Because the War on Al-Queso deserves its own thread.
QuotePresident Trump's Harsh Immigration Policy Is Now a Reality
New Homeland Security Department memos prioritize almost all undocumented immigrants for deportation, order the hiring of 10,000 more agents, and more.
The Atlantic
The Department of Homeland Security issued new memos on Tuesday that give U.S. officials sweeping latitude to target "removable aliens" for deportation, effectively making most of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as priority targets.
The memos, issued by Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, enforce executive orders issued by Trump shortly after taking office. Obama administration policies previously directed immigration officials to focus on convicted criminals instead of the broader undocumented population. Kelly's memos instruct agents to also prioritize undocumented immigrants who have been charged with a crime but not convicted of it, or committed an act that may be criminal offenses but haven't been charged for it. Those categories mean that almost any brush with the American law-enforcement system could make an undocumented immigrant a target for removal.
The memo also prioritizes those who "engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency" or abused a public-benefit program. That could include undocumented immigrants who use fake Social Security numbers to obtain employment, for example. Finally, the memo includes a catch-all category authorizing immigration officials to remove anyone who they believe to pose a "risk to public safety or national security."
Neither of the memos alter U.S. immigration laws. Instead, they rely on the broad discretion granted to immigration officials by federal statutes to redirect limited resources towards specific enforcement priorities. Under the Obama administration, those priorities typically focused on undocumented immigrants who committed serious crimes. Tuesday's memos instead give U.S. immigration officials far broader latitude on who can be targeted and why.
To help implement the new policies, Kelly also formally authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire 10,000 new officials. A second memo signed by Kelly on Tuesday that focuses on operations along the U.S. border ordered the hiring of 5,000 new Customs and Border Protection Agents. Those positions would be exempt from the general hiring freeze imposed by Trump in his initial wave of executive orders.
For Trump's supporters, Tuesday's orders come as the first step in fulfilling a central campaign pledge. Few issues animated his presidential run as much as his vociferous opposition to illegal immigration, which included calls for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and an aggressive effort to deport illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those stances, combined with Trump's racist comments comparing Mexican immigrants to murderers and rapists, also drew intense criticism from pro-immigration organizations and civil-rights groups.
"These memos confirm that the Trump administration is willing to trample on due process, human decency, the well-being of our communities, and even protections for vulnerable children, in pursuit of a hyper-aggressive mass deportation policy," Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "However, President Trump does not have the last word here — the courts and the public will not allow this un-American dream to become reality."
Kelly's memos also expanded the tools U.S. immigration agencies can use. It authorized federal agencies to expand the 287(g) program, which deputizes state and local law-enforcement departments to enforce some aspects of U.S. immigration laws. According to the memo, 32 agencies in 16 states are currently participating in it. The Marshall Project reported that more than 175,000 people were deported through the program between 2006 and 2013.
Other provisions shift resources toward victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, whom Trump frequently invoked on the campaign trail. The memo also orders ICE to publicly release statistical reports on a monthly basis about undocumented immigrants it apprehends, their country of citizenship, any gang affiliations, and other data.
One of those reports will target so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal agencies enforcing immigration laws. Under the directive, ICE will release data on non-federal jurisdictions that release non-citizens from custody despite requests from ICE or other immigration agencies to hold them. The data will include each non-citizen's nation of origin, immigration status, previous and subsequent criminal convictions, and a reason why the ICE hold request wasn't honored—a clear effort to publicly highlight jurisdictions that refuse to help the Trump administration's efforts against undocumented immigrants.
But amid the hardline realignment of U.S. immigration policy, the memos also had a notable exception: The Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields from immediate deportation undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children. That program's fate—and the fate of its estimated 750,000 participants in the program—will be addressed in "future guidance," the memo said.
QuoteThe Post's View
Opinion
The Trump administration's blueprint for mass removals, with a streak of cruelty
The Editorial Board
IN THE fiscal year that ended last fall, the number of undocumented immigrants apprehended on the southwestern border was just a quarter the number in 2000 and less than half the annual count during most of George W. Bush's administration. Although last year's apprehensions in the Southwest rose from the previous year — largely because of unaccompanied minors and families from Central America seeking refugee status — the overall number was among the lowest since the turn of the century.
Nonetheless, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly has somehow conjured what he called a "surge of illegal immigration at the southern border [that] has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources and created a significant national security vulnerability to the United States." Mr. Kelly's unfounded rhetoric is contained in a memorandum, released Tuesday, that provides an inventive rationale to justify the Trump administration's overbroad expansion of deportation efforts. The effect of the new DHS guidelines is to sharply expand the pool of immigrants designated as priorities for deportation.
They do so by various means, including widening the targets of expedited deportation proceedings, until now limited to undocumented immigrants in the country for no more than two weeks and living within 100 miles of the border, to people who entered in the past two years and live anywhere in the nation — a cohort estimated at 800,000 to 1.1 million people. They also target not only people convicted of serious crimes but also those convicted of minor infractions, such as using a false Social Security number to get a job.
The guidelines' subsidiary effects are just as concerning. They compromise law enforcement efforts in counties and cities nationwide by expanding efforts to deputize local police to act as federal deportation agents. That could chill cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and immigrant neighborhoods. The document sends a message of fear through many of America's immigrant communities — not just the estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants, but also their spouses, children and other relatives living legally in the United States.
Administration officials sought to ease such concerns by offering assurances that some enforcement measures will be implemented gradually, including an effort to return Central American refugees to Mexico as they await hearings on asylum claims. That will rely on coordination with Mexican authorities, whose cooperation may be dimmed by Mr. Trump's hostility and his insistence that Mexico will pay for a wall it vehemently opposes.
Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, likes to echo Mr. Trump's comment that he has "a big heart," the supposed evidence being that the DHS guidelines do not, for now, aim deportation efforts at "dreamers" — the 750,000 young people given work permits and temporarily shielded from removal by the Obama administration. While that is welcome, in other respects a streak of cruelty runs through the new policy. For instance, it seeks to deter the entry of unaccompanied minors by threatening to prosecute parents if they paid smugglers to help their children cross the border. Deterrence is a fair goal if achieved by humane means. In this case, the administration's policies will break up families and harm people leading peaceable lives.
You know Seedy---you have a pretty damn good resume for a cushy ICE job. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 21, 2017, 11:35:10 PM
Because the War on Al-Queso deserves its own thread.
QuotePresident Trump's Harsh Immigration Policy Is Now a Reality
New Homeland Security Department memos prioritize almost all undocumented immigrants for deportation, order the hiring of 10,000 more agents, and more.
The Atlantic
The Department of Homeland Security issued new memos on Tuesday that give U.S. officials sweeping latitude to target "removable aliens" for deportation, effectively making most of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as priority targets.
The memos, issued by Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, enforce executive orders issued by Trump shortly after taking office. Obama administration policies previously directed immigration officials to focus on convicted criminals instead of the broader undocumented population. Kelly's memos instruct agents to also prioritize undocumented immigrants who have been charged with a crime but not convicted of it, or committed an act that may be criminal offenses but haven't been charged for it. Those categories mean that almost any brush with the American law-enforcement system could make an undocumented immigrant a target for removal.
The memo also prioritizes those who "engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency" or abused a public-benefit program. That could include undocumented immigrants who use fake Social Security numbers to obtain employment, for example. Finally, the memo includes a catch-all category authorizing immigration officials to remove anyone who they believe to pose a "risk to public safety or national security."
Neither of the memos alter U.S. immigration laws. Instead, they rely on the broad discretion granted to immigration officials by federal statutes to redirect limited resources towards specific enforcement priorities. Under the Obama administration, those priorities typically focused on undocumented immigrants who committed serious crimes. Tuesday's memos instead give U.S. immigration officials far broader latitude on who can be targeted and why.
To help implement the new policies, Kelly also formally authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire 10,000 new officials. A second memo signed by Kelly on Tuesday that focuses on operations along the U.S. border ordered the hiring of 5,000 new Customs and Border Protection Agents. Those positions would be exempt from the general hiring freeze imposed by Trump in his initial wave of executive orders.
For Trump's supporters, Tuesday's orders come as the first step in fulfilling a central campaign pledge. Few issues animated his presidential run as much as his vociferous opposition to illegal immigration, which included calls for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and an aggressive effort to deport illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those stances, combined with Trump's racist comments comparing Mexican immigrants to murderers and rapists, also drew intense criticism from pro-immigration organizations and civil-rights groups.
"These memos confirm that the Trump administration is willing to trample on due process, human decency, the well-being of our communities, and even protections for vulnerable children, in pursuit of a hyper-aggressive mass deportation policy," Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "However, President Trump does not have the last word here — the courts and the public will not allow this un-American dream to become reality."
Kelly's memos also expanded the tools U.S. immigration agencies can use. It authorized federal agencies to expand the 287(g) program, which deputizes state and local law-enforcement departments to enforce some aspects of U.S. immigration laws. According to the memo, 32 agencies in 16 states are currently participating in it. The Marshall Project reported that more than 175,000 people were deported through the program between 2006 and 2013.
Other provisions shift resources toward victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, whom Trump frequently invoked on the campaign trail. The memo also orders ICE to publicly release statistical reports on a monthly basis about undocumented immigrants it apprehends, their country of citizenship, any gang affiliations, and other data.
One of those reports will target so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal agencies enforcing immigration laws. Under the directive, ICE will release data on non-federal jurisdictions that release non-citizens from custody despite requests from ICE or other immigration agencies to hold them. The data will include each non-citizen's nation of origin, immigration status, previous and subsequent criminal convictions, and a reason why the ICE hold request wasn't honored—a clear effort to publicly highlight jurisdictions that refuse to help the Trump administration's efforts against undocumented immigrants.
But amid the hardline realignment of U.S. immigration policy, the memos also had a notable exception: The Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields from immediate deportation undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children. That program's fate—and the fate of its estimated 750,000 participants in the program—will be addressed in "future guidance," the memo said.
Hiring 10k
Seedy you can spreken ze espanol can't you.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2017, 11:38:21 PM
You know Seedy---you have a pretty damn good resume for a cushy ICE job. :)
Meh, I did more than my share watching INS deportation officers breaking up entire families on Friday afternoons when I wrote immigration bails, thanks. I'll pass this time around.
Oh, and fuck working for the Federal government. They have no problem jacking up zero-turn lawn mower drivers, but you have to wait 6 months for a fucking stapler? All fucking GSs must fucking hang.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 21, 2017, 11:38:48 PM
Seedy you can spreken ze espanol can't you.
ADONDE EL BANO POR FAVOR? ES AQUI? GRACIAS!
Only skimmed, saw no mention of a funding bill.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 21, 2017, 11:38:21 PM
You know Seedy---you have a pretty damn good resume for a cushy ICE job. :)
Work from the inside! CountdeSchindler!
wo ist die bahnhof gracias? Eine cerveza por favor, danke!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2017, 11:55:04 PM
Only skimmed, saw no mention of a funding bill.
They'll make up for it by reassigning budgetary priorities. One federal agency's loss is another agency's gain.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2017, 12:02:13 AM
They'll make up for it by reassigning budgetary priorities. One federal agency's loss is another agency's gain.
Illegal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2017, 12:04:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2017, 12:02:13 AM
They'll make up for it by reassigning budgetary priorities. One federal agency's loss is another agency's gain.
Illegal.
We'll see once we get out of Continuing Resolutionland, and FY19 budgets start getting put together.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2017, 12:00:23 AM
wo ist die bahnhof gracias? Eine cerveza por favor, danke!
That's a German tourist in Mallorca.
Quote from: Zanza on February 22, 2017, 12:09:15 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2017, 12:00:23 AM
wo ist die bahnhof gracias? Eine cerveza por favor, danke!
That's a German tourist in Mallorca.
Also known as Sperman
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2017, 11:55:04 PM
Only skimmed, saw no mention of a funding bill.
doesn't really matter, does it? The local police are paid by the States, cities&counties. Even if deputized, the Feds don't handle the bill, I guess?
As for ICE, well, they will go over budget, the Congress will increase their credit for next year to cover for the deficit. It's not like the Republicans really want to oppose Trump.
QuoteThe Opinion Pages | Editorial
Mr. Trump's 'Deportation Force' Prepares an Assault on American Values
The Failing New York Times
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
FEB. 21, 2017
The homeland security secretary, John Kelly, issued a remarkable pair of memos on Tuesday. They are the battle plan for the "deportation force" President Trump promised in the campaign.
They are remarkable for how completely they turn sensible immigration policies upside down and backward. For how they seek to make the deportation machinery more extreme and frightening (and expensive), to the detriment of deeply held American values.
A quick flashback: The Obama administration recognized that millions of unauthorized immigrants, especially those with citizen children and strong ties to their communities and this country, deserved a chance to stay and get right with the law. It tried to focus on deporting dangerous criminals, national-security threats and recent border crossers.
Mr. Kelly has swept away those notions. He makes practically every deportable person a deportation priority. He wants everybody, starting with those who have been convicted of any crime, no matter how petty or old. Proportionality, discretion, the idea that some convictions are unjust, the principles behind criminal-justice reform — these concepts do not apply.
The targets now don't even have to be criminals. They could simply have been accused of a crime (that is, still presumed "innocent") or have done something that makes an immigration agent believe that they might possibly face charges.
Mr. Kelly included a catchall provision allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers or Border Patrol agents — or local police officers or sheriff's deputies — to take in anyone they think could be "a risk to public safety or national security." That is a recipe for policing abuses and racial profiling, a possibility that Mr. Kelly will vastly expand if Congress gives him the huge sums required to hire 10,000 ICE officers and 5,000 Border Patrol agents.
He wants to "surge," his verb, the hiring of immigration judges and asylum officers. He wants to add processing and detention centers, which surely has the private-prison industry salivating at the profits to come.
He wants to ramp up programs deputizing state and local law enforcement officers as immigration enforcers. He calls them "a highly successful force multiplier," which is true if you want a dragnet. It's not true if you want to fight crime effectively and keep communities safe. When every local law enforcement encounter can be a prelude to deportation, unauthorized immigrants will fear and avoid the police. And when state and local officers untrained in immigration law suddenly get to decide who stays and who goes, the risk of injustice is profound.
