TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @MonBreeden
@MonBreeden - Monica
💜💥 Good Explanation of Illegal Immigration Due Process 💥Limited rights. https://t.co/o6Ox8B1ZxC
Video Transcript AI Summary
Immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, matters. In criminal cases, all are entitled to constitutional due process rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that aliens trying to enter the country have no due process rights, and once in the country illegally, they have limited due process rights as determined by Congress. These rights include the ability to state their case before someone in the executive branch, not necessarily a judicial tribunal.
The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, regardless of immigration status. However, in immigration cases, aliens are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge (an employee of the Justice Department), and can appeal to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (also within the Justice Department). Federal law does not allow appeals to a federal district court judge; the sole appeal is to federal courts of appeals.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, part of the problem here is people are confusing different kinds of government procedures, and they're ignoring what the Supreme Court's already said about this. And what I mean by that is immigration proceedings are civil matters. They're not criminal matters. It's true that in a criminal matter, if the government, for example, is gonna prosecute you for murder, yeah, you are entitled to constitutional due process rights whether you're an alien or a citizen. But when it comes to, an immigration issue, if you are an alien who's in the country illegally and the government is moving against you, that's a civil matter.
And what the Supreme Court has said in several cases on that issue is that if you are an alien trying to enter the country, you have no due process rights. The government can reject you for any reason or no reason. Once you're in the country, yeah, you do have limited due process rights. But, again, what the Supreme Court has said is, those due process rights are what congress decides to give you. And in fact, even, for example, for, legal resident aliens, what the supreme court has said is, in prior cases, is that due process rights means that the ability of the alien to appear before someone to state their case, whether it is in the executive branch, it doesn't have to be a judicial tribunal.
And so if you look at the immigration laws, they only provide certain due process rights. You, for example, are not entitled to a lawyer from the government. The government doesn't have to, read you your rights, when they arrest and detain you. So your rights are are limited. And in fact, there are many particular cases where the, immigration law says that, for example, the judiciary has no jurisdiction.
So, again, it depends on the alien, what kind of case it is, and their status.
Speaker 1: I wonder though if that is complicating the topic a little bit because the Fifth Amendment, as you well know, provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And the Supreme Court has held that people, regardless of their immigration status, come under the heading of person and that therefore they are basically entitled to due process. So it seems to me there's a bit of, frankly, with all due respect, hair splitting going on in your case, when in fact the right seems pretty clear.
Speaker 0: Well, if you wanna blame hair splitting, then blame it on the US Supreme Court. Because, again, you're confusing a criminal case with a civil case. I mean, for example, again, if you're an alien, and the government says you're illegally in the country, you are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, not not a federal district court judge under article three, but an immigration judge. Immigration judges are actually employees of the justice department. If you disagree with what that judge says, if the judge says you're not entitled to be in The US, you have the right to appeal that case to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals.
Again, that is within the justice department. The judges there are employees of the justice department. If you disagree with that, federal law does not allow you to appeal to a federal district court judge. Your sole appeal is to federal courts of appeals. So for example, federal district court judges right now who are hearing cases from, aliens who have a deportation order lodged against them because they already had their hearing before an immigration judge, Those judges are actually violating federal law by even considering the case.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Congressman Mark Green is clear about deportation: due process ends when a judge issues a deportation order. He feels the American people can see who the real good guys are, while he thinks the left prioritizes criminals over the safety of citizens.
@MonBreeden - Monica
🔥Congressman Mark Green speaks truth: 💥Regarding deporting illegals, the due process has occurred and is over when the deportation order is issued by a judge. 💥The American people do recognize who the good guy really is; and the left doesn’t know a good guy from a bad guy. 💥The left has a full-throated defense of criminals over the safety of Americans.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Once a deportation order is issued, due process is over, having occurred prior to the judge's decision, often with NGO assistance. Over a million people are being appropriately deported. No lawyer is offered at that point. The left defends criminals over American safety and the rule of law, even defending a congresswoman who punched a police officer. This defense of criminals and attacks on law enforcement caused them to lose swing states.
The Biden administration refuses to detain criminals. The left doesn't know a good guy from a bad guy, coddling violent criminals and wanting to defund ICE. Cutting a deal with Iran and destabilizing the Middle East led to the invasion of Israel. The American people rejected them because they don't know a good person from a bad one. Criminals and cartels have stopped making billions trafficking humans. Border patrol and law enforcement support these statements. Judges execute removal orders after due process.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wanna make a clarification here because there's been so many incredibly false and misleading things said today. Once a deportation order has been issued, the due process is over. The due process occurs prior to that where the judge makes a decision with the information, oftentimes the help of NGOs, sometimes in the past funded by the federal government. But the judge makes issues in order, and there's well over a million people in this situation that are being deported appropriately. No lawyer is offered at that point.
The judge has made a decision. The due process has already occurred. It's really important to make that point. People are not inhuman or violating the law. They're following the law.
