Immigration

[Vrede too]

But I guess a fascist would see nothing wrong with any of it.

Hence the diminishing but still significant MAGA support.


American gulag stifled:

Kansas tribe ends nearly $30 million deal with ICE

A Kansas tribe said it has walked away from a nearly $30 million federal contract to come up with preliminary designs for immigrant detention centers after facing a wave of online criticism.

The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 's announcement Wednesday night came just over a week after the economic development leaders who brokered the deal with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were fired.

With some Native Americans swept up and detained in recent ICE raids, the deal was derided online as “disgusting” and “cruel." Many in Indian Country also questioned how a tribe whose own ancestors were uprooted two centuries ago from the Great Lakes region and corralled on a reservation south of Topeka could participate in the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts....

[O Really]

Warrant? We don't need no stinkin' warrant.

[neoplacebo]

But I guess a fascist would see nothing wrong with any of it.

Hence the diminishing but still significant MAGA support.


American gulag stifled:

Kansas tribe ends nearly $30 million deal with ICE

A Kansas tribe said it has walked away from a nearly $30 million federal contract to come up with preliminary designs for immigrant detention centers after facing a wave of online criticism.

The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 's announcement Wednesday night came just over a week after the economic development leaders who brokered the deal with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were fired.

With some Native Americans swept up and detained in recent ICE raids, the deal was derided online as “disgusting” and “cruel." Many in Indian Country also questioned how a tribe whose own ancestors were uprooted two centuries ago from the Great Lakes region and corralled on a reservation south of Topeka could participate in the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts....

I read about that story of the tribe backing out of this thing and even firing the people who set it up. Good on them. Principle trumps greed for once.

[neoplacebo]

There is a lot of assuming that ICE did not have a warrant for this subject. If that is the case the action of ICE is appropriate.

Who is doing this assuming? And what the hell are you actually trying to say? You seem to be saying that even if ICE did not have a warrant for this guy, what they did was appropriate. Is that it? And that if there was a warrant for him, the judge in the court he was appearing in would not know that? Did you know that ICE does not issue warrants? Are you assuming they do?

[supesalemgr2]

There is a lot of assuming that ICE did not have a warrant for this subject. If that is the case the action of ICE is appropriate.

Who is doing this assuming? And what the hell are you actually trying to say? You seem to be saying that even if ICE did not have a warrant for this guy, what they did was appropriate. Is that it? And that if there was a warrant for him, the judge in the court he was appearing in would not know that? Did you know that ICE does not issue warrants? Are you assuming they do?

I fully understand a warrant from come from a court. If there was one ICE had every right to pursue the subject in the courthouse.. The judge knew that and assisted the subject in avoiding ICE.

[supesalemgr2]

There is a lot of assuming that ICE did not have a warrant for this subject. If that is the case the action of ICE is appropriate.

Who is doing this assuming? And what the hell are you actually trying to say? You seem to be saying that even if ICE did not have a warrant for this guy, what they did was appropriate. Is that it? And that if there was a warrant for him, the judge in the court he was appearing in would not know that? Did you know that ICE does not issue warrants? Are you assuming they do?

I fully understand a warrant from come from a court. If there was one ICE had every right to pursue the subject in the courthouse.. The judge knew that and assisted the subject in avoiding ICE.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 839662007/

BTW, this CNN story indicates the subject was not in the country in any legal manner.

[neoplacebo]

There is a lot of assuming that ICE did not have a warrant for this subject. If that is the case the action of ICE is appropriate.

Who is doing this assuming? And what the hell are you actually trying to say? You seem to be saying that even if ICE did not have a warrant for this guy, what they did was appropriate. Is that it? And that if there was a warrant for him, the judge in the court he was appearing in would not know that? Did you know that ICE does not issue warrants? Are you assuming they do?

I fully understand a warrant from come from a court. If there was one ICE had every right to pursue the subject in the courthouse.. The judge knew that and assisted the subject in avoiding ICE.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 839662007/

BTW, this CNN story indicates the subject was not in the country in any legal manner.

The only thing I know about this situation is that a judge was charged in her own courtroom with obstructing ICE or something like that. I don't know why the guy was in court to begin with but just assumed that he was there because he was told to be there and he was. Would it have been better to detain this guy as he was leaving court or was it better to create this spectacle?

[supesalemgr2]

There is a lot of assuming that ICE did not have a warrant for this subject. If that is the case the action of ICE is appropriate.

Who is doing this assuming? And what the hell are you actually trying to say? You seem to be saying that even if ICE did not have a warrant for this guy, what they did was appropriate. Is that it? And that if there was a warrant for him, the judge in the court he was appearing in would not know that? Did you know that ICE does not issue warrants? Are you assuming they do?

I fully understand a warrant from come from a court. If there was one ICE had every right to pursue the subject in the courthouse.. The judge knew that and assisted the subject in avoiding ICE.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 839662007/

BTW, this CNN story indicates the subject was not in the country in any legal manner.

