Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Wasn’t there a whole thing in the constitution about an armed militia being granted the right to stand against a government that goes all tyrannical and tries to take away rights?

Where are all the gun nuts now? This is your moment guys

There are no rights being taken away. The federal government is responsible for immigration policy and enforcement. Though the Supreme Court has indicated that due process must be granted to immigrants regardless of their status, this due process does not mean a trial and does not need to be done inside the US and it's application is at the discretion of the Secretary of State (Rubio). It is important to remember that Obama removed ~3 million illegals using the same administrative adjudication as the 'due process' element so the precedent is clear.

As for the rioters, the Insurrection Act can apply here. Because California has a law explicitly preventing state/local law enforcement from aiding ICE in their mandated enforcement duty, the Insurrection Act or the Alien Enemies Act can be used to place soldiers into US territories to ensure the Constitutionally directed duties of the government can be executed. It's been done before, for example school integration, and is completely legal under current law.

Trump going over the Cali government’s head could be perceived as taking away a state’s rights, or certainly testing those waters.

BurtReynolds wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Doesn’t over a quarter of Americas fruit and vegetables come from California?
Who’s going to pick it when all those immigrant workers are gone? How expensive are those fruits and vegetables going to be, they few that do make it to the store?
I’d put that quite near the top of things Trump and his merry band, didn’t think through when they started all this.

"Who will pick the cotton without all these slaves?!"

So your poo brained solution is an indentured class of American citizens. That tracks.

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Doesn’t over a quarter of Americas fruit and vegetables come from California?
Who’s going to pick it when all those immigrant workers are gone? How expensive are those fruits and vegetables going to be, they few that do make it to the store?
I’d put that quite near the top of things Trump and his merry band, didn’t think through when they started all this.

"Who will pick the cotton without all these slaves?!"

So your poo brained solution is an indentured class of American citizens. That tracks.

you're an idiot.

Do you even know what "indentured servitude" is? That's essentially the system we have now, rocket scientist. And how would farm corporations being forced to pay American citizens higher wages because of a limited worker pool even remotely qualify as "indentured servitude" compared to what we have now?

Bi_3 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Wasn’t there a whole thing in the constitution about an armed militia being granted the right to stand against a government that goes all tyrannical and tries to take away rights?

Where are all the gun nuts now? This is your moment guys

There are no rights being taken away. The federal government is responsible for immigration policy and enforcement. Though the Supreme Court has indicated that due process must be granted to immigrants regardless of their status, this due process does not mean a trial and does not need to be done inside the US and it's application is at the discretion of the Secretary of State (Rubio). It is important to remember that Obama removed ~3 million illegals using the same administrative adjudication as the 'due process' element so the precedent is clear.

As for the rioters, the Insurrection Act can apply here. Because California has a law explicitly preventing state/local law enforcement from aiding ICE in their mandated enforcement duty, the Insurrection Act or the Alien Enemies Act can be used to place soldiers into US territories to ensure the Constitutionally directed duties of the government can be executed. It's been done before, for example school integration, and is completely legal under current law.

a yes, school integration and mass deportation. pretty much the same thing lol.

going over the state's rights to eliminate segregation is not the same thing going over state's rights to meet your own quota for deporting people. i know there's a legal argument for it, but there's legal arguments for all kinds of terrible things. it doesnt make it right. how did obama deport so many people without storming work places?

We don’t have indentured servitude. When that was used way back when you were basically the property of the person who bought your services and you had to do their bidding until that agreed upon debt

We are free to leave our employment at any time, start new jobs when we would like and we also for the most part get benefits as well as wages

Who is "we" here? If you think imported peasant laborers are very free to do those things, you are delusional.

Added to that the fact that free citizens can't economically compete with the slaveowner class, and they aren't that free either.

This is a tale as old as time

Bi_3 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:100% proof Undiluted koolaid is bad for your brain, Bi

There is some irony given that you want the Israelis who illegally immigrated and settled in the West Bank removed (an instance of something we agree on)

That’s antisemetic

Although that term has become so meaningless as to be laughable these days.