They're executing an order that's been presented by a judge. I saw a meme somewhere this week that said a society that makes war on its law enforcement better learn how to make friends with its criminals. You know, I've said this before. The the left has this incredible heart for the criminal. They they defend the criminal, full throated defense of criminals over the safety of Americans and the following of the rule of law.
We've even seen the defense of a congressman congresswoman who threw a punch at a police officer. I mean, that's that's unconscionable. You know, if I was a % politician, and I'm not, but if I was a % politician, I'd be happy with that. Why? Because that's exactly the reason they lost every single swing state in the recent election, the border.
This full throated defense of criminals and the punching of law enforcement in the face. It's why they lost every single swing state, and Republicans gained in almost every state more votes than we'd ever gotten before. Because the American people recognize who the good guy really is, and it ain't Trinidad or a guy who was driving eight women, young women through my state, and the Biden administration said, do not detain him. As I've said before, the left doesn't know a good guy from a bad guy. They street violent criminals, and they want a deep bond ice.
That's been their mantra since I've been in this position. It's ridiculous. It's heinous. And, yes, if I were a pure politician, I'd say keep going, guys. But what it does is it breaks my heart.
I am a combat veteran, and I have a kindred connection to those law enforcement agencies and agents who put their ass on the line, their lives on the line for our safety. And we're fussing about whether or not the guy has a mask on to protect his identity when he's an undercover agent. I don't know how many people made an issue out of that. Give me a break. Wanna cut a deal with Iran, destabilize the Middle East, punch Saudi Arabia in the face, we get an imbalance.
And what happens? An invasion of Israel. They don't know a good person from a bad person. That's why the American people said, we don't want them in charge. Again, if I were pure politician, I'd say, keep going, guys.
But it's a spit in the face for the men who wear that uniform. It's a charade. That's what that that's what it is. It's a charade to say something about law enforcement and turn around and be okay with a US Congresswoman punching a police officer in the back. It's infuriating.
Madam secretary, you have done a remarkable job. And what's happening now is the criminals and the cartels have stopped making billions of dollars trafficking human beings into our country. Thank you for that. And the texts and tweets that I've gotten from border patrol and the texts and tweets I've gotten from law enforcement all across this country during this hearing support everything I'm saying. Thank you.
And I I charge you to keep going. Keep doing it. That judge executes that removal order, get them out of here. They've had their due process. And you will have our full throated support as you continue to do so.
And we will work very hard to get reconciliation passed so you have the resources, and we can codify the common sense policies that this president has enacted with your leadership. Thank you for being here. Thank the staff for all the work they do to put these on. We stand adjourned.
@MonBreeden - Monica
Re: Politically connected NGOs: 🇺🇸💥💜The American People deserve access to the books of any entity that takes government money and all info about how it is used. 💥That is our money, and now it’s time, the NGOs need to answer to us.
@MonBreeden - Monica
Elon Musk, ‘co-president’?! Katie Britt, Thank you for reminding the Democrats about all the co-presidents for Biden that were never complained about when grifting was allowed. https://t.co/k849mo6ZJu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that financial systems face unprecedented risks due to economic chaos from President Trump and Elon Musk.
Another speaker states that Trump ran on curbing wasteful spending, citing the $36 trillion national debt as fiscally and morally irresponsible. They claim Trump is the final decision-maker, contrasting this with the previous administration where key decisions were allegedly made by others, possibly during the president's "afternoon nap time." The speaker suggests labeling figures like Jake Sullivan, Ron Klain, and Jill Biden as "co-presidents" during that time and calls for honesty regarding past and present events.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are in an unprecedented moment. Our financial systems are facing huge risks from the economic chaos of president Trump and his co president, Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: President Trump ran on this. I mean, he said, we're going to look for wasteful spending across our government. We're $36,000,000,000,000 in debt, y'all. That's not only fiscally irresponsible. It is actually morally irresponsible.
And the difference in this administration and the last administration is that president Trump is actually the final arbiter. And it's interesting that none of you had anything to say over the last four years when it is clear that our commander in chief was not in command. And if we're gonna use the term co president, then let's go back and say co president Jake Sullivan, co president Ron Klain, co president Jill Biden. I mean, it it seems that some of the biggest decisions were made during the president's afternoon nap time. And so I just think we need to be a little bit more honest about what's been laid out and what's actually occurring.
@MonBreeden - Monica
Claims Trump is ruining her life by signing an EO protecting parents from being sued by their kids without good cause. This girl sued her parents for “having me without my permission” received $5,000 a month. Feeling entitled is not a law. Thank God we are returning back to normalcy.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump's executive orders continue to negatively impact my life. After he was elected, I lost access to government assistance, relying instead on the $5,000 monthly payments I received from suing my parents for giving birth to me without my consent.
I was managing, especially since my parents had already bought me a house. Now, my parents are claiming a new executive order prevents them from having to pay me, stating it protects people from frivolous lawsuits from their kids. They say suing for being born doesn't qualify as "good cause".