The only thing I know about this situation is that a judge was charged in her own courtroom with obstructing ICE or something like that. I don't know why the guy was in court to begin with but just assumed that he was there because he was told to be there and he was. Would it have been better to detain this guy as he was leaving court or was it better to create this spectacle?

ICE was there to detain a subject. They did not create a scene, the judge did as 12 jurors found.

[Vrede too]

MAGA despises private property and threatens false arrest when homeowners assert their unquestionable rights:


ICE Invades Woman’s Yard Without Warrant... She Isn’t Having It

Fascism is here thanks to cheerleaders like SoupySales.

[neoplacebo]

Who is doing this assuming? And what the hell are you actually trying to say? You seem to be saying that even if ICE did not have a warrant for this guy, what they did was appropriate. Is that it? And that if there was a warrant for him, the judge in the court he was appearing in would not know that? Did you know that ICE does not issue warrants? Are you assuming they do?

I fully understand a warrant from come from a court. If there was one ICE had every right to pursue the subject in the courthouse.. The judge knew that and assisted the subject in avoiding ICE.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 839662007/

BTW, this CNN story indicates the subject was not in the country in any legal manner.

The only thing I know about this situation is that a judge was charged in her own courtroom with obstructing ICE or something like that. I don't know why the guy was in court to begin with but just assumed that he was there because he was told to be there and he was. Would it have been better to detain this guy as he was leaving court or was it better to create this spectacle?

ICE was there to detain a subject. They did not create a scene, the judge did as 12 jurors found.

Yeah, but they did it in a most inappropriate way. Apparently this guy had been deported and then came back into the country. At some point after that, he was charged with battery and was appearing in court for that charge. The immigration people evidently knew he was in court but instead of waiting for the pending court case to come before the judge, the agents usurped the judge's authority by disrupting her court. They purposely boggled their operation to flout their own authority in a forum in which traditionally the judge is in charge. How about we wait and see how the judge's appeal turns out?

[supesalemgr2]

I fully understand a warrant from come from a court. If there was one ICE had every right to pursue the subject in the courthouse.. The judge knew that and assisted the subject in avoiding ICE.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 839662007/

BTW, this CNN story indicates the subject was not in the country in any legal manner.

The only thing I know about this situation is that a judge was charged in her own courtroom with obstructing ICE or something like that. I don't know why the guy was in court to begin with but just assumed that he was there because he was told to be there and he was. Would it have been better to detain this guy as he was leaving court or was it better to create this spectacle?

ICE was there to detain a subject. They did not create a scene, the judge did as 12 jurors found.

Yeah, but they did it in a most inappropriate way. Apparently this guy had been deported and then came back into the country. At some point after that, he was charged with battery and was appearing in court for that charge. The immigration people evidently knew he was in court but instead of waiting for the pending court case to come before the judge, the agents usurped the judge's authority by disrupting her court. They purposely boggled their operation to flout their own authority in a forum in which traditionally the judge is in charge. How about we wait and see how the judge's appeal turns out?

Just the kind of guy we want in our country.

[O Really]

[

Just the kind of guy we want in our country.

So here's a thought for you: The immigrants who eventually fought for and won American independence from England weren't really the most desirable characters. Quite a few miscreants, misfits, and rabble rousers. And the effort to revolt was in opposition to King George III, seen to be an intolerable tyrant who was also affected by some serious (and hidden at the time) health issues as well as generally being considered the "Mad King."

And interestingly, tariffs were a major issue for the American Revolution, imposing taxes like the Townshend Acts, Stamp Act, and Tea Act to raise revenue and control trade, sparking cries of "taxation without representation" and leading to boycotts and events like the Boston Tea Party.

So this batch of undesirables managed to create first a document declaring independence and then made it happen. They created a union of fiercely independent territories under one of the best and lasting constitutional statements in history. After the first 10 amendments, the Constitution remained the fundamental, respected, and protected law of the land for over 200 years, amended only rarely for issues largely reflecting changing societal change.

The so-called "American Dream" is only possible under that Constitution, and a country of laws and relative freedom is what almost every immigrant has ever come here for.

Then along comes Trump and the trumpers who aren't even subtle about their goal to wreck the government and, in tyrannical moves that would make ol' Mad King George proud, to do it without regard to any law or Supreme Court precedent.

So back to the question, would I rather have immigrants who value traditional American values or trumpers to want to tear it all down?
Given that the percentage of criminals in both groups is probably equal, I'll take the immigrants and deport the trumpers. They're more like Americans of the past 200 years than the trumpers are.

[supesalemgr2]

[

Just the kind of guy we want in our country.

So here's a thought for you: The immigrants who eventually fought for and won American independence from England weren't really the most desirable characters. Quite a few miscreants, misfits, and rabble rousers. And the effort to revolt was in opposition to King George III, seen to be an intolerable tyrant who was also affected by some serious (and hidden at the time) health issues as well as generally being considered the "Mad King."

And interestingly, tariffs were a major issue for the American Revolution, imposing taxes like the Townshend Acts, Stamp Act, and Tea Act to raise revenue and control trade, sparking cries of "taxation without representation" and leading to boycotts and events like the Boston Tea Party.