So is the danger to due process. Current procedure allows for swiftly deporting, without a hearing, immigrants who are caught near the border and who entered very recently. But Mr. Kelly notes that the law allows him to fast-track the removal of immigrants caught anywhere in the country who cannot prove they have been here "continuously" for at least two years. He's keeping his options open about whether to short-circuit due process with a coast-to-coast show-me-your-papers policy.
He plans to publish data on crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants, and to identify state and local jurisdictions that release immigrants from custody. Why? To promote the false idea, as Mr. Trump has shamefully done, that immigrants pose particular safety risks and to punish so-called sanctuary cities that, for reasons of public order and decency, are trying to disconnect themselves from ICE.
This is how Mr. Trump's rantings about "bad hombres" and alien rapist terrorists have now been weaponized, in cold bureaucratic language.
Mr. Kelly promised before his confirmation to be a reasonable enforcer of defensible policies. But immigrants have reason to be frightened by his sudden alignment with Mr. Trump's nativism. So does every American who believes that the country is, or should be, committed to the sensible, proportionate application of laws, welcoming to immigrants, and respectful of the facts.
Round em up. No more PRESS ONE FOR ENGLISH.
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
The ease with which you paper over moral implications of acting with "But its the law" is depressing. You would have made an excellent member of Police Battalion 101.
:)
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 01:26:43 PM
The ease with which you paper over moral implications of acting with "But its the law" is depressing. You would have made an excellent member of Police Battalion 101.
This is way over the top. ANY punishment for breaking ANY law inflicts pain and therefore has moral implications.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
When they are detached from economic reality and will wreck the economy of numerous states? Yes, indeed. Pity we did not do the reforms championed by George W Bush.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
Better that than focusing efforts on dangerous people. After all, if we don't enforce all existing laws equally, we will have a shortage of terrorism and an excess of jaywalking.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
We always were, but hey, let's enforce them to the Nth degree of absolute silliness.
so, illegal immigration roundup goes up from like 500/year to 1000/year, or what kinda "cold bureaucratic" numbers are we looking at?
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 02:09:40 PM
so, illegal immigration roundup goes up from like 500/year to 1000/year, or what kinda "cold bureaucratic" numbers are we looking at?
We'll see. Obama was rounding them up at a record setting rate. Too early to tell if this actually generates results.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
Are you trolling or is that an accurate description of your reaction to a seeming run-up to mass deportations?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2017, 01:37:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 01:26:43 PM
The ease with which you paper over moral implications of acting with "But its the law" is depressing. You would have made an excellent member of Police Battalion 101.
This is way over the top. ANY punishment for breaking ANY law inflicts pain and therefore has moral implications.
Yes, and if you don't care about any of it, and just blithely state "But its the law!" in order to avoid considering the moral justness of said law and how it is to be enforced, you are a immoral douchebag.
Especially when the reality is that you are a such a big supporter of the law because it targets groups you hate. Hence the reference to PB 101.
"We were just doing what the law demanded of us!" was their excuse as well.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 04:03:13 PM
Yes, and if you don't care about any of it, and just blithely state "But its the law!" in order to avoid considering the moral justness of said law and how it is to be enforced, you are a immoral douchebag.
Especially when the reality is that you are a such a big supporter of the law because it targets groups you hate. Hence the reference to PB 101.
"We were just doing what the law demanded of us!" was their excuse as well.
Shit, I didn't know that was the reason Speesh said that. Now that I know I have to agree he's awful.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 04:03:13 PM
Especially when the reality is that you are a such a big supporter of the law because it targets groups you hate.
What groups do I hate, Berkut?
Spicey hates University of Marshall grads and Democratic voters.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2017, 03:55:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
Are you trolling or is that an accurate description of your reaction to a seeming run-up to mass deportations?
Well I did state it that way to get a reaction. But I do believe we should enforce immigration laws more than we have been. Also believe we should increase the number of H-2B visas.
Honestly don't know what to expect with the new policy. My gut says it will fall short of "mass deportations" that some Trumpistas would like to see, yet still be enough to anger the open border types.
So basically, Trump will piss off everyone. :P
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 04:56:41 PM
Well I did state it that way to get a reaction. But I do believe we should enforce immigration laws more than we have been. Also believe we should increase the number of H-2B visas.
Honestly don't know what to expect with the new policy. My gut says it will fall short of "mass deportations" that some Trumpistas would like to see, yet still be enough to anger the open border types.
I mostly agree. I think we should have immigration laws we can practically enforce. I think we should issue visas and greencards in a manner consistent with our economic needs.
And like you I suspect this latest effort will fail miserably.
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 04:03:13 PM
Especially when the reality is that you are a such a big supporter of the law because it targets groups you hate.
What groups do I hate, Berkut?
Rapists and criminals, I am sure.
Some of them, probably, are good people.
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 05:09:40 PM
And like you I suspect this latest effort will fail miserably.
The point of these policies is not to "work". Of course, if the point is to reach the objective, it will fail. But it will empower border patrol, an agency that already has the favor of the Agent Orange, if only because they have been flattering his gigantic vanity, and he, in turn, has promised more delegation of authority to their members. The point is to normalize the arbitrariness of the decision-making process, will allow even more impunity and abuses of authority than is the case, and, in its very failure, will allow more hatred and finger-pointing. This is the kind of rot we are dealing with: assessments in term of success or failure does not apply - simply because it's not the point.
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 01:39:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
When they are detached from economic reality and will wreck the economy of numerous states? Yes, indeed.
That wouldn't be the case if we'd always enforced immigration laws strictly. And if we'd enforced the laws all along, the problem of illegal aliens who have children who are US citizens wouldn't be an issue, either.
And FWIW, I never have and still don't buy the idea that deporting large numbers of illegal aliens would wreck the economies of any states. Might wreck a few employers, but that's what they get for hiring illegal aliens anyway.
Keep in mind that I don't agree with our current immigration laws (if it were up to me, we'd let in almost anyone who wanted to live here), but I don't think that the existing laws are fundamentally unjust, but simply aren't good policy. And if we're not going to change the laws, yeah, then they should be enforced.
The good news is that once Mexico starts buying all its corn from South America it won't matter that there is no one to pick American corn and it all starts rotting in the fields.
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 05:09:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 04:56:41 PM
Well I did state it that way to get a reaction. But I do believe we should enforce immigration laws more than we have been. Also believe we should increase the number of H-2B visas.
Honestly don't know what to expect with the new policy. My gut says it will fall short of "mass deportations" that some Trumpistas would like to see, yet still be enough to anger the open border types.
I mostly agree. I think we should have immigration laws we can practically enforce. I think we should issue visas and greencards in a manner consistent with our economic needs.
He doesn't agree with that, since that view is not consistent with his cheerleading Trumps latest plan to just engage in indiscriminate deportation.
If you really feel that we should have laws that allow for economically driven immigration, you would not support deporting people who are here because we need people to do the work they are doing, and you would not support a plan that involves indiscriminate tearing apart of families on no basis of economic reality at all, but simply because foreigners are bad regardless.
Finally, if you truly supported such a position, you would not have supported your party when they absolutely refused to even begin to adjust the laws so that they would align with the economic reality.
Quote
And like you I suspect this latest effort will fail miserably.
It isn't about failing or succeeding, or rather, the measure of success is not whether they actually purge America of undocumented immigrants.
It is about creating a culture of xenophobia and hate towards immigrants. It is about the standard tactic of deflecting attention from the economic reality in favor of this fake reality where you have this handy group of second class citizens to point the ire of bigots at so they don't notice that the real problems have not a damn thing to do with people from Guatemala willing to pick apples for a fraction of what Americans are willing to pick them. Today in American it is illegal immigrants and refugees. In the past it was Chinese immigrants in American, or Japanese Americans. The Nazis had their Jews. It is all the same thing, just the targets change.
This is classic class warfare - the mega rich convincing the middle class that their stagnating wages are the fault of the ultra poor. It is so completely idiotic that any even slightly intelligent human being who supports this cannot possible be supporting it for the reasons they claim, the fig leaf is too obviously bullshit.
But it is important for the spiceys to have that fig leaf, so they can justify their support for policies of intolerance on the basis of "Just enforce the law!" and "Some of them are good people, but they are mostly rapists and criminals!", or even "The Protocols clearly show..."
Quote from: sbr on February 22, 2017, 05:29:55 PM
The good news is that once Mexico starts buying all its corn from South America it won't matter that there is no one to pick American corn and it all starts rotting in the fields.
Corn is all harvested by machine.
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2017, 05:26:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 01:39:30 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
When they are detached from economic reality and will wreck the economy of numerous states? Yes, indeed.
That wouldn't be the case if we'd always enforced immigration laws strictly. And if we'd enforced the laws all along, the problem of illegal aliens who have children who are US citizens wouldn't be an issue, either.
And FWIW, I never have and still don't buy the idea that deporting large numbers of illegal aliens would wreck the economies of any states. Might wreck a few employers, but that's what they get for hiring illegal aliens anyway.
Keep in mind that I don't agree with our current immigration laws (if it were up to me, we'd let in almost anyone who wanted to live here), but I don't think that the existing laws are fundamentally unjust, but simply aren't good policy. And if we're not going to change the laws, yeah, then they should be enforced.
My only problem with this position is that in a practical sense, as it is practiced by the Republicans, it is a complete lie.
If they actually held this position, they would be in favor of economically driven and humane immigration reform so we can get our laws aligned with the economic reality that drove millions of people to come to the United States to do shitty jobs Americans don't want.
But nope - they categorically refused to even consider any reform at all for the last several years, and now that they have the power, are they going to reform anything? Nope - just round them up and ship them out because that is what sells to bigots. It makes no sense on any level OTHER THAN it appeals to bigots.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 22, 2017, 05:20:13 PM
The point of these policies is not to "work". Of course, if the point is to reach the objective, it will fail. But it will empower border patrol, an agency that already has the favor of the Agent Orange, if only because they have been flattering his gigantic vanity, and he, in turn, has promised more delegation of authority to their members. The point is to normalize the arbitrariness of the decision-making process, will allow even more impunity and abuses of authority than is the case, and, in its very failure, will allow more hatred and finger-pointing. This is the kind of rot we are dealing with: assessments in term of success or failure does not apply - simply because it's not the point.
Yeah, to me this seems primarily about identifying a group (well two - Hispanic people and Muslims) as "the enemy within" and be seen to hurt them - efficacy and humanity are not part of the calculation at all at this point.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 05:36:07 PM
If they actually held this position, they would be in favor of economically driven and humane immigration reform so we can get our laws aligned with the economic reality that drove millions of people to come to the United States to do shitty jobs Americans don't want.
I don't think that "economically driven and humane immigration reform" really describes my position, which is more, "let 'em all in, except keep out the terrorists, professional criminals, and those with serious contagious diseases". It's not about the economics, at least not any perceived direct economic impact. We don't need Mexicans or other immigrants to harvest crops. Yeah, somebody's gotta do it, and it's a job that few people actually like, but if there weren't illegal aliens (or legal immigrants, for that matter) to do they job, the farmers would find someone to do it. Maybe they'd have to pay a bit more to get non-immigrants to do the work, and that would cause some consumer price increases, but it would also put more money in consumer's hands, so it wouldn't be a particularly negative outcome IMO. The real benefits of immigration are long-term, I think--some of those immigrants (or more likely, their children or grandchildren) might discover a cure for AIDS, or figure out how to make cold fusion work, or invent a better mousetrap.
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 05:14:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 22, 2017, 04:03:13 PM
Especially when the reality is that you are a such a big supporter of the law because it targets groups you hate.
What groups do I hate, Berkut?
Rapists and criminals, I am sure.
Some of them, probably, are good people.
Don't weasel out of it. Man up and answer the question. What groups do I hate?
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2017, 05:48:38 PM
Maybe they'd have to pay a bit more to get non-immigrants to do the work, and that would cause some consumer price increases, but it would also put more money in consumer's hands, so it wouldn't be a particularly negative outcome IMO.
This has been proven to not be the case, I'm pretty sure. Non-Americans in general do not take those jobs even at a premium - and even when they do, they tend to be not very good at them.
It turns out that harvesting is skilled labour - at least if you want to do it efficiently - and it's a skill that no longer is extant in the American labour force.
For the harvesting to be done locally in the US you need to train tens of thousands of American workers in the relevant skills. It's doable, of course, but it's more than "just paying a bit more".
... at least that's what I've read on the subject regarding the use of non-immigrant labour for agricultural work. It seems Britain is facing a similar situation with the apparent upcoming exclusion of East European farm labour.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2017, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2017, 05:48:38 PM
Maybe they'd have to pay a bit more to get non-immigrants to do the work, and that would cause some consumer price increases, but it would also put more money in consumer's hands, so it wouldn't be a particularly negative outcome IMO.
This has been proven to not be the case, I'm pretty sure. Non-Americans in general do not take those jobs even at a premium
Sounds like less of an argument for immigration reform, and more of an argument for giving many of my countrymen a good, swift kick in the butt.
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2017, 06:03:28 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2017, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2017, 05:48:38 PM
Maybe they'd have to pay a bit more to get non-immigrants to do the work, and that would cause some consumer price increases, but it would also put more money in consumer's hands, so it wouldn't be a particularly negative outcome IMO.
This has been proven to not be the case, I'm pretty sure. Non-Americans in general do not take those jobs even at a premium
Sounds like less of an argument for immigration reform, and more of an argument for giving many of my countrymen a good, swift kick in the butt.
Why would they take jobs they can't do?
A good swift kick in the butt will not teach them the required skills anymore than a good swift kick in the butt will teach them how to write SQL or perform root canals or work in an oil field.
Harvesting with any kind of efficiency is skilled labour. Your countrymen do not have the relevant skill. Kick them in the butt all you want, but if you want them to harvest crops they'll need to learn the relevant skills.
The problem with harvesting jobs seems to be that the cost level to induce non-migrant workers to do it is prohibitive. As Jacob said, the skill set required and the expertise needed to do the work efficiently and quickly is missing, and the jobs themselves are less than desirable to say the least. So there is the dual problem of enticing workers to do it and getting worker who can do it.
Even for those non migrants who want to work, it is far easier to work retail, to add fries to that, or even just mop out bathroom stalls than it is to pick strawberries.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2017, 05:55:48 PM
This has been proven to not be the case, I'm pretty sure. Non-Americans in general do not take those jobs even at a premium - and even when they do, they tend to be not very good at them.