Remember those South African ‘refugees’ Trump brought over for his big PR stunt? Well that’s going as well for them as you’d imagine and now they’re really getting the refugee experience


Also, they’re now forbidden from returning to South Africa. Where’s Wlon to help them? Surely he can spare them a few bucks to help them out? No
‘No food, job or phones’: Afrikaner ‘refugee’ family ‘stranded’ in US
American Dream? An Afrikaner ‘refugee’ family has been left without assistance, including food, after arriving in the US…
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifesty ... ok-latest/

BurtReynolds wrote:Do you even know what "indentured servitude" is? That's essentially the system we have now, rocket scientist. And how would farm corporations being forced to pay American citizens higher wages because of a limited worker pool even remotely qualify as "indentured servitude" compared to what we have now?

You clearly do not.

Burt you really need to at least look up what such a term is and means before making a clown of yourself like this. I know it’s your entire bit but that’s not what indentured servitude is at all fella. Not even close.

Oh ok

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh ok

Do you hunt? Are skunk edible? It might come to that soon

BurtReynolds wrote:Who is "we" here? If you think imported peasant laborers are very free to do those things, you are delusional.

are they going to switch from pickinig fields to running a scrum of a system upgrade? no. if they want to leave a job working the fields and do grunt work in construction they are most certainly free to do so

warehouse wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Wasn’t there a whole thing in the constitution about an armed militia being granted the right to stand against a government that goes all tyrannical and tries to take away rights?

Where are all the gun nuts now? This is your moment guys

There are no rights being taken away. The federal government is responsible for immigration policy and enforcement. Though the Supreme Court has indicated that due process must be granted to immigrants regardless of their status, this due process does not mean a trial and does not need to be done inside the US and it's application is at the discretion of the Secretary of State (Rubio). It is important to remember that Obama removed ~3 million illegals using the same administrative adjudication as the 'due process' element so the precedent is clear.

As for the rioters, the Insurrection Act can apply here. Because California has a law explicitly preventing state/local law enforcement from aiding ICE in their mandated enforcement duty, the Insurrection Act or the Alien Enemies Act can be used to place soldiers into US territories to ensure the Constitutionally directed duties of the government can be executed. It's been done before, for example school integration, and is completely legal under current law.

a yes, school integration and mass deportation. pretty much the same thing lol.

going over the state's rights to eliminate segregation is not the same thing going over state's rights to meet your own quota for deporting people. i know there's a legal argument for it, but there's legal arguments for all kinds of terrible things. it doesnt make it right. how did obama deport so many people without storming work places?

I don't really understand how states rights work well enough to give an informed answer here, but I would caution anyone going down that path that the concept is used by zealots to do things like reintroduce prayer in school and implement extreme abortion bans, not to mention the whole Civil War / Confederacy thing, so those who invoke it should tread carefully and consider second order consequences. But I do think in this case it's more simple than that: either the federal government has the Constitutional authority to make and enforce laws that govern the states or it doesn't. That's it. We cannot have outside the letter of the law highly subjective moral carve-outs, because morality and culture evolve and thus what may be perceived as 'just' one day, like Obama's mass deportations, may be perceived as injustice the next, like Trump's mass deportations. So if there are to be limits on federal duties such as immigration enforcement, for example ICE agents do not go into public schools, Congress must pass that law and the President must sign it so that the entirety of the country and the judiciary understand what the rules actually are and so that interpretations cannot shift towards whichever direction the wind is blowing.

But to Obama's enforcement actions, they did storm workplaces.

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... d-children and https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/imm ... ons-n72796


The difference is that the media was not yet fully on the antiracism bandwagon yet, so the coverage and the political prominence was not the same. The pre-woke world was not the same as the world we live in today.

so you think the difference is the press coverage??? jesus. do you listen to how obama talked about immigrants compared to trump or holman?

maybe trump should have consulted obama about deporting people.

If think the answer to why you didn’t know or maybe remember what Obama to enforce immigration law is due to media presentation of the situation

Bi_3 wrote:If think the answer to why you didn’t know or maybe remember what Obama to enforce immigration law is due to media presentation of the situation

obama did have a strong stance but still treated them amazingly enough like humans. he didnt feel the need to degrade them. it is the same thing when people spoke up at his rallies. he didnt get angry and tell his cul...errr supporters to beat their ass or to get the hell out of here. while the right may not want to admit it obama did realize he was running a country with them in mind. trump absolutely does not give a shit about the left and hopes they all die

Bi_3 wrote:If think the answer to why you didn’t know or maybe remember what Obama to enforce immigration law is due to media presentation of the situation

i worked with immigration attorney's during obama's presidency. it has nothing to do with the media.