So this batch of undesirables managed to create first a document declaring independence and then made it happen. They created a union of fiercely independent territories under one of the best and lasting constitutional statements in history. After the first 10 amendments, the Constitution remained the fundamental, respected, and protected law of the land for over 200 years, amended only rarely for issues largely reflecting changing societal change.

The so-called "American Dream" is only possible under that Constitution, and a country of laws and relative freedom is what almost every immigrant has ever come here for.

Then along comes Trump and the trumpers who aren't even subtle about their goal to wreck the government and, in tyrannical moves that would make ol' Mad King George proud, to do it without regard to any law or Supreme Court precedent.

So back to the question, would I rather have immigrants who value traditional American values or trumpers to want to tear it all down?
Given that the percentage of criminals in both groups is probably equal, I'll take the immigrants and deport the trumpers. They're more like Americans of the past 200 years than the trumpers are.

What percentage of Trump supporters are lawbreakers while 100% of ILLEGAL immigrants are lawbreakers?

[GoCubsGo]

Ah, the dreaded illegal civil infraction.

[supesalemgr2]

Ah, the dreaded illegal civil infraction.

Your denial of a fact is noted.

[O Really]

What percentage of Trump supporters are lawbreakers while 100% of ILLEGAL immigrants are lawbreakers?

Including the ones who keep trying to turn over LEGAL elections? I don't know, but I do know that if you count equivalent lawbreaking to overstaying a visa or similar things, then you'd have to count traffic citations and other trivia like they're doing with the immigrants. So it may be higher than you think. In any case, those who are following the law to apply for asylum, or who are in-process are not ILLEGAL. But hey, I'm not unreasonable - you want to deport everybody who has been convicted of a violent felony since living in the US and who has no other legal protections, fine - go for it.
But if my choice were keeping someone whose only crime was the technicality of insufficient paperwork vs. anybody who advocates for the dismantling of the government and thinks the Supreme Court makes "suggestions", I'd keep the immigrants.

[supesalemgr2]

What percentage of Trump supporters are lawbreakers while 100% of ILLEGAL immigrants are lawbreakers?

Including the ones who keep trying to turn over LEGAL elections? I don't know, but I do know that if you count equivalent lawbreaking to overstaying a visa or similar things, then you'd have to count traffic citations and other trivia like they're doing with the immigrants. So it may be higher than you think. In any case, those who are following the law to apply for asylum, or who are in-process are not ILLEGAL. But hey, I'm not unreasonable - you want to deport everybody who has been convicted of a violent felony since living in the US and who has no other legal protections, fine - go for it.
But if my choice were keeping someone whose only crime was the technicality of insufficient paperwork vs. anybody who advocates for the dismantling of the government and thinks the Supreme Court makes "suggestions", I'd keep the immigrants.

Distraction trying to move to overturn elections. Your choice to keep others of whom you speak are a desire you choose.

[GoCubsGo]

What percentage of Trump supporters are lawbreakers while 100% of ILLEGAL immigrants are lawbreakers?

Including the ones who keep trying to turn over LEGAL elections? I don't know, but I do know that if you count equivalent lawbreaking to overstaying a visa or similar things, then you'd have to count traffic citations and other trivia like they're doing with the immigrants. So it may be higher than you think. In any case, those who are following the law to apply for asylum, or who are in-process are not ILLEGAL. But hey, I'm not unreasonable - you want to deport everybody who has been convicted of a violent felony since living in the US and who has no other legal protections, fine - go for it.
But if my choice were keeping someone whose only crime was the technicality of insufficient paperwork vs. anybody who advocates for the dismantling of the government and thinks the Supreme Court makes "suggestions", I'd keep the immigrants.

Distraction trying to move to overturn elections. Your choice to keep others of whom you speak are a desire you choose.

Why?

A crime is a crime, whether it's a speeding ticket, parking ticket, battery, insurrection or crossing a border.

Prosecute in all cases to the full extent of the law and trample the constitution in the process.

You go girl!

[O Really]

The somewhat true definition of insanity, as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome comes to mind. Repugs love "zero tolerance" but it has never worked in any application ever. The world isn't really absolute black/white. But zero tolerance has given us a drawing of a gun being treated the same as a gun, aspirin treated like cocaine; a pocket knife being the same as a meat cleaver and fingernail clippers being a weapon. But ICE and cohorts is too lazy or dumb to apply any judgement. Even murder has degrees, but not filing the right papers on time, noooooo! They're ILLEGAL. And it's not a distraction to bring in attempts to overturn LEGAL elections or traffic citations. If you believe in zero tolerance, it means zero tolerance.

[O Really]

Dont have to look very far to see potential "ILLEGALS" hanging drywall, creating stonework, tending landscaping, framing houses, fixing plumbing, planting and harvesting commercial crops that feed the nation, and yes, hanging out at Home Depot and places waiting to take almost any job available.

On the other hand, I can't say I see a lot of trumpers doing anything worthwhile for society.