It turns out that harvesting is skilled labour - at least if you want to do it efficiently - and it's a skill that no longer is extant in the American labour force.
For the harvesting to be done locally in the US you need to train tens of thousands of American workers in the relevant skills. It's doable, of course, but it's more than "just paying a bit more".
... at least that's what I've read on the subject regarding the use of non-immigrant labour for agricultural work. It seems Britain is facing a similar situation with the apparent upcoming exclusion of East European farm labour.
I probably read the same article you did about peach pickers in Georgia. But that doesn't mean there is not *some* wage at which sufficient labor would present itself to clear the market, or that given enough time that labor would not develop the skill needed to pick fruit (though from my memory it was more an issue of stamina and willingess rather than skill per se).
Americans will pick fruit, as long as you charge them 25 bucks to pick their own.
Suckers.
I don't argue that there is some wage that would allow the harvesting to happen, I just don't want to pay 45 dollars for a salad.
afrikaners come to north dakota every year to harvest beets. forget about H-2B visas, just look at H-2A visas.
QuoteThere is an annual cap of 66,000 visas available for H-2B workers. There is no annual cap on visas for H-2A workers.
if some dirt farmer in north dakota can afford
afrikaners, then sure as shit the rest of the farmers across the country can scrounge up a few extra dollars to pay for H-2A workers, if americans won't do the job.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 06:49:38 PMif some dirt farmer in north dakota can afford afrikaners, then sure as shit the rest of the farmers across the country can scrounge up a few extra dollars to pay for H-2A workers, if americans won't do the job.
That seems reasonable on the face of it.
at the end of the day, at least half if not more of the country just doesn't care about illegal immigrants. this isn't really a moral issue here, because their decision was risk vs. reward, and they've known about the risk their entire lives. also, it's not hispanics vs. white people. that's another formulation of the "trump is a racist and so is everyone who voted for him" argument that pisses off moderates and certainly doesn't make friends with key voting blocs. saying it's hispanics v. white people is a kneejerk reaction derived from a lack of empathy in why the other side believes the way it does.
the better argument is looking at economics and figuring out ways to show how illegal immigrants benefit the country in a material way.
Another job that would go begging is bartenders at Irish bars.
I think I read somewhere that the second highest nationality among illegals is Irish.
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2017, 05:26:41 PM
That wouldn't be the case if we'd always enforced immigration laws strictly. And if we'd enforced the laws all along, the problem of illegal aliens who have children who are US citizens wouldn't be an issue, either.
And FWIW, I never have and still don't buy the idea that deporting large numbers of illegal aliens would wreck the economies of any states. Might wreck a few employers, but that's what they get for hiring illegal aliens anyway.
Keep in mind that I don't agree with our current immigration laws (if it were up to me, we'd let in almost anyone who wanted to live here), but I don't think that the existing laws are fundamentally unjust, but simply aren't good policy. And if we're not going to change the laws, yeah, then they should be enforced.
Yeah, and if we'd just enforced the laws against murder we wouldn't have murders, and iif we enforced the laws against drug pushers we wouldn't have any illegal drug.
NOT.
That's not how law enforcement works. It isn't a matter of just "enforcing laws." It never has been, except on bumper stickers.
if our law enforcement, including prosecution, was effective at only 50% of what it's currently at, you'd see murders increase. just like you see more drug use in states in which it's barely prosecuted.
I don't think dps was saying no illegal immigration would occur. I think he was saying illegal immigrants would be less likely to hop over, which is true.
Quote from: PDH on February 22, 2017, 06:28:37 PM
I don't argue that there is some wage that would allow the harvesting to happen, I just don't want to pay 45 dollars for a salad.
Well get used to that shit. Fruits and vegetables are just one sector; wait until you have to pay more for chicken and meat products. And never mind the construction market blowing up.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 07:40:36 PMjust like you see more drug use in states in which it's barely prosecuted.
You got some stats to back that up?
not on hand, no
is it a wild proposition? people are going to smoke weed more often in states where it's culturally accepted to the point of relaxed prosecution/laws
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 07:53:01 PM
is it a wild proposition?
Yes, because as usual, you're talking out of your ass.
:hmm: I can not have stats on hand yet at the same time not talk out of my ass, if I'm talking about experience and how people generally feel in drug states vs. anti-drug states
So you're talking out of your ass.
:D
Quote from: derspiess on February 22, 2017, 01:21:43 PM
Heaven forbid we enforce existing laws.
I'll be sure to say that to my sister when her husband of 25 years is deported because they didn't make enough money to get him his citizenship. I bet his two children and eight grandchildren will totally understand, too.
derspiess thinks it's all fun and games until all the fucked up beaner accents in his house gets caught up in the machinery.
MRS DERSPIESS DEPORTED TO ECUADOR
CLAIMS SHES NOT FROM THERE
She's essential to the war effort.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2017, 05:55:48 PM
This has been proven to not be the case, I'm pretty sure. Non-Americans in general do not take those jobs even at a premium - and even when they do, they tend to be not very good at them.
It turns out that harvesting is skilled labour - at least if you want to do it efficiently - and it's a skill that no longer is extant in the American labour force.
For the harvesting to be done locally in the US you need to train tens of thousands of American workers in the relevant skills. It's doable, of course, but it's more than "just paying a bit more".
... at least that's what I've read on the subject regarding the use of non-immigrant labour for agricultural work. It seems Britain is facing a similar situation with the apparent upcoming exclusion of East European farm labour.
I probably read the same article you did about peach pickers in Georgia. But that doesn't mean there is not *some* wage at which sufficient labor would present itself to clear the market, or that given enough time that labor would not develop the skill needed to pick fruit (though from my memory 9it was more an issue of stamina and willingess rather than skill per se).
Hence the good swift kick in the pants.
Quote from: merithyn on February 22, 2017, 10:02:47 PM
I'll be sure to say that to my sister when her husband of 25 years is deported because they didn't make enough money to get him his citizenship. I bet his two children and eight grandchildren will totally understand, too.
I don't think you need citizenship to stay if you're married to a citizen.
Just wondering could my Trump supporting nephew who's overstaying his visum be deported back over here? He's married to a Columbian working for some big corp.
I would so be gloating if that was the case. He just doesn't realize he supported the guy with the highest chance of kicking him out.
So the mayor of Cincinnati held a big press conference a couple weeks ago in which he declared Cincinnati to be a "sanctuary city", without going into much detail other than that he welcomes immigrants. It was some Grade A virtue signaling, drawing all sorts of support on social media.
His office has since clarified that the city will continue to cooperate with the county in notifying ICE of any illegal aliens that are arrested. So it was all pretty much a meaningless platitude.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
So the mayor of Cincinnati held a big press conference a couple weeks ago in which he declared Cincinnati to be a "sanctuary city", without going into much detail other than that he welcomes immigrants. It was some Grade A virtue signaling, drawing all sorts of support on social media.
His office has since clarified that the city will continue to cooperate with the county in notifying ICE of any illegal aliens that are arrested. So it was all pretty much a meaningless platitude.
A politician engaged in meaningless platitudes? Shocking!
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 09:41:08 AM
A politician engaged in meaningless platitudes? Shocking!
And it worked for him-- I haven't seen any backlash after that page 6 story clarifying the city's policy. Trumpistas are still pissed at him, but they live out in the burbs and don't vote in city elections.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 22, 2017, 07:59:09 PM
So you're talking out of your ass.
I'm surprised anyone reads what he has to say. I just skip right past him.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
So the mayor of Cincinnati held a big press conference a couple weeks ago in which he declared Cincinnati to be a "sanctuary city", without going into much detail other than that he welcomes immigrants. It was some Grade A virtue signaling, drawing all sorts of support on social media.
His office has since clarified that the city will continue to cooperate with the county in notifying ICE of any illegal aliens that are arrested. So it was all pretty much a meaningless platitude.
Maybe he only meant for immigrants essential to the war effort.
That is rather bizarre because if he was really interested in not reporting immigrants he would probably keep it subtle. So, like you said, probably a publicity stunt he had no intention of actually doing.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
So the mayor of Cincinnati held a big press conference a couple weeks ago in which he declared Cincinnati to be a "sanctuary city", without going into much detail other than that he welcomes immigrants. It was some Grade A virtue signaling, drawing all sorts of support on social media.
Yeah, who could imagine politicians engaging in "Grade A virtue signalling" to appeal to lowest common denominator dumbasses.
"We are going to build a wall!"
Quote from: Archy on February 23, 2017, 02:00:00 AM
Just wondering could my Trump supporting nephew who's overstaying his visum be deported back over here? He's married to a Columbian working for some big corp.
I would so be gloating if that was the case. He just doesn't realize he supported the guy with the highest chance of kicking him out.
Yes. People overstaying the terms of their visas is precisely the main source of illegals in the US.
So Berkut are you going to tell me which groups I hate? I suppose you could also take back that statement.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:26:57 AM
So Berkut are you going to tell me which groups I hate? I suppose you could also take back that statement.
Why would I play that game with you?
Of course your response will be to wave your little fig leaf around, we all know how that plays out - that is the point of how revolting the mass of Trump fans like you are...
So no, I am not going to retract my statement that you are, at best, supporting of bigots, and likely are the typical Trump supporter intolerant bigot yourself. But I can't imagine what benefit I would gain from playing along with your little "I am not a bigot! I just hate Clinton and support Trump for perfectly rational reasons that I express via meme and trolling!" game.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2017, 05:55:48 PM
This has been proven to not be the case, I'm pretty sure. Non-Americans in general do not take those jobs even at a premium - and even when they do, they tend to be not very good at them.
It turns out that harvesting is skilled labour - at least if you want to do it efficiently - and it's a skill that no longer is extant in the American labour force.
For the harvesting to be done locally in the US you need to train tens of thousands of American workers in the relevant skills. It's doable, of course, but it's more than "just paying a bit more".
... at least that's what I've read on the subject regarding the use of non-immigrant labour for agricultural work. It seems Britain is facing a similar situation with the apparent upcoming exclusion of East European farm labour.
I probably read the same article you did about peach pickers in Georgia. But that doesn't mean there is not *some* wage at which sufficient labor would present itself to clear the market, or that given enough time that labor would not develop the skill needed to pick fruit (though from my memory it was more an issue of stamina and willingess rather than skill per se).
At some point, yes, they would do it. But then, it will be cheaper to import peaches from Mexico or Nicaragua or anywhere else they can be grown, even with trade tariffs. So these farms will switch to another production, they might even be planting subsidized corn to produce ethanol, something that is easy to cultivate with mechanical tools.
Not that great for the economy, but what do I know, I'm not a Trumpist, so I don't know nothing about the economy.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2017, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:26:57 AM
So Berkut are you going to tell me which groups I hate? I suppose you could also take back that statement.
Why would I play that game with you?
Of course your response will be to wave your little fig leaf around, we all know how that plays out - that is the point of how revolting the mass of Trump fans like you are...
So no, I am not going to retract my statement that you are, at best, supporting of bigots, and likely are the typical Trump supporter intolerant bigot yourself. But I can't imagine what benefit I would gain from playing along with your little "I am not a bigot! I just hate Clinton and support Trump for perfectly rational reasons that I express via meme and trolling!" game.
Then you're a fucking pussy.
Quote from: viper37 on February 23, 2017, 10:50:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2017, 05:55:48 PM
This has been proven to not be the case, I'm pretty sure. Non-Americans in general do not take those jobs even at a premium - and even when they do, they tend to be not very good at them.
It turns out that harvesting is skilled labour - at least if you want to do it efficiently - and it's a skill that no longer is extant in the American labour force.
For the harvesting to be done locally in the US you need to train tens of thousands of American workers in the relevant skills. It's doable, of course, but it's more than "just paying a bit more".
... at least that's what I've read on the subject regarding the use of non-immigrant labour for agricultural work. It seems Britain is facing a similar situation with the apparent upcoming exclusion of East European farm labour.
I probably read the same article you did about peach pickers in Georgia. But that doesn't mean there is not *some* wage at which sufficient labor would present itself to clear the market, or that given enough time that labor would not develop the skill needed to pick fruit (though from my memory it was more an issue of stamina and willingess rather than skill per se).
At some point, yes, they would do it. But then, it will be cheaper to import peaches from Mexico or Nicaragua or anywhere else they can be grown, even with trade tariffs. So these farms will switch to another production, they might even be planting subsidized corn to produce ethanol, something that is easy to cultivate with mechanical tools.
Not that great for the economy, but what do I know, I'm not a TrumpistI'm right-wing, so I don't know nothing about the economy.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:59:34 AM
Then you're a fucking pussy.
What a deep and insightful comment. :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:59:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2017, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:26:57 AM
So Berkut are you going to tell me which groups I hate? I suppose you could also take back that statement.
Why would I play that game with you?
Of course your response will be to wave your little fig leaf around, we all know how that plays out - that is the point of how revolting the mass of Trump fans like you are...
So no, I am not going to retract my statement that you are, at best, supporting of bigots, and likely are the typical Trump supporter intolerant bigot yourself. But I can't imagine what benefit I would gain from playing along with your little "I am not a bigot! I just hate Clinton and support Trump for perfectly rational reasons that I express via meme and trolling!" game.
Then you're a fucking pussy.
But not a fucking moron. I don't think your views are as well-hidden as you believe.
I can laugh off accusations of me being a Trump voter/supporter, but if someone is accusing me of hating groups of people I take that seriously. Berkut seems to have thrown that out there somewhat casually, but he needs to either substantiate his claim and clarify which groups I hate, or retract the claim.
My previous post aside, I try not to engage in personal attacks on anyone here. And I generally take things directed at me with a grain of salt. But when someone makes serious accusations like Berkut did (however vaguely) I can't let them stand.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 07:53:01 PM
not on hand, no
is it a wild proposition? people are going to smoke weed more often in states where it's culturally accepted to the point of relaxed prosecution/laws
It's certainly an unfounded statement. I mean, I recall reading articles about usage rates going down when drug addiction was treated as an illness (i.e. not criminalization with treatment programs offered) vs criminalization which would tend to indicate the opposite of what your "common sense" implies. But that's all it is at this point, a vague recollection.