I don't understand how this order affects a closed case that's been paying out for six years. I suspect they're lying, and I plan to take them back to court. I'm personally affected by so many of these executive orders and I'm extremely angry about it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Trump is continuing to find new ways to ruin my life. So I told you guys, when he got elected, he signed some executive order, and, basically, it stopped me from getting any government assistance, any food stamps, Medicaid, whatever. And so with that, I've been living off the money I get from suing my parents for having me without my permission. And so I was getting $5,000 a month from that. And I had to make a lot of cuts, but, you know, I was like, that's $60,000 a year.
I can do it, especially because my house is paid off. My parents bought it for me. Well, now my parents told me that they legally don't have to send that money anymore because of some executive order. Whatever the fucking executive order is. Some executive order that was signed protecting people from being sued by their kids without, like, good cause and apparently suing your parents for having you without your permission is not a good cause.
I don't know. I don't think that that is even legal because the case was already closed. I've been getting this money for years. I think it's, like, six years now. So I don't understand how that executive order affects this at all.
So I'm probably still gonna take them to court because I think they're lying. I don't even know. I don't haven't even seen this executive order, so I don't even know. But there's been, like, a bajillion executive order signed that have affected me personally, and I'm pissed about it.
@MonBreeden - Monica
The liberals’ DOGE conversation: It’s not about what was found!!! It’s about who did the finding!! Waste, fraud, and abuse by our government will never be okay! https://t.co/A0lWrsTeAp
Video Transcript AI Summary
I think it's one thing to criticize Elon Musk or Doge, but to only do that and criticize the way Elon talks about or uncovers fraud and waste, and not the waste and fraud itself, reminds me of a situation. Imagine you confront someone about cheating with evidence, and they respond with, "You went through my phone? How can we be together if you don't trust me?". Can we not talk about what was found now?
It's the same thing here. If you find issues with the way things are being done, but there's no mention of what was found, which should bother you, then we have a problem.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is hands down the best analogy for what's currently going on with our government, and I'm here for it. I love it so much. Don't mind my bangs. I feel like something weird is going on here, but whatever. Enjoy.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it would be one thing to maybe criticize Elon Musk or criticize Doge, but to only do that and criticize the way in which maybe Elon talks about the fraud or uncovers the fraud and the waste and not the waste and fraud itself. Reminds me of the guy where if you confront him about you're cheating on me, here's the evidence and he goes, you went through my phone? How am I supposed to be with you if you can't trust me? That is so Like, can we not talk about what was found now? Yes.
Apparently not. It's the exact same thing. Because you think if you don't, if you find some issues with the weight, but there's no mention from some of these people about what was found, which should bother you. Yeah. That's a great analogy.
@MonBreeden - Monica
🔥FAUCI: ℙ𝕣𝕠𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕥𝕚𝕞𝕖! Lost loved ones will never come back, and too many lives were ruined because of the actions of Dr. Fauci, the most evil person on the planet. 💥No more protection for your crimes! 💥Justice must be served for the entire world. https://t.co/5ViaTMucsH
Video Transcript AI Summary
In an interview, it was suggested that institutions should make it difficult for people to live their lives unless they get vaccinated. This would lead schools and corporations to require vaccinations for attendance or employment. The idea is that when faced with challenges, people may abandon their objections and get vaccinated. However, not all objections to COVID vaccinations are ideological. A specific case was mentioned where a woman lost her job after seeking a vaccine exemption for medical reasons related to her desire to get pregnant. This situation highlights the impact of vaccine mandates on personal medical decisions and raises concerns about the implications for individual rights in America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said in an interview that you gave as part of an audiobook written by Michael Spector, that you believed an institutionals should make it hard for people to to live their lives so they'd feel pressured to get vaccinated. Could we re re, run the audio clip on that, please?
Speaker 1: Do you think can be done about it? I have to say that I don't see a big solution other than some sort of mandatory vaccination. I know federal officials don't like to use that term. Once people feel empowered and protected legally, you are gonna have schools, universities, and colleges. They're gonna say, you wanna come to this college, buddy?
You're gonna get vaccinated. Lady, you're gonna get vaccinated. Yeah. Big corporations like Amazon and Facebook and and and all of those others are gonna say, you wanna work for us? You get vaccinated.
And it's been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Are all objections to COVID vaccinations ideological bullshit, doctor Fauci? No. They're not. And this is not
Speaker 1: what I was referring to.
Speaker 0: Well, in reference to making it hard for people to get education, traveling, working, I'd say it very much was in context. And I take great offense to this. Miss Allison Williams testified before this committee about losing her job because she sought an exemption for ESPN's vaccine mandate which came from recommendation from bureaucrats like yourself. She and her husband were actively working with a fertility expert, a physician, on how to get pregnant and agreed with the premise that she was young, healthy, want to get pregnant, and shouldn't get the vaccination for medical purposes. But she was fired because you made it hard, just like you said in your statement, because you didn't wanna make sure that the ideological bullshit got in the way of her working, of living her life, of making a medical decision with her healthcare professional.
I think, America should take great offense to this.