Institute of Virology because sick with something that might have been Covid (although it was tested and appears not, but let's ignore that) in _November_ 2019.
Work the timeline with me here:
The incubation period for covid is 2-3 days, and we can postulate a few more days before it becomes bad enough that someone is going to the hospital for what would appear to be a cold. So let's say a week. And let's pick the first possible interpretation of 'November' and go with November 1st. That means the first possible date they could have it and be infecting people is October 24th or so.
So, if that researcher who got sick is Patient Zero...those seven service member, all of who had left the country by October 27th, would all have to be infected by that researcher, right? Literally all of them? Because there's no time for someone else to have been infected and passed it on.
What, is the premise that this researcher somehow _participated_ in these war games? That seems very unlikely and something someone would have mentioned.
Even if you try to fit one additional infection in there, it still seems incredibly unlikely. Basically, this is postulating that of the first ten or so people infected by Covid, 70% somehow happened to be visiting US soldiers! That can't make sense. (Barring additional conspiracies, but you have now officially left 'lab leak'.)
And this is on top of the idea that the researcher got sick November 1st, which...probably isn't true. Like, that's a pretty silly assumption to have allowed to start with.
No, if you have the virus around enough to infect _seven American service members_, people who presumably did not have free reign of the city and would be with the US military, then it seems extremely likely that Covid was pretty widespread by that point.
Which is in fact what a lot of people actually think, that China covered up the infection for a month or so. Which honestly doesn't sound implausible, and I think that theory, unlike a lot of conspiracy theories, could easily be true, although it as it's almost impossible to tell the difference between 'did not know' and 'willfully ignored', we'll never know.
But the virus starting that early completely destroys one of the main premises of the lab leak theory, because that sick researcher is way too late to be the cause of anything.
You know, these phrases it much better than I can:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/04/today-on-the-shadow-docket-assisting-trumps-arbitrary-deportations-to-slave-prisons
Seriously, imagine saying this with a straight face: The majority also said detainees under the act “must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” The majority emphasized that it wasn’t ruling on the government’s interpretation of the act itself.
In other words, what is happening is not legal, the government must allow people to seek habeas relief before removal, but we're going to remove the TRO currently stopping the government from continuing its actions of removing people without habeas relief. But they better not do that anymore!
What the utter hell are the conservatives on the court smoking? How is this even slightly supposed to be credible?
The conservatives on the Supreme Court go for 'complete and abject rejection of reality' as a way to deal with things:
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-trump-alien-enemies-act-judge-boasberg-rcna199052
They are openly asserting that of course 'the detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal', while their decision removes the only thing stopping the only order from being removed without challenge.
They're basically just trying to pretend 'Yes, the Trump administration has to follow the constitution, and OF COURSE we would stop them from failing to do so, if challenged, but until that point we're not going to let the lower court restrict their behavior'
Or, to quote them: "This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country — the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through TROs"
SENDING PEOPLE TO A FOREIGN PRISON IS NOT TIME-SENSITIVE, YOU FASCIST APOLOGISTS. NO ONE IS SAYING THEY CANNOT BE DETAINED, JUST THAT THEY CANNOT BE SHIPPED TO A PLACE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS LITERALLY CURRENTLY ARGUING IN COURT IT CANNOT RECOVER PEOPLE FROM IF SENT THERE BY ACCIDENT.
It's honestly amazing. I would point out they are burning their crediblity on this, but that would require pretending they had any to start with.