I'd think actual facts would be better for the discussion than relying on supposition or recollections either way.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 11:13:57 AM
But not a fucking moron. I don't think your views are as well-hidden as you believe.
Or maybe you're not as good a judge of character as you believe. But okay, what are my views?
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:16:39 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 11:13:57 AM
But not a fucking moron. I don't think your views are as well-hidden as you believe.
Or maybe you're not as good a judge of character as you believe. But okay, what are my views?
Why don't you come out and state them instead of playing your pussy trolling "I'm just phrasing it like that to get a reaction lol" games?
Can we all chill here? Spicey has been here forever, we all know he is a decent guy.
Quote from: Jacob on February 23, 2017, 11:19:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:16:39 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 11:13:57 AM
But not a fucking moron. I don't think your views are as well-hidden as you believe.
Or maybe you're not as good a judge of character as you believe. But okay, what are my views?
Why don't you come out and state them instead of playing your pussy trolling "I'm just phrasing it like that to get a reaction lol" games?
Did you miss my post on page 2 where I answered you?
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:59:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2017, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:26:57 AM
So Berkut are you going to tell me which groups I hate? I suppose you could also take back that statement.
Why would I play that game with you?
Of course your response will be to wave your little fig leaf around, we all know how that plays out - that is the point of how revolting the mass of Trump fans like you are...
So no, I am not going to retract my statement that you are, at best, supporting of bigots, and likely are the typical Trump supporter intolerant bigot yourself. But I can't imagine what benefit I would gain from playing along with your little "I am not a bigot! I just hate Clinton and support Trump for perfectly rational reasons that I express via meme and trolling!" game.
Then you're a fucking pussy.
I think the accepted word for your alt-right crowd is "cuuuck", isn't it?
The irony of YOU calling ME a pussy while your entire posting strategy on the Trump subject has been to hide behind trolls and memes is amusing, but hardly all that unusual for the alt-right stereotype.
edit: OK, what clever mod put in the script that replaces cuuck with "kind and sensitive" person. :lmfao:
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2017, 11:23:31 AM
Can we all chill here? Spicey has been here forever, we all know he is a decent guy.
I don't think Spicey is "indecent" in any way, but I also don't think he is as tolerant as he claims. His statements about Hillary Clinton, for instance, reeked of misogyny.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:14:42 AM
I can laugh off accusations of me being a Trump voter/supporter, but if someone is accusing me of hating groups of people I take that seriously. Berkut seems to have thrown that out there somewhat casually, but he needs to either substantiate his claim and clarify which groups I hate, or retract the claim.
I don't think I need to do either of those things.
You want to be a cheerleader for Trump, stop crying about your need for a safe space to do so without owning what that actually means, snowflake.
Quote
My previous post aside, I try not to engage in personal attacks on anyone here. And I generally take things directed at me with a grain of salt. But when someone makes serious accusations like Berkut did (however vaguely) I can't let them stand.
If you feel like the consequences of your position impugn your character, then perhaps you should examine your positions. I think that would be a very healthy thing, in fact.
But you know, Hillary and her emails! ZOMG!
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2017, 11:34:54 AM
edit: OK, what clever mod put in the script that replaces cuuck with "kind and sensitive" person. :lmfao:
That was the Martinus filter put in place when he couldn't stop using that word.
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2017, 11:40:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:14:42 AM
I can laugh off accusations of me being a Trump voter/supporter, but if someone is accusing me of hating groups of people I take that seriously. Berkut seems to have thrown that out there somewhat casually, but he needs to either substantiate his claim and clarify which groups I hate, or retract the claim.
I don't think I need to do either of those things.
You want to be a cheerleader for Trump, stop crying about your need for a safe space to do so without owning what that actually means, snowflake.
Quote
My previous post aside, I try not to engage in personal attacks on anyone here. And I generally take things directed at me with a grain of salt. But when someone makes serious accusations like Berkut did (however vaguely) I can't let them stand.
If you feel like the consequences of your position impugn your character, then perhaps you should examine your positions. I think that would be a very healthy thing, in fact.
But you know, Hillary and her emails! ZOMG!
You have the ability to expend a lot of keystrokes and not really say anything. How about you say something meaningful and tell me what groups of people I hate?
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:48:22 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 23, 2017, 11:40:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:14:42 AM
I can laugh off accusations of me being a Trump voter/supporter, but if someone is accusing me of hating groups of people I take that seriously. Berkut seems to have thrown that out there somewhat casually, but he needs to either substantiate his claim and clarify which groups I hate, or retract the claim.
I don't think I need to do either of those things.
You want to be a cheerleader for Trump, stop crying about your need for a safe space to do so without owning what that actually means, snowflake.
Quote
My previous post aside, I try not to engage in personal attacks on anyone here. And I generally take things directed at me with a grain of salt. But when someone makes serious accusations like Berkut did (however vaguely) I can't let them stand.
If you feel like the consequences of your position impugn your character, then perhaps you should examine your positions. I think that would be a very healthy thing, in fact.
But you know, Hillary and her emails! ZOMG!
You have the ability to expend a lot of keystrokes and not really say anything. How about you say something meaningful and tell me what groups of people I hate?
That would not be meaningful at all.
Why would I want to play by your alt-right rules, Milo?
Berkut.
Stop playing.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:31:59 AM
Did you miss my post on page 2 where I answered you?
Yes :blush:
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 11:37:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2017, 11:23:31 AM
Can we all chill here? Spicey has been here forever, we all know he is a decent guy.
I don't think Spicey is "indecent" in any way, but I also don't think he is as tolerant as he claims. His statements about Hillary Clinton, for instance, reeked of misogyny.
Hillary is a cunt.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
So the mayor of Cincinnati held a big press conference a couple weeks ago in which he declared Cincinnati to be a "sanctuary city", without going into much detail other than that he welcomes immigrants.
Lord knows they've protected Marvin Lewis for so long.
BA ZING!
HEY NOW. He keeps my brother employed.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 07:43:49 PM
HEY NOW. He keeps my brother employed.
So he really is: your brother's keeper?
Well, him plus another couple people. But I probably overstated that. My brother is a workaholic and has a good reputation in the league. He'll have a job (somewhere) for as long as he wants.
Job title: speaker to surface tablets
Quote from: Jacob on February 23, 2017, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 07:53:01 PM
not on hand, no
is it a wild proposition? people are going to smoke weed more often in states where it's culturally accepted to the point of relaxed prosecution/laws
It's certainly an unfounded statement. I mean, I recall reading articles about usage rates going down when drug addiction was treated as an illness (i.e. not criminalization with treatment programs offered) vs criminalization which would tend to indicate the opposite of what your "common sense" implies. But that's all it is at this point, a vague recollection.
I'd think actual facts would be better for the discussion than relying on supposition or recollections either way.
I think the resistance to what I said is a defensive reaction out of belief that either (1) I intended "drug use" to mean something bad thing or (2) we're talking about forms of different drug use. "drug addiction" is typically not a word associated to smoking weed. I'm not talking about drugs like heroin or meth or any other hard drugs for a very specific reason: those drugs aren't culturally accepted. weed is culturally accepted. people generally don't smoke heroin or meth because it's considered a bad thing by society. what's the number on weed? 40% of people have smoked marijuana? it's nowhere near that number for heroin. not even close. when society accepts a drug to the point the drug is basically like how people think of alcohol--which is pretty similar to how it's like in denver--then yeah, there's more drug use than if society condemned it. that's the point I'm getting at. nobody is going to ever treat heroin like it's a great thing, unless laws are relaxed because society accepts it--not because there's a better alternative to those laws.
and, "recollection"?? I said experiences, not recollection. I know my shit re this topic.
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2017, 11:23:31 AM
Can we all chill here? Spicey has been here forever, we all know he is a decent guy.
good of someone to say it. good lord, the way everyone just piled on derspiess after berkut made a huge dick move was hilarious in a crazy way
Fuck you all, I've been piling on derfetusfacefucker/derniggerhater for a couple years now, and he's managed to deal with it when other posters couldn't tolerate 1/10th of The Troof I dispense.
And no, he's not a decent guy. He's a douchebag and a fuckstick but he's got guts, and guts is enough.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 23, 2017, 07:38:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 11:37:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 23, 2017, 11:23:31 AM
Can we all chill here? Spicey has been here forever, we all know he is a decent guy.
I don't think Spicey is "indecent" in any way, but I also don't think he is as tolerant as he claims. His statements about Hillary Clinton, for instance, reeked of misogyny.
Hillary is a cunt.
Most likely. But she wasn't worst than Trump, and she wasn't the same as Trump either.
Surprise, surprise:
Papers, please. CBP asking for papers from travelers aboard a domestic flight just to lend a hand...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/border-patrol-agents-stop-domestic-travelers-at-new-york-airport-w468643
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 23, 2017, 10:34:28 PM
Surprise, surprise:
Papers, please. CBP asking for papers from travelers aboard a domestic flight just to lend a hand...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/border-patrol-agents-stop-domestic-travelers-at-new-york-airport-w468643
Well shit.
Do people still take Rolling Stone seriously?
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:45:32 PM
Do people still take Rolling Stone seriously?
On a straight news report? Sure. I haven't seen anything that would make me think they invent facts.
Oh, okay.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?utm_term=.488f1a2106d6
I have ZERO free articles left this month.
I have a WaPo subscription. Please forgive the Timmay levels of editing out advertising and extraneous garbage.
QuoteCHARLOTTESVILLE — A federal court jury decided Friday that a Rolling Stone journalist defamed a former University of Virginia associate dean in a 2014 magazine article about sexual assault on campus that included a debunked account of a fraternity gang rape.
The 10-member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was responsible for defamation, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article's publication. The jury also found the magazine and its parent company, Wenner Media, responsible for defaming Eramo, who has said her life's work helping sexual assault victims was devastated as a result of Rolling Stone's article and its aftermath.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
The lawsuit centered on Erdely's 9,000-word article titled "A Rape on Campus," which appeared online in late November 2014 and on newsstands in the magazine's December 2014 issue. Opening with a graphic depiction of a fraternity gang rape, the story caused an immediate sensation at a time of heightened awareness of campus sexual assault, going viral online and reverberating through the U-Va. community.
But within days of the article's publication, key elements of the account fell apart under scrutiny, including the narrative's shocking allegation of a fraternity gang rape. The magazine eventually retracted the story in April 2015, and Eramo's lawsuit came a month later, alleging that the magazine's portrayal of her as callous and dismissive of rape reports on campus was untrue and unfair.
[Key elements of Rolling Stone's U-Va. gang rape allegations in doubt]
The jurors reached a verdict Friday after deliberating across three days. Eramo has asked for $7.5 million in damages but now, following the verdict, can argue for a different amount. The argument for damages is scheduled to begin Monday.
Regardless of potential damages, the verdict showed the jury's willingness to slam a major media outlet for the impact of getting a story wrong. Originally hailed as a brave triumph of reporting for its raw accounts of rape and attempts at bringing accountability to a storied public university, the article led to protests of the U-Va. administration, vandalism of a campus fraternity and outrage among activists trying to prevent sexual assault. Once its flaws were exposed, the article's deeper message of the effects of campus rape — a pervasive national problem — was lost amid the allegations of shoddy reporting.
[Why there's never been a better time to sue a journalist]
In a statement after the verdict, Rolling Stone said that the magazine, for nearly 50 years, has aimed to produce journalism "with the highest reporting and ethical standards, and with a humanistic point of view," noting that Erdely's story attempted "to tackle the very serious and complex topic of sexual assault on college campuses."
"In our desire to present this complicated issue from the perspective of a survivor, we overlooked reporting paths and made journalistic mistakes that we are committed to never making again," Rolling Stone said in the statement. "We deeply regret these missteps and sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by them, including Ms. Eramo. It is our deep hope that our failings do not deflect from the pervasive issues discussed in the piece, and that reporting on sexual assault cases ultimately results in campus policies that better protect our students."
Libby Locke, an attorney for Eramo, said her client was vindicated by the verdict: "We've said this all along, that Rolling Stone published a false and defamatory article about her."
The trial began on Oct. 17, and over the next 16 days, jurors heard testimony from 12 witnesses and saw 11 hours of video statements and more than 180 exhibits of evidence.
Both Eramo and Erdely took the stand in the case. The jurors also saw video testimony from Jackie, the U-Va. student whose allegations of a 2012 gang rape at Phi Kappa Psi were later found to have no merit.
Eramo's attorneys wrote in their complaint that the magazine defamed her by casting the former associate dean as a villain in the article, portraying her as the public face of an administration indifferent to rape victims.
[A Washington Post investigation: 1 in 5 college women say they were violated]
In court, attorneys for Erdely, Rolling Stone and Wenner Media argued the opposite. They contended that although the magazine acknowledged its mistakes, it had not acted with actual malice, the high bar set for defamation cases involving public figures like Eramo.
Tom Clare, one of the attorneys representing Eramo, said in a closing statement Tuesday that his client was "collateral damage in a quest for sensational journalism."
Reading from a Columbia University Journalism School report on the Rolling Stone article, Clare said that the magazine made basic errors in reporting and that the result was "a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable."
Clare noted that Jackie's account to Rolling Stone was brutal and so vile that it seemed unbelievable.
"It had all the elements of a perfect story," Clare said. "And when something appears too perfect, it usually is."
In fact, it was.
An investigation by The Washington Post showed that aspects of Jackie's account were not true, including that no one in the fraternity matched the name or description she gave for the person who allegedly was the ringleader of her assault. A person she had described to friends at the time as her assailant was complete fiction, according to Eramo's attorneys, and The Post found that a photo she shared of her alleged attacker was actually of someone she knew from high school and who attended a different school out of state.
[U-Va. students challenge Rolling Stone account of alleged sexual assault]
Eramo's attorneys presented evidence that Erdely had a predetermined notion of what her story would be, discussing the concept of the story that became "A Rape on Campus" well ahead of her reporting, including a note describing how college administrations can be "indifferent" to rape survivors. They said that Erdely had "a preconceived story line" and acted with "reckless disregard" by ignoring conflicting information in her reporting.
"Once they decided what the story was going to be about, it didn't matter what the facts were," Clare said.
Clare noted that despite Rolling Stone's reporting, Eramo had, indeed, cared for Jackie in the aftermath of her alleged assault, counseling her and organizing a meeting with police detectives to help bring her attackers to justice. But Jackie refused to participate in any police investigation.
Scott Sexton, an attorney for Rolling Stone, told the jurors in his closing statement that the magazine "acknowledges huge errors in not being more dogged . . . It's the worst thing to ever happen to Rolling Stone."
Sexton said that the article's retraction cost Erdely her job at the magazine and her reputation as a journalist.
"She hasn't written a classified since then," Sexton said.
Sexton said that, in effect, Erdely and Rolling Stone had fallen victim to what he called at points a "hoax," a "fraud" and a "perfect storm."
The magazine's editorial staff was no match for Jackie, Sexton said, noting that the magazine was not sure what exactly had happened to her, but admitted "she deceived us, and we do know it was purposeful."
"This young woman was very good at telling this story," Sexton said. "Dean Eramo believed her . . . Yet we are the ones being tried, in a sense, for having believed her."
Local Headlines newsletter
Daily headlines about the Washington region.
Sign up
The jury ruled that Erdely acted with actual malice when she published two statements about Eramo, the first being that Eramo discouraged Jackie from reporting her allegations and a reference to Eramo's "nonreaction" when Jackie first told Eramo about other allegations of gang rape at a fraternity. The jury's finding means that they concluded Erdely knew the statements about Eramo were false — or had reason to doubt them and failed to investigate further — but published them anyway.
The jury also found that Erdely acted with actual malice in four statements she made in interviews after the article published. One of those statements came in an email to a Post reporter in response to questions about her reporting, in which Erdely wrote that Jackie came forward with her account "only to be met with indifference."
The jury also ruled that Rolling Stone and Wenner Media had republished the article Dec. 5, 2014, when the magazine posted an editor's note at the top of the story acknowledging that there had been doubts cast on Jackie's account. Attorneys for Rolling Stone argued that the magazine had, in effect, retracted the article on that date, but the jury found otherwise, noting that an official retraction did not come until April. The jury found that by keeping the article up online in its entirety — while simultaneously acknowledging its flawed reporting — Rolling Stone editors knew that the article was false but published it again anyway, a key indicator of actual malice.
The findings of damages in Eramo's case likely won't be the last time Rolling Stone faces scrutiny for "A Rape on Campus": Phi Kappa Psi fraternity has filed a $25 million lawsuit against Rolling Stone that is expected to go to trial next year.
Given that WaPo is also reporting this incident of checking for papers, I think that perhaps the shit-flinging at a Rolling Stone article is perhaps misplaced.
Local news in New York is also talking about it.
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 11:00:33 PM
Oh, okay.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jury-finds-reporter-rolling-stone-responsible-for-defaming-u-va-dean-with-gang-rape-story/2016/11/04/aaf407fa-a1e8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html?utm_term=.488f1a2106d6
It's like a constant feedback loop; she wasn't a RS reporter, she was a freelancer that wrote the article and submitted it to Rolling Stone. :P The Washingfail Post. So sad!
Quote from: derspiess on February 23, 2017, 10:45:32 PM
Do people still take Rolling Stone seriously?
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
I thought this is why all you drooling mouth breathers needed your guns, to fight off governmental tyranny.
lol nope my side won
Quote from: PDH on February 23, 2017, 11:07:18 PM
Given that WaPo is also reporting this incident of checking for papers, I think that perhaps the shit-flinging at a Rolling Stone article is perhaps misplaced.
Local news in New York is also talking about it.
May I trouble you for a link?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/23/federal-agents-ask-domestic-flight-passengers-to-show-ids-in-search-for-undocumented-immigrant/?utm_term=.41e60a838d17
Thank you. Now I believe.
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights? I would agree the optics are not good, though.
QuoteI thought this is why all you drooling mouth breathers needed your guns, to fight off governmental tyranny.
lol nope my side won
Interesting development is that many on the left are now taking an interest in their 2A rights to protect themselves from the Trumpinator.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Interesting development is that many on the left are now taking an interest in their 2A rights to protect themselves from the Trumpinator.
May I trouble you for a link?
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Interesting development is that many on the left are now taking an interest in their 2A rights to protect themselves from the Trumpinator.
It is almost like the hysteria over all the guns being confiscated was just a bunch of nonsense :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 10:30:03 AM
May I trouble you for a link?
Personal experience suggests he's right, though it's less to protect against the government (which is a laugh) and more to protect against the mouth-breathers that came out of the corn after the election.
Quote from: Maximus on February 24, 2017, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 10:30:03 AM
May I trouble you for a link?
Personal experience suggests he's right, though it's less to protect against the government (which is a laugh) and more to protect against the mouth-breathers that came out of the corn after the election.
That's because you're a filthy smug and snotty ass Euro. If I were you, I'd strap, too. The tobacco industry has friends you haven't even thought of.
Quote from: Maximus on February 24, 2017, 10:39:48 AM
Personal experience suggests he's right, though it's less to protect against the government (which is a laugh) and more to protect against the mouth-breathers that came out of the corn after the election.
Yeah, like this one who shot two Garmin workers because they looked 'middle eastern':
QuoteOlathe shooting: Murder charge after Indian man killed in bar
24 February 2017
Police are investigating whether the fatal shooting of a man in the US state of Kansas was racially motivated.
Three men were wounded in the shooting at a crowded bar in Olathe on Wednesday night and one of them later died.
A barman told local media a man used racial slurs before opening fire. Two of the victims, including the deceased, are Indian.
Adam Purinton, 51, has been charged with premeditated first-degree murder and the FBI is investigating a motive.
Srinivas Kuchibhotla, 32, died while his friend Alok Madasani, 32, remains in hospital in a stable condition.
The two men were engineers at US technology company Garmin and studied in India, according to their social media profiles.
The other injured man, Ian Grillot, 24, had apparently intervened to stop the violence, according to witnesses.
Speaking from his hospital bed to local TV News channel KBMC, he brushed aside suggestions that he was a hero.
"I was just doing what anyone should have done for another human being," he said. "It's not about where he's from or his ethnicity.
"We're all humans. So I just felt I did what was naturally right to do."
Mr Purinton is accused of shooting customers at Austin's Bar and Grill as they watched the University of Kansas basketball team play on television.
A bystander told the Kansas City Star that just before opening fire the gunman shouted: "Get out of my country."
.....
Full article here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39072816 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39072816)
Impressed by Mr Grillot civic mindedness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 10:30:03 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Interesting development is that many on the left are now taking an interest in their 2A rights to protect themselves from the Trumpinator.
May I trouble you for a link?
My pleasure.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345
We should not jump to conclusions about this.
He may have felt threatened, and even if Kansas is not a "No Step Back" state, we have to consider whether or not those men were valid targets for killing by a man simply exercising his rights to carry and not have to back down from a potential threat.
It's what Jesus would want.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 10:49:26 AM
Quote from: Maximus on February 24, 2017, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 10:30:03 AM
May I trouble you for a link?
Personal experience suggests he's right, though it's less to protect against the government (which is a laugh) and more to protect against the mouth-breathers that came out of the corn after the election.
That's because you're a filthy smug and snotty ass Euro. If I were you, I'd strap, too. The tobacco industry has friends you haven't even thought of.
psst, ex canuck. You're slipping buddy.
Quote from: HVC on February 24, 2017, 10:57:22 AM
psst, ex canuck. You're slipping buddy.
I'll refer you to the thread about the proudly ignorant
Quote from: Maximus on February 24, 2017, 11:00:41 AM
Quote from: HVC on February 24, 2017, 10:57:22 AM
psst, ex canuck. You're slipping buddy.
I'll refer you to the thread about the proudly ignorant
he'll just come back and say we're the same as euro's. it's what old people do to cover up their mental slips
:P
Quote from: HVC on February 24, 2017, 11:05:22 AM
he'll just come back and say we're the same as euro's
:yeah:
Although you forgot to quote the rest of the post. Man, your memory is going fast.
It's selective. :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights? I would agree the optics are not good, though.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to go too deep into this, but not preventing US citizens from leaving a plane that originated from another US city without presenting their papers seems to go against both the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Quote from: sbr on February 24, 2017, 11:21:38 AM
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to go too deep into this,
Ditto, which is why I'm attempting to tread carefully.
Quotebut not preventing US citizens from leaving a plane that originated from another US city without presenting their papers seems to go against both the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Did they forcibly stop anyone that tried to walk past them without showing ID?
State to state, now with papers. :(
I think it's like a checkpoint setup by police to capture a fugitive. They stop every car and search before letting them through.
Quote from: citizen k on February 24, 2017, 12:46:25 PM
I think it's like a checkpoint setup by police to capture a fugitive. They stop every car and search before letting them through.
The problem, if there is a problem, is that these weren't police officers.
Quote from: Barrister on February 24, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 24, 2017, 12:46:25 PM
I think it's like a checkpoint setup by police to capture a fugitive. They stop every car and search before letting them through.
The problem, if there is a problem, is that these weren't police officers.
They were imposters. :huh:
Quote from: citizen k on February 24, 2017, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 24, 2017, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 24, 2017, 12:46:25 PM
I think it's like a checkpoint setup by police to capture a fugitive. They stop every car and search before letting them through.
The problem, if there is a problem, is that these weren't police officers.
They were imposters. :huh:
They were border guards, who have (presumably) different powers and authorities.
I'm trying to think if this would be a problem in Canada, but I honestly don't know. There is a duty to identify yourself to a peace officer (which is a broad category which includes both police and border services), but the question would be whether or not the border guard is acting "In the execution of their duty".
In Spain there wouldn't be a problem since border protection and regular policing are carried out by the same law enforcement body (Guardia Civil).
Quote from: celedhring on February 24, 2017, 01:15:38 PM
In Spain there wouldn't be a problem since border protection and regular policing are carried out by the same law enforcement body (Guardia Civil).
Do they still wear those cool hats?
Quote from: sbr on February 24, 2017, 11:21:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights? I would agree the optics are not good, though.
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to go too deep into this, but not preventing US citizens from leaving a plane that originated from another US city without presenting their papers seems to go against both the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Are the 4th and 5th the police state amendments?
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 24, 2017, 01:15:38 PM
In Spain there wouldn't be a problem since border protection and regular policing are carried out by the same law enforcement body (Guardia Civil).
Do they still wear those cool hats?
Tricornios? AFAIK they're mostly ceremonial nowadays.
Cornholios. he he. he he. he he.
Also, if hasn't already been mentioned, and as anyone who has driven from Arizona to/through Texas knows...CBP already checks your papers for just going from state to state.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights?
No, it's not. Not allowing you to disembark or otherwise detaining you without probable cause if you refuse to comply would be, though. Not 100% clear if that happened here.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2017, 05:50:40 PM
Also, if hasn't already been mentioned, and as anyone who has driven from Arizona to/through Texas knows...CBP already checks your papers for just going from state to state.
How bizarre.
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights?
No, it's not. Not allowing you to disembark or otherwise detaining you without probable cause if you refuse to comply would be, though. Not 100% clear if that happened here.
I'm confused. Which is it?
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2017, 06:22:07 PM
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights?
No, it's not. Not allowing you to disembark or otherwise detaining you without probable cause if you refuse to comply would be, though. Not 100% clear if that happened here.
I'm confused. Which is it?
Not sure I understand the question. Cops can always ask for your ID, but you're not obligated to comply with their request outside of certain situations--you can, in general, just tell them, "Fuck you, I don't have to show you shit" (not that I would advise doing that), and they can't detain you just for not showing ID. In practice, I always let them see my ID (the only time I didn't, I was out for a jog and didn't have my wallet and ID with me), because why risk them deciding that you're an asshole and they're going to say that they thought they had probable cause to detain you? I'd rather not be detained than be detained or otherwise be hassled and maybe being able to successfully sue later.
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 12:11:55 PM
Ditto, which is why I'm attempting to tread carefully.
just like CdM, you have selective behavior issues? ;)
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2017, 06:22:07 PM
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights?
No, it's not. Not allowing you to disembark or otherwise detaining you without probable cause if you refuse to comply would be, though. Not 100% clear if that happened here.
I'm confused. Which is it?
Not sure I understand the question. Cops can always ask for your ID, but you're not obligated to comply with their request outside of certain situations--you can, in general, just tell them, "Fuck you, I don't have to show you shit" (not that I would advise doing that), and they can't detain you just for not showing ID. In practice, I always let them see my ID (the only time I didn't, I was out for a jog and didn't have my wallet and ID with me), because why risk them deciding that you're an asshole and they're going to say that they thought they had probable cause to detain you? I'd rather not be detained than be detained or otherwise be hassled and maybe being able to successfully sue later.
I heard it is obligatory to carry/present ID on demand in NYC (maybe garbon can chime in if true).
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 06:48:22 PM
Cops can always ask for your ID, but you're not obligated to comply with their request outside of certain situations--you can, in general, just tell them, "Fuck you, I don't have to show you shit" (not that I would advise doing that), and they can't detain you just for not showing ID.
Can just take you down to the district house and run your prints. God knows how long that can take.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2017, 05:50:40 PM
Also, if hasn't already been mentioned, and as anyone who has driven from Arizona to/through Texas knows...CBP already checks your papers for just going from state to state.
That must be something new, because I've driven all over Arizona, and from Arizona to California and Colorado and New Mexico, and I was never once asked for my papers.
Yeah I have driven from Tempe and back a couple times, back when I was visiting my sister at Berkut's favorite school. and nothing like that went on. But that was back in the pre-9/11 days so probably does not mean anything.
If I had to drive from Cali to Texas, I'd blow my brains out near Santa Fe.
Yes, it was a simpler time then, long before 9/11 and the horrible actions all those Guatemalans committed that day.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
If I had to drive from Cali to Texas, I'd blow my brains out near Santa Fe.
The really horrible part was I-10 between El Paso and San Antonio.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2017, 09:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
If I had to drive from Cali to Texas, I'd blow my brains out near Santa Fe.
The really horrible part was I-10 between El Paso and San Antonio.
I see your El Paso and San Antonio, and raise you Rockville to Silver Spring. Different distances, same fucking amount of time. So eat me.
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2017, 09:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
If I had to drive from Cali to Texas, I'd blow my brains out near Santa Fe.
The really horrible part was I-10 between El Paso and San Antonio.
I was thinking of that Green Chilie shit they serve in New Mexico. BLURGH
What a bunch of whiny bitches.
katmai has had his shit tossed onto the hood of a patrol car for the dash cam more than a fundraising bikini car wash sponge.
:lol:
The hood of the cop car was severely damaged.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:31:52 PM
The hood of the cop car was severely damaged.
they put it upon themselves ^_^
Quote from: katmai on February 24, 2017, 09:35:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:31:52 PM
The hood of the cop car was severely damaged.
they put it upon themselves ^_^
:lol:
FIGHT THE POWER
with mass.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 24, 2017, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2017, 09:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
If I had to drive from Cali to Texas, I'd blow my brains out near Santa Fe.
The really horrible part was I-10 between El Paso and San Antonio.
I see your El Paso and San Antonio, and raise you Rockville to Silver Spring. Different distances, same fucking amount of time. So eat me.
I loled
Quote from: Valmy on February 24, 2017, 09:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
If I had to drive from Cali to Texas, I'd blow my brains out near Santa Fe.
The really horrible part was I-10 between El Paso and San Antonio.
Yep, that's where I remember the checkpoint being at.
Quote from: Berkut on February 24, 2017, 09:12:07 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2017, 05:50:40 PM
Also, if hasn't already been mentioned, and as anyone who has driven from Arizona to/through Texas knows...CBP already checks your papers for just going from state to state.
That must be something new, because I've driven all over Arizona, and from Arizona to California and Colorado and New Mexico, and I was never once asked for my papers.
You gotta be lying...California asks you for your fruit/vegetable papers. :P
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 24, 2017, 06:22:07 PM
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 24, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on February 23, 2017, 11:34:09 PM
Once again dismissing the violation of US citizens' Constitutional rights.
Is asking for ID a violation of constitutional rights?
No, it's not. Not allowing you to disembark or otherwise detaining you without probable cause if you refuse to comply would be, though. Not 100% clear if that happened here.
I'm confused. Which is it?
Not sure I understand the question. Cops can always ask for your ID, but you're not obligated to comply with their request outside of certain situations--you can, in general, just tell them, "Fuck you, I don't have to show you shit" (not that I would advise doing that), and they can't detain you just for not showing ID. In practice, I always let them see my ID (the only time I didn't, I was out for a jog and didn't have my wallet and ID with me), because why risk them deciding that you're an asshole and they're going to say that they thought they had probable cause to detain you? I'd rather not be detained than be detained or otherwise be hassled and maybe being able to successfully sue later.
Earlier sbr said
Quote from: sbrnot preventing US citizens from leaving a plane that originated from another US city without presenting their papers seems to go against both the 4th and 5th Amendments
which suggests a Constitution-mandated police state.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 24, 2017, 09:15:55 PM
If I had to drive from Cali to Texas, I'd blow my brains out near Santa Fe.
Driving through the desert cleanses your soul. I recommend everyone drive the Nevada salt flats between Reno and Sacto at least one in their lives.
It's awesome.
My dad got a speeding ticket in my hemi doing 105 in a 65. That was brought down from 135 so they wouldn't have to jail him. :lol:
Oh, and my wife and I went to Bonneville on one of our many trips to Utah this summer. The sign for the speedway is full of bullet holes. I guess that's about as American as it gets. :P
The desert is fantastic.
I drove it in a busted down Prelude with no air conditioning. I am a total badass.
I've driven through the Nevada desert at night from Reno to Las Vegas in American Truck Simulator. :cool: :Embarrass:
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2017, 02:19:28 AM
which suggests a Constitution-mandated police state.
Stop trying to teach the Constitution to the street punks.
Hell, on my best trips across Nevada was to look for work this past summer, I took I-80 from Laramie (leaving at 4pm) to the West Coast in one long haul - that was with a two hour snooze at the Beowawe rest stop. I've done the drive many times, but crossing the western half of Nevada starting before dawn was quite nice.
The worst was crossing it in August in a black 1976 Impala with no a/c and a tendency to overheat.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 25, 2017, 05:23:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2017, 02:19:28 AM
which suggests a Constitution-mandated police state.
Stop trying to teach the Constitution to the street punks.
Street punks would have left out the "not" in
Quotenot preventing US citizens from leaving a plane that originated from another US city without presenting their papers seems to go against both the 4th and 5th Amendments
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 25, 2017, 05:23:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 25, 2017, 02:19:28 AM
which suggests a Constitution-mandated police state.
Stop trying to teach the Constitution to the street punks.
Excellent Running Man reference. :cool:
Quote from: Syt on February 25, 2017, 05:13:00 AM
I've driven through the Nevada desert at night from Reno to Las Vegas in American Truck Simulator. :cool: :Embarrass:
Have you ridden through the desert on a horse with no name?
Quote from: Barrister on February 24, 2017, 01:13:25 PM
They were border guards, who have (presumably) different powers and authorities.
I'm trying to think if this would be a problem in Canada, but I honestly don't know. There is a duty to identify yourself to a peace officer (which is a broad category which includes both police and border services), but the question would be whether or not the border guard is acting "In the execution of their duty".
In the story that's making the rounds, ICE asked CBP to do spot checks on DL1583 because they suspected a deportee was on the flight, but that turned out not to be the case. I suspect there's a collision with a slightly lesser-known story going on here: five states that aren't Real ID compliant: Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Maine. On paper, the TSA is supposed to stop accepting state-issued IDs from those states as proof of ID in 2018, but I would not be surprised if that date has unofficially moved up under the Trump administration, and travelers from those five states would most likely have to show passports as proof of identity.
From the "Yay, We Turn Fucking With People Up to 11 Now" file.
Quote
The Failing New York Times
Immigration Agents Discover New Freedom to Deport Under Trump
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CAITLIN DICKERSON and RON NIXON
FEB. 25, 2017
The Trump administration's far-reaching plan to arrest and deport vast numbers of undocumented immigrants has been introduced in dramatic fashion over the past month. And much of that task has fallen to thousands of ICE officers who are newly emboldened, newly empowered and already getting to work.
Gone are the Obama-era rules that required them to focus only on serious criminals. In Southern California, in one of the first major roundups during the Trump administration, officers detained 161 people with a wide range of felony and misdemeanor convictions, and 10 who had no criminal history at all.
"Before, we used to be told, 'You can't arrest those people,' and we'd be disciplined for being insubordinate if we did," said a 10-year veteran of the agency who took part in the operation. "Now those people are priorities again. And there are a lot of them here."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportations-trump.html
"Morale amongst our agents and officers has increased exponentially since the signing of the orders," the unions representing ICE and Border Patrol agents said in a joint statement after President Trump issued the executive orders on immigration late last month.
Quote"The discretion has come back to us; it's up to us to make decisions in the field," a 15-year veteran in California said. "We're trusted again."
Good grief. :rolleyes:
I hear they've ordered a new mural for their HQ.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhdscreen.us%2Fwallpaper%2FBioshock_Infinite-pWLD.jpg&hash=170eedb1bb0fd70edfa9916440f7aeb9a65e4cd1)
Yup. Trump has found his armed thugs.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 10:39:01 AM
Yup. Trump has found his armed thugs.
Who turn out to be the former Obama armed thugs, who were the former Bush armed thugs. Who'da think it.
Quote from: Syt on February 26, 2017, 03:12:26 AM
I hear they've ordered a new mural for their HQ.
I love how the native American with the peace pipe is tossed in with the rest of the "foreign hordes" :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 10:43:21 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 10:39:01 AM
Yup. Trump has found his armed thugs.
Who turn out to be the former Obama armed thugs, who were the former Bush armed thugs. Who'da think it.
It's game on now, though.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 10:43:21 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 10:39:01 AM
Yup. Trump has found his armed thugs.
Who turn out to be the former Obama armed thugs, who were the former Bush armed thugs. Who'da think it.
Anyone of passing knowledge of history?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 11:18:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 26, 2017, 03:12:26 AM
I hear they've ordered a new mural for their HQ.
I love how the native American with the peace pipe is tossed in with the rest of the "foreign hordes" :lol:
That's Bioshock Infinite for ya. It has a theme park display about Wounded Knee, too :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNUPIyXewR8
You might like the Boxer Rebellion display better, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afYcnZ62Wso :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 11:18:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 26, 2017, 03:12:26 AM
I hear they've ordered a new mural for their HQ.
I love how the native American with the peace pipe is tossed in with the rest of the "foreign hordes" :lol:
katmai looks happy enough.
Well, if you want to become an authoritarian, it is very important to find a group you can give power to who can then exercise it on your behalf. This group should be as thuggish as you can find, because you want them to be
A) Not to worried about rules, law, and concern for other peoples rights, and
B) Completely beholden to you for their new found power and relevance.
Is the border patrol that group? It will likely need some light purging - I know quite a few BP agents, and the ones I know at least are rather horrified at Trump. Of course, I know ones who work the border with Canada, so I suspect the southern border BP agents are a whole different mindset...
Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2017, 11:47:48 AM
Well, if you want to become an authoritarian, it is very important to find a group you can give power to who can then exercise it on your behalf. This group should be as thuggish as you can find, because you want them to be
A) Not to worried about rules, law, and concern for other peoples rights, and
B) Completely beholden to you for their new found power and relevance.
Is the border patrol that group? It will likely need some light purging - I know quite a few BP agents, and the ones I know at least are rather horrified at Trump. Of course, I know ones who work the border with Canada, so I suspect the southern border BP agents are a whole different mindset...
I am pretty sure the Northern Border folks get selected on how well they welcome Canadians into the US to spend their money. There are a few exceptions but more often then not we get a friendly welcome. Perhaps not the skill set Trump is looking for over all.
Quote from: Berkut on February 26, 2017, 11:47:48 AM
Is the border patrol that group? It will likely need some light purging - I know quite a few BP agents, and the ones I know at least are rather horrified at Trump. Of course, I know ones who work the border with Canada, so I suspect the southern border BP agents are a whole different mindset...
Yes. CPB in the South is terrible. And terrifying. Under Obama they pretty much complained about the fact that they did not have impunity. But even in the North, (White) American citizens do not suspect the routine levels of humiliation that happen in the detention rooms in airport.
Since the beginning of January, I have had three colleagues who either were turned back, or threatened to be turned back, before universities intervened on their behalf. The latest one being Henri Rousso, one of the greatest French experts on fascism... And these were white, educated people. I can't imagine how it is for people whose English is weaker, or are of Mexican descent. This never happened before. Ever.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 11:30:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 10:43:21 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 10:39:01 AM
Yup. Trump has found his armed thugs.
Who turn out to be the former Obama armed thugs, who were the former Bush armed thugs. Who'da think it.
Anyone of passing knowledge of history?
You don't even need that; a glance around the current world will show that every government has found their armed thugs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2017, 11:50:44 AM
I am pretty sure the Northern Border folks get selected on how well they welcome Canadians into the US to spend their money. There are a few exceptions but more often then not we get a friendly welcome. Perhaps not the skill set Trump is looking for over all.
Have you ever crossed with a non-white, foreign-born, English-as-a-second language Canadian? My experience has been less overwhelmingly positive...
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 11:59:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2017, 11:50:44 AM
I am pretty sure the Northern Border folks get selected on how well they welcome Canadians into the US to spend their money. There are a few exceptions but more often then not we get a friendly welcome. Perhaps not the skill set Trump is looking for over all.
Have you ever crossed with a non-white, foreign-born, English-as-a-second language Canadian? My experience has been less overwhelmingly positive...
No, but then again you have described a fairly small percentage of the population. I have crossed a number of times with non-white, English as a second language Canadians who were born in Canada (a category which most of my sons' friends would include) and my description stands for that group.
edit: But I see you are describing the border since Trump became president - I have not entered the US since the election.
Letting a fascism expert into the US sounds like a great idea. :rolleyes:
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2017, 11:50:44 AM
I am pretty sure the Northern Border folks get selected on how well they welcome Canadians into the US to spend their money. There are a few exceptions but more often then not we get a friendly welcome. Perhaps not the skill set Trump is looking for over all.
those with muslim sounding name get turned back at the border now.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 11:56:40 AM
. The latest one being Henri Rousso, one of the greatest French experts on fascism... And these were white, educated people. I can't imagine how it is for people whose English is weaker, or are of Mexican descent. This never happened before. Ever.
It made it to the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39095196
In recent days more relatively famous people have halt to dealt with harsh treatment by US border agents:
QuoteAustralian children's author Mem Fox detained by US border control: 'I sobbed like a baby'
Author of Possum Magic was aggressively questioned for two hours over her visa status and later received an apology for her treatment by border guards
(...)
She told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation she was questioned by border agents for two hours in front of a room full of people – an experience that left her feeling like she had been physically assaulted.
"I have never in my life been spoken to with such insolence, treated with such disdain, with so many insults and with so much gratuitous impoliteness," Fox said.
"I felt like I had been physically assaulted which is why, when I got to my hotel room, I completely collapsed and sobbed like a baby, and I'm 70 years old."
Fox said she was questioned over her visa, despite having travelled to America 116 times before without incident. She was eventually granted access to the country.
After lodging a complaint over her treatment with the Australian embassy in Washington and the US embassy in Canberra, Fox received an emailed apology from US officials.
QuoteUS border agents ask Muhammad Ali's son: 'Are you a Muslim?'
Boxing legend's 44-year-old son detained and questioned about religion after flying back to US from Jamaica, lawyer says
Border agents detained and questioned the son of the boxing legend Muhammad Ali about his religion when he flew back to the US this month, a family lawyer said.
"Where did you get your name from? Are you a Muslim?" they asked the 44-year-old Muhammad Ali Jr, who was born in Philadelphia and is a US citizen.
When Ali confirmed to immigration officials at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood international airport in Florida that he was a Muslim, they began questioning him about where he was born, family friend and lawyer Chris Mancini told the Courier-Journal newspaper. The questioning lasted for about two hours.
Ali had been at a black history month event in Jamaica with his mother, Khalilah Camacho-Ali. She was allowed to enter the country after producing a photo of herself with her famous ex-husband, who died last year, but her son had nothing to prove his link to the boxer.
So, if 70 year old ladies and US nationals with funny sounding names are getting shit when arriving to the US, I don't want to imagine what a less privileged person must have to go through nowadays.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 02:18:12 AM
From the "Yay, We Turn Fucking With People Up to 11 Now" file.
Quote
The Failing New York Times
Immigration Agents Discover New Freedom to Deport Under Trump
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CAITLIN DICKERSON and RON NIXON
FEB. 25, 2017
The Trump administration's far-reaching plan to arrest and deport vast numbers of undocumented immigrants has been introduced in dramatic fashion over the past month. And much of that task has fallen to thousands of ICE officers who are newly emboldened, newly empowered and already getting to work.
Gone are the Obama-era rules that required them to focus only on serious criminals. In Southern California, in one of the first major roundups during the Trump administration, officers detained 161 people with a wide range of felony and misdemeanor convictions, and 10 who had no criminal history at all.
"Before, we used to be told, 'You can't arrest those people,' and we'd be disciplined for being insubordinate if we did," said a 10-year veteran of the agency who took part in the operation. "Now those people are priorities again. And there are a lot of them here."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportations-trump.html
"Morale amongst our agents and officers has increased exponentially since the signing of the orders," the unions representing ICE and Border Patrol agents said in a joint statement after President Trump issued the executive orders on immigration late last month.
Quote"The discretion has come back to us; it's up to us to make decisions in the field," a 15-year veteran in California said. "We're trusted again."
Good grief. :rolleyes:
This will be a huge mistake and problem.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 26, 2017, 02:22:07 PM
This will be a huge mistake and problem.
Any time you give people with authoritarian tendencies a free reign, they will overdo it. That's true of Trump's underlings as much as it is true of Trump himself.
Discretion is all well and good if an agent has demonstrated that he or she can be trusted with discretionary powers, but handing it out like candy always ends badly.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 03:23:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 26, 2017, 02:22:07 PM
This will be a huge mistake and problem.
Any time you give people with authoritarian tendencies a free reign, they will overdo it. That's true of Trump's underlings as much as it is true of Trump himself.
Discretion is all well and good if an agent has demonstrated that he or she can be trusted with discretionary powers, but handing it out like candy always ends badly.
Or as Oex said - "Trump has found his thugs".
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2017, 07:16:35 PM
Or as Oex said - "Trump has found his thugs".
That's not an "or." Every national leader has found his or her thugs. Trump had his thugs even before he took office.
What is your point? That governments employ agents empowered to use force? That they have broad powers of coercion and claim monopoly over legitimate violence? That CBP existed before Trump? Of course. These are pretty trivial point. Mine was that Trump found an agency enthusiastically willing to do its bidding, and we can expect it to be rewarded as such. And since it seems to be in need of being spelled out, it was a way to draw attention to the fact that authoritarian regimes do not always rely on outside elements - paramilitary groups, brown shirts, or what have you - that are often propped up as being the main "warning signs" of authoritarian turns.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 07:41:57 PM
And since it seems to be in need of being spelled out, it was a way to draw attention to the fact that authoritarian regimes do not always rely on outside elements - paramilitary groups, brown shirts, or what have you - that are often propped up as being the main "warning signs" of authoritarian turns.
Authoritarian regimes typically rely on those types of groups, or co-opt existing groups, to illegally squash dissent. So far ICE hasn't gunned down any anti-Trump demonstrators or smashed the NYT's printing presses.
It demonstrates a serious lack of perspective to call them Trump's thugs, as that label is essentially a function of a policy you happen to disagree with.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 07:41:57 PM
What is your point? That governments employ agents empowered to use force? That they have broad powers of coercion and claim monopoly over legitimate violence? That CBP existed before Trump? Of course. These are pretty trivial point. Mine was that Trump found an agency enthusiastically willing to do its bidding, and we can expect it to be rewarded as such. And since it seems to be in need of being spelled out, it was a way to draw attention to the fact that authoritarian regimes do not always rely on outside elements - paramilitary groups, brown shirts, or what have you - that are often propped up as being the main "warning signs" of authoritarian turns.
My point is that this is exactly how every government agency works and every government works. The new boss comes in, and some agencies that enact policy in the areas of the new government's interests get more power and funding and become the "thugs" of that government (it could be transportation infrastructure or tax enforcement or whatever - they get funded, have their power expanded, flex their muscles, etc). The department of education became one set of Obama's thugs, given discretion to impose themselves, especially on higher education, and that was okay with people who favored that outcome, while pissing off those who did not.
There are an enormous number of things you can criticize Trump for; things that are actually blameworthy. Shitty cabinet picks. maintaining an open air of corruption and self-service. Refusing to educate himself and spending his infinitely valuable face time with foreign leaders bragging about an election win that was fictional. Etc. To blame him for emphasizing the law enforcement arenas he promised in the election to emphasize is boneheaded, though. You just look like a sore loser. Add in talk about "thugs" and you look like an emo sore loser.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2017, 08:14:18 PM
It demonstrates a serious lack of perspective to call them Trump's thugs, as that label is essentially a function of a policy you happen to disagree with.
:rolleyes:
No. It's a function of a policy that directly impacts me, my friends, and the values I hold dear - notably, that you shouldn't promote impunity and empower discretionary power in an administrative body that has already been investigated for abusing its power, and who routinely shove *their* politics in your face, not to mention their ignorance, whenever you are a foreigner who happens to not fit their notion of what a proper American citizen is. Is it a political label, Mr. "Loony Left"? Absolutely. Because I think what is at stake here is more than the polite discourse of disagreement.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 07:41:57 PM
What is your point? That governments employ agents empowered to use force? That they have broad powers of coercion and claim monopoly over legitimate violence? That CBP existed before Trump? Of course. These are pretty trivial point. Mine was that Trump found an agency enthusiastically willing to do its bidding, and we can expect it to be rewarded as such. And since it seems to be in need of being spelled out, it was a way to draw attention to the fact that authoritarian regimes do not always rely on outside elements - paramilitary groups, brown shirts, or what have you - that are often propped up as being the main "warning signs" of authoritarian turns.
My point is that this is exactly how every government agency works and every government works.
No. In fact most governments and most government agencies attempt to work within the law. This government either does not know, or perhaps worse, does not care. The fact that some within the agency were over enthusiastic in carrying out the decree is troubling.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 08:22:47 PMTo blame him for emphasizing the law enforcement arenas he promised in the election to emphasize is boneheaded, though. You just look like a sore loser. Add in talk about "thugs" and you look like an emo sore loser.
You just can't help yourself, can you? You just need to constantly insult people. What's your line again? "Thanks, I needed an example of someone wielding insults and screaming ad hominem for my students".
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 08:22:47 PM
Add in talk about "thugs" and you look like an emo sore loser.
This is ICE and CBP we're talking about here. Amazing what federal gigs a high school diploma and 10 Veterans Preference points for "the voices" since coming home from Iraq can score these days.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 08:22:47 PM
Add in talk about "thugs" and you look like an emo sore loser.
This is ICE and CBP we're talking about here. Amazing what federal gigs a high school diploma and 10 Veterans Preference points for "the voices" since coming home from Iraq can score these days.
I am sure the tens of thousands of thugs in the education department can have just as much power.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
I am sure the tens of thousands of thugs in the education department can have just as much power.
*shudder* NOT THE CHALK! NOT THE CHALK! I'll talk, I swear I'll name names!
Quote from: PDH on February 26, 2017, 08:50:23 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
I am sure the tens of thousands of thugs in the education department can have just as much power.
*shudder* NOT THE CHALK! NOT THE CHALK! I'll talk, I swear I'll name names!
Or cleaning the erasers. *shudder*
Quote from: PDH on February 26, 2017, 08:50:23 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
I am sure the tens of thousands of thugs in the education department can have just as much power.
*shudder* NOT THE CHALK! NOT THE CHALK! I'll talk, I swear I'll name names!
Are you one of those professors who use markers and a projector for everything?
Quote from: PDH on February 26, 2017, 08:50:23 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 08:40:13 PM
I am sure the tens of thousands of thugs in the education department can have just as much power.
*shudder* NOT THE CHALK! NOT THE CHALK! I'll talk, I swear I'll name names!
We have ways to make you talk.
It's called participation grade.
Ugh. ONE OF THOSE.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2017, 08:27:46 PM
No. In fact most governments and most government agencies attempt to work within the law. This government either does not know, or perhaps worse, does not care. The fact that some within the agency were over enthusiastic in carrying out the decree is troubling.
No. This government is as bound by law as any in the world. The office of the President may not understand the law, but they are as bound by it as they would be if they did. The myth that CBP used to be a bunch of great guys and gals until Trump took office and issued a decree is comical. These people have been jerks since forever. You'll find plenty of horror stories from before Trump even took office.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 08:29:46 PM
You just can't help yourself, can you? You just need to constantly insult people. What's your line again? "Thanks, I needed an example of someone wielding insults and screaming ad hominem for my students".
You can't help being emo, can you? If I point out that people are being emo when they insist that officials they don't like are "thugs," you can either take that on board or go even more emo, like here. I kinda find your taking the second approach more amusing, I'll admit, so keep up the emo if you can.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 09:00:22 PMThe myth that CBP used to be a bunch of great guys and gals until Trump took office and issued a decree is comical. These people have been jerks since forever. You'll find plenty of horror stories from before Trump even took office.
:huh: I am not the one peddling that myth.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 08:22:47 PM
Add in talk about "thugs" and you look like an emo sore loser.
This is ICE and CBP we're talking about here. Amazing what federal gigs a high school diploma and 10 Veterans Preference points for "the voices" since coming home from Iraq can score these days.
Oh, those guys have been bastards for a long time. This myth that Trump has unleashed them somehow and made them "bad hombres" is kinda amusing, if you've been at all paying attention for the last fifteen years.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 09:05:21 PMYou can't help being emo, can you? If I point out that people are being emo when they insist that officials they don't like are "thugs," you can either take that on board or go even more emo, like here. I kinda find your taking the second approach more amusing, I'll admit, so keep up the emo if you can.
Yeah. I admit. This gets to me, and I get passionate, and worried about it. I mean, I am a foreigner. My partner teaches Arabic. Many of our friends are consequently Muslim. Some are actually refugees stuck in camps in Lebanon. I have been witness to injustice and heartlessness from CBP when stuck in the detention center at Dulles. Other friends, much less worryingly, have "only" been turned back at the border, or at the airport. I am sorry we can't all be devoid of empathy like you. But I'll be happy to be shown to have overreacted in a few years. It's just that the alternative - that is, people like you being shown they were underreacting - is somehow more problematic. But, keep it up, Dr. Pangloss. I am sure, in a few years, you'll discover new insults like "snowflake" and "social justice warrior".
I completely agree with Oexmelin's stance on the issue. This is absolutely an issue people should get passionate about.
TAINTED
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 26, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
I completely agree with Oexmelin's stance on the issue. This is absolutely an issue people should get passionate about.
Fuck. Tainted. Sorry, Oex
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 26, 2017, 09:14:50 PM
Yeah. I admit. This gets to me, and I get passionate, and worried about it. I mean, I am a foreigner. My partner teaches Arabic. Many of our friends are consequently Muslim. Some are actually refugees stuck in camps in Lebanon. I have been witness to injustice and heartlessness from CBP when stuck in the detention center at Dulles. Other friends, much less worryingly, have "only" been turned back at the border, or at the airport. I am sorry we can't all be devoid of empathy like you. But I'll be happy to be shown to have overreacted in a few years. It's just that the alternative - that is, people like you being shown they were underreacting - is somehow more problematic. But, keep it up, Dr. Pangloss. I am sure, in a few years, you'll discover new insults like "snowflake" and "social justice warrior".
So I can be emo like you and consider authorities I dislike to be "thugs,", or else I can be "devoid of empathy?" In your worldview, those are the only options?
Well, if those are the only alternatives, I'll gladly be "devoid of empathy" in your eyes and clear-eyed in my own. I just have too much self-respect to go the emo route, satisfying as it must be to you to nail yourself to that cross. Tyranny must be fought with laws, not tears.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 26, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
I completely agree with Oexmelin's stance on the issue. This is absolutely an issue people should get passionate about.
:lol: And what do you imagine the differences are between Oex's stance and mine?
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 09:08:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 08:22:47 PM
Add in talk about "thugs" and you look like an emo sore loser.
This is ICE and CBP we're talking about here. Amazing what federal gigs a high school diploma and 10 Veterans Preference points for "the voices" since coming home from Iraq can score these days.
Oh, those guys have been bastards for a long time. This myth that Trump has unleashed them somehow and made them "bad hombres" is kinda amusing, if you've been at all paying attention for the last fifteen years.
While I have every confidence in General Kelly being able control the Department of Misfit Toys, the fact remains that Der Furor has loosened the ROE for them--and with Attorney Confederate General Jefferson Beauregard Secessions in charge of DOJ, I don't see the concerns surrounding a new-found professional zealotry as too unreasonable.
Quote from: PDH on February 26, 2017, 09:19:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 26, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
I completely agree with Oexmelin's stance on the issue. This is absolutely an issue people should get passionate about.
Fuck. Tainted. Sorry, Oex
Don't feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for America, for my noble cause is hers, and 'tis America now that is tainted.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbetterlivingthroughbeowulf.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FCaptain-Ahab.jpg&hash=22341044e8a81c75dd803ed689c4ef27ab1a68f4)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 09:08:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 08:36:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 08:22:47 PM
Add in talk about "thugs" and you look like an emo sore loser.
This is ICE and CBP we're talking about here. Amazing what federal gigs a high school diploma and 10 Veterans Preference points for "the voices" since coming home from Iraq can score these days.
Oh, those guys have been bastards for a long time. This myth that Trump has unleashed them somehow and made them "bad hombres" is kinda amusing, if you've been at all paying attention for the last fifteen years.
While I have every confidence in General Kelly being able control the Department of Misfit Toys, the fact remains that Der Furor has loosened the ROE for them--and with Attorney Confederate General Jefferson Beauregard Secessions in charge of DOJ, I don't see the concerns surrounding a new-found professional zealotry as too unreasonable.
So what you're saying is......... :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 09:22:46 PM
While I have every confidence in General Kelly being able control the Department of Misfit Toys, the fact remains that Der Furor has loosened the ROE for them--and with Attorney Confederate General Jefferson Beauregard Secessions in charge of DOJ, I don't see the concerns surrounding a new-found professional zealotry as too unreasonable.
I think that the expansion of the "focus" to include "everything" is as troublesome as it is pointless, and I expect it will go away de facto as the impossibility of it becomes evident. In the meantime, the key is to document what is actually happening, dispassionately, so that those who find it uncomfortable are given ammunition to support their discomfort. What needs to be avoided is reporting that starts with the assumption that law enforcement is made up of thugs and villains. The demonization of enemies may have carried Trump to power, but it isn't going to carry much eight in the fight against him. You won't beat him using his means.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 26, 2017, 09:31:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2017, 09:22:46 PM
While I have every confidence in General Kelly being able control the Department of Misfit Toys, the fact remains that Der Furor has loosened the ROE for them--and with Attorney Confederate General Jefferson Beauregard Secessions in charge of DOJ, I don't see the concerns surrounding a new-found professional zealotry as too unreasonable.
So what you're saying is......... :lol:
That there's a shitload of Chets from
Weird Science that couldn't get into the FBI.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 09:21:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 26, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
I completely agree with Oexmelin's stance on the issue. This is absolutely an issue people should get passionate about.
:lol: And what do you imagine the differences are between Oex's stance and mine?
Well for one, your stance involves being a dick to Oex. I'm pretty sure Oex's does not.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 26, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
I completely agree with Oexmelin's stance on the issue. This is absolutely an issue people should get passionate about.
His stance appears to be that ICE being told to strictly enforce existing laws somehow makes their personnel into thugs. Are you really in complete agreement with that?
Quote from: dps on February 26, 2017, 09:52:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 26, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
I completely agree with Oexmelin's stance on the issue. This is absolutely an issue people should get passionate about.
His stance appears to be that ICE being told to strictly enforce existing laws somehow makes their personnel into thugs. Are you really in complete agreement with that?
You can easily become a thug by enforcing laws, it all depends on how you enforce them.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2017, 09:05:21 PM
You can't help being emo, can you? If I point out that people are being emo when they insist that officials they don't like are "thugs," you can either take that on board or go even more emo, like here. I kinda find your taking the second approach more amusing, I'll admit, so keep up the emo if you can.
Are you saying you do not think there's been a change in the way CBP and ICE operates since Trump took over, reports and policy changes notwithstanding?
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2017, 09:52:25 PM
Well for one, your stance involves being a dick to Oex. I'm pretty sure Oex's does not.
:D True, and another thing is that, of the two of us, only Oex is being a dick to me!
The biggest difference is that i subscribe to napoleon's dictum that one should "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Fighting stupid is harder and less heroic than fighting evil, I will admit.
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2017, 09:57:21 PM
Are you saying you do not think there's been a change in the way CBP and ICE operates since Trump took over, reports and policy changes notwithstanding?
There has been no essential change in the way CBP and ICE operates, no. There has been an increase in enforcement actions, for sure, but they aren't more "thuggish" than they were, insofar as I can tell.
The problem is not Trumpian malice, but rather that the US government has been hiring (like local governments for police forces) people it wouldn't/shouldn't be hiring, because of the perceived need for more bodies to do the checking. What we are seeing from CBP is pretty much what we've always seen, just reported in more depth and at a slightly higher tempo. It is also of a piece with what we've seen from local law enforcement, and for much the same reasons.
Bad times to be brown in the US...
QuoteOn Thursday, a Kansas man open fired at a bar in the city of Olathe, killing 32-year-old Srinivas Kuchibhotla and injuring his colleague, 32-year-old Alok Madasani. Both men were Indian immigrants who work in GPS-maker Garmin's aviation department. The gunman also wounded a local American Ian Grillot, 24, who tried to intervene when the man started shooting.
Garmin has a customer service center a mile from the scene of the shooting at Austins Bar and Grill—a joint the two men reportedly frequented.
Five hours after the incident, 51-year-old Adam Purinton was arrested at an Applebee's and charged with one count of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of attempted premeditated first-degree murder in Johnson County, Kansas, District Attorney Stephen Howe said.
While fleeing, Purinton allegedly told an Applebee's employee that he needed a place to hide because he had killed two Middle Eastern men, the Kansas City Star reported. A bystander at the crime scene recounted the gunman yelling "get out of my country" before attacking the Indian men.
He has a lot of trust in Applebee's to ask a random employee for a hideout spot.
Quote from: The Larch on February 27, 2017, 11:44:04 AM
Bad times to be brown in the US...
QuoteOn Thursday, a Kansas man open fired at a bar in the city of Olathe, killing 32-year-old Srinivas Kuchibhotla and injuring his colleague, 32-year-old Alok Madasani. Both men were Indian immigrants who work in GPS-maker Garmin's aviation department. The gunman also wounded a local American Ian Grillot, 24, who tried to intervene when the man started shooting.
Garmin has a customer service center a mile from the scene of the shooting at Austins Bar and Grill—a joint the two men reportedly frequented.
Five hours after the incident, 51-year-old Adam Purinton was arrested at an Applebee's and charged with one count of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of attempted premeditated first-degree murder in Johnson County, Kansas, District Attorney Stephen Howe said.
While fleeing, Purinton allegedly told an Applebee's employee that he needed a place to hide because he had killed two Middle Eastern men, the Kansas City Star reported. A bystander at the crime scene recounted the gunman yelling "get out of my country" before attacking the Indian men.
It was an even worse time back when it happened. :D
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2017, 12:01:15 PM
It was an even worse time back when it happened. :D
It was a worse time to be a brown person in the U.S. last Thursday than it is today?
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2017, 12:24:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2017, 12:01:15 PM
It was an even worse time back when it happened. :D
It was a worse time to be a brown person in the U.S. last Thursday than it is today?
For those brown people, yes. Since Purinton is in custody, it is arguably better today.
Quote from: HVC on February 27, 2017, 11:51:12 AM
He has a lot of trust in Applebee's to ask a random employee for a hideout spot.
At least he didn't flee to TGIFridays. Barf.
Quote
Papers, Please
Garrett Epps Feb 27, 2017
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/papers-please/517887/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/papers-please/517887/)
American citizens had their introduction to the Trump-era immigration machine Wednesday, when Customs and Border Protection agents met an airliner that had just landed at New York's JFK airport after a flight from San Francisco. According to passenger accounts, a flight attendant announced that all passengers would have to show their "documents" as they deplaned, and they did. The reason for the search, Homeland Security officials said, was to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a search for a specific immigrant who had received a deportation order after multiple criminal convictions. The target was not on the flight.
After days of research, I can find no legal authority for ICE or CBP to require passengers to show identification on an entirely domestic fight. The ICE authorizing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, provides that agents can conduct warrantless searches of "any person seeking admission to the United States"—if, that is, the officer has "reasonable cause to suspect" that the individual searched may be deportable. CBP's statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1467, grants search authority "whenever a vessel from a foreign port or place or from a port or place in any Territory or possession of the United States arrives at a port or place in the United States." CBP regulations, set out at 19 C.F.R. § 162.6, allow agents to search "persons, baggage, and merchandise arriving in the Customs territory of the United States from places outside thereof."
I asked two experts whether I had missed some general exception to the Fourth Amendment for passengers on a domestic flight. After all, passengers on flights entering the U.S. from other countries can expect to be asked for ID, and even searched. Barry Friedman, the Jacob D. Fuchsberg professor of law and affiliated professor of politics at New York University, is the author of Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission, a new book-length study of intrusive police investigation and search practices. "Is this remotely constitutional?" he asked. "I think it isn't. We all know generally the government can't come up and demand to see identification." Officers need to have statutory authority to search and reasonable suspicion that the person to be searched has violated the law, he said. Andre Segura, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, told me that "I'm not aware of any aviation exception" for domestic passengers.
An ID check is a "search" under the law. Passengers on the JFK flight were not "seeking admission"—the flight originated in the U.S. CBP officials told the public after the fact that they were looking for a specific individual believed to be on board. A search for a specific individual cannot include every person on a plane, regardless of sex, race, and age. That is a general paper check of the kind familiar to anyone who has traveled in an authoritarian country. As Segura told me, "We do not live in a 'show me your papers' society."
I asked a CBP spokesperson what legal authority the agency could show for the search. In response, the spokesperson said:
'In this situation, CBP was assisting ICE in locating an individual possibly aboard the flight that was ordered removed from the United States pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. To assist ICE, CBP requested consensual assistance from passengers aboard the flight to determine whether the removable individual in question was in fact aboard the flight. In the course of seeking this assistance, CBP did not compel any of these domestic passengers to show identification. With much-appreciated cooperation from these passengers, CBP was able to resolve the issue with minimal delay to the traveling public.'
It's quite legal for law enforcement to ask for "voluntary" cooperation. Anyone who follows criminal-procedure cases, however, knows that "voluntary" in legalese does not mean what ordinary people think it means. Supreme Court caselaw makes clear that officers may block an exit and ask for ID or permission to search. They aren't required to tell the individual stopped that he or she may refuse, and they have every incentive to act as if refusal may result in arrest. The Supreme Court held in 1984 that "while most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response." Passengers deplaning after a long flight might reasonably fear they will be "detained" if they anger the law enforcement figure blocking their exit. That officer is under no obligation to tell them they can refuse.
I am a white, English-speaking law professor, affluent, privileged, articulate, and a native-born citizen. Such hair as I have is white and I can hardly seem like a threat to anyone. I have researched the matter, and feel reasonably confident that an agent would have to let me pass if I refused the demand for my papers. If not, I can afford counsel and my family knows excellent lawyers to call.
I am vowing here and now not to show papers in this situation. I know that it will take gumption to follow through if the situation arises. What will be the reaction of ordinary travelers, some with outstanding warrants or other legal worries? Should we expect heroism of people who just want to get off an airplane?
Justice William O. Douglas once wrote that a regime of liberty includes "freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf."
A shadow is falling over that freedom, both for aliens and for citizens. Its loss will be devastating.
my god, reading the last two pages... some people really think trump is basically mordor, corrupting into fascism everything he touches. no actual arguments, just spouted fears based on a misunderstanding of the US population and, more importantly, US government
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
my god, reading the last two pages... some people really think trump is basically mordor, corrupting into fascism everything he touches. no actual arguments, just spouted fears based on a misunderstanding of the US population and, more importantly, US government
Well I mean we are just going by his campaign promises mostly.
trump's campaign message wasn't "let's make america fascist!" certain groups/people would have you believe that, but those are ridiculous arguments coming from "bush = hitler!" types. it's the same damn thing all over again, with the same people (+ new generation!) involved.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2017, 07:56:37 PM
trump's campaign message wasn't "let's make america fascist!" certain groups/people would have you believe that, but those are ridiculous arguments coming from "bush = hitler!" types. it's the same damn thing all over again, with the same people (+ new generation!) involved.
Or Obama = Hitler or Clinton=Hitler etc...
Yes I have been making jokes about the fact that every President we elect turns out to be Hitler for awhile.
But I thought everything Trump promised was horrible so it is not surprising that I find it horrible when he does what he said he would do.
But anyway Oex's friends and colleagues are being directly affected so he is upset.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2017, 07:56:37 PM
trump's campaign message wasn't "let's make america fascist!"
Media can't be trusted - except for the media run by his supporters - check
Need a nationalist agenda - check
conspiracy plots that need to be addressed by increasing the power of the state - check
anti-intellectualism - check
I am sure there is more but that was the low hanging fruit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2017, 10:16:50 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2017, 07:56:37 PM
trump's campaign message wasn't "let's make america fascist!"
Media can't be trusted - except for the media run by his supporters - check
Need a nationalist agenda - check
conspiracy plots that need to be addressed by increasing the power of the state - check
anti-intellectualism - check
I am sure there is more but that was the low hanging fruit.
The "action, not words" thing had a fascist tone to it, but a lot of that tended to come from his supporters rather than the campaign itself.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
some people really think trump is basically mordor,
Probably, but not here.
Quotecorrupting into fascism everything he touches.
It's getting close.
Quoteno actual arguments,
There have been plenty. Can't you read the forum while CdM bans you every 2 days?
Oh, wait, you're talking about Trump having no actual arguments. That is true.
Quotejust spouted fears based on a misunderstanding of the US population
Hard to deny.
Quoteand, more importantly, US government
Again, hard to deny.
[/quote]
Quote from: derspiess on March 01, 2017, 10:27:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 01, 2017, 10:16:50 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2017, 07:56:37 PM
trump's campaign message wasn't "let's make america fascist!"
Media can't be trusted - except for the media run by his supporters - check
Need a nationalist agenda - check
conspiracy plots that need to be addressed by increasing the power of the state - check
anti-intellectualism - check
I am sure there is more but that was the low hanging fruit.
The "action, not words" thing had a fascist tone to it, but a lot of that tended to come from his supporters rather than the campaign itself.
and he aptly channelled it. Just like other fascists leaders.
:lol: :rolleyes:
Tbh, I often say that to myself when I have to change a light bulb or a tire
I INVOKE FÜHRERPRINZIP
Quote from: LaCroix on February 28, 2017, 07:56:37 PM
trump's campaign message wasn't "let's make america fascist!" certain groups/people would have you believe that, but those are ridiculous arguments coming from "bush = hitler!" types. it's the same damn thing all over again, with the same people (+ new generation!) involved.
I was around for President Bush, I voted for Bush twice, the arguments are not the same at all.
sure they are. bush and trump are different people, and they're running different presidencies, but the some of the more severe complaints stem from the same irrational dislike for any cause that goes against their own.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2017, 08:25:47 PM
sure they are. bush and trump are different people, and they're running different presidencies, but the some of the more severe complaints stem from the same irrational dislike for any cause that goes against their own.
I don't quite understand. Could you explain more about this?
what would you like explained
Quote from: FunkMonk on March 01, 2017, 08:52:18 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2017, 08:25:47 PM
sure they are. bush and trump are different people, and they're running different presidencies, but the some of the more severe complaints stem from the same irrational dislike for any cause that goes against their own.
I don't quite understand. Could you explain more about this?
Liverals.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 01, 2017, 09:23:06 PM
what would you like explained
Which complaint raised in the prior 2 pages of the thread is irrational?
garrett epp's complaint that ICE lacked "reasonable suspicion" to search that plane