|
Knight posted:That's a strange thing to say. The memo says it would authorize troops "to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States." Are you saying that's not their intent? https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/832641475158622209
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Are you seriously trying to tell me the words "rounding up" don't appear in the memo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Knight posted:Are you seriously trying to tell me the words "rounding up" don't appear in the memo? I'm telling you that all this memo does is makes personnel available at the request of elected state officials if they so choose. The big complaint from states who refuse to enforce immigration law has been a lack of manpower and this is the government making that manpower available to them. The only "rounding up" that's going to be done are the already existing functions performed by ICE. All the power remains with state officials like it previously did, they just can't use the "we don't have the people to enforce this" excuse any more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Why are states responsible for enforcing federal laws in the first place though. They aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Why are states responsible for enforcing federal laws in the first place though. Haha yeah man it's not like we fought a war over this or anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Haha yeah man it's not like we fought a war over this or anything. lol no but really you know that like constitutionally states aren't supposed to be enforcing federal laws right? Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
quote:States, in fact, can “pick and choose which federal laws” state officials will enforce, and state refusals to enforce federal law would most definitely “withstand a legal challenge.” In fact, they already have. See, e.g. Printz v. United States in which the Supreme Court held that state officials could refuse to implement a federal background check requirement for the purchase of new firearms. Under Printz and New York v. United States it is well established that the federal government cannot force state officials to implement federal laws. fuckin' knew it get outta here fuckfaces
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:lol no but really you know that like constitutionally states aren't supposed to be enforcing federal laws right? This is some real dumb poo poo. If I kidnap someone and drag them over the state line to Arizona the cops there should just leave me alone because it's a federal issue now, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:This is some real dumb poo poo. If I kidnap someone and drag them over the state line to Arizona the cops there should just leave me alone because it's a federal issue now, right? Presumably what would happen is you get arrested for illegally imprisoning someone in AZ and then you get sent up to federal pound me in the rear end court for the across state lines kidnapping charge. I mean I cited you SCOTUS rulings that explicitly say the states are under no obligation to enforce federal law so if you want you can keep arguing but lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:fuckin' knew it get outta here fuckfaces Hmmm... You may not be right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:Hmmm... You may not be right here. fam I mean here is the text of the Supreme Court ruling quote:Relevant constitutional practice tends to negate the existence of the congressional power asserted here, but is not conclusive. Enactments of the early Congresses seem to contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States' executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization. The early enactments establish, at most, that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power. The Government misplaces its reliance on portions of The Federalist suggesting that federal responsibilities could be imposed on state officers. None of these statements necessarily implies--what is the critical point here--that Congress could impose these responsibilities without the States' consent. They appear to rest on the natural assumption that the States would consent, see FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 796, n. 35 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). Finally, there is an absence of executive commandeering federal statutes in the country's later history, at least until very recent years. Even assuming that newer laws represent an assertion of the congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are not probative of a constitutional tradition. Pp. 4-18. If the states don't want to, they are under no obligation to enforce federal law. It's pretty dang black and white. quote:The Constitution's structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of "dual sovereignty." See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. See, e.g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government's power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service--and at no cost to itself--the police officers of the 50 States. Pp. 18-22.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
That case looks like a state does not have to enforce a law that they consider unconstitutional
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:That case looks like a state does not have to enforce a law that they consider unconstitutional quote:None of these statements necessarily implies--what is the critical point here--that Congress could impose these responsibilities without the States' consent. They appear to rest on the natural assumption that the States would consent, see FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 796, n. 35 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part) No it is literally "if the states do not want to, they are under no obligation to enforce federal law." I mean dudes, legal marijuana. A local officer isn't going to arrest you and take you to a federal court if you have weed in a weed legal state. Think about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:I'm telling you that all this memo does is makes personnel available at the request of elected state officials if they so choose. The big complaint from states who refuse to enforce immigration law has been a lack of manpower and this is the government making that manpower available to them. The only "rounding up" that's going to be done are the already existing functions performed by ICE. All the power remains with state officials like it previously did, they just can't use the "we don't have the people to enforce this" excuse any more. There's no difference. They're talking about mobilizing the National Guard to catch and detain aliens, and apparently you're real defensive about how that sounds. That does not disprove anything in the article. Knight fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Knight posted:That's not contradicting any of the facts AP stated, that's just spin. You're quoting a guy who attacked the AP story on the grounds that the memo doesn't say it would "nationalize" the NG, when that's exactly what the AP article says in the first place. Now you're arguing that mobilizing the NG for the purpose of "apprehension and detention of aliens" doesn't mean they would be "rounding up" aliens. No they aren't, they're talking about making them available as manpower to whatever shortage the state claims to have. This is almost always in a clerical/investigative capacity. States aren't crying for lack of people rounding others up, they're complaining about not having the time to check everyone they take into custody's info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:No they aren't, they're talking about making them available as manpower to whatever shortage the state claims to have. This is almost always in a clerical/investigative capacity. States aren't crying for lack of people rounding others up, they're complaining about not having the time to check everyone they take into custody's info.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:No they aren't, they're talking about making them available as manpower to whatever shortage the state claims to have. Please explain the difference between this and mobilization
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Knight posted:Who the gently caress do you think you're fooling? This is a long-running battle the states have been having with the federal government for years. The state arrests someone for a crime, takes them in and processes them, then refuses to check their immigration status claiming that it's not their job and they don't have the people for it. They then release them. The federal government is offering personnel to act in that capacity with the consent and control of the state. Each state will decide when and where these people are needed, it's not a blanket order to send the national guard to round people up. the purpose of this order is to eliminate the excuse the states are putting forward that they don't have the resources to do this check. It's a procedural chess move designed to create a later legal showdown. The national guard isn't going to be running around detaining people unless the state specifically asks them to, which was already an option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
"actually it's OK, the military force will only be doing the paperwork for the brownshirt police to round up the immigrants. no, you don't get it, it's much more woke"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
It appears to literally be the feds calling the states out on an excuse they have been using for years to avoid doing enforcing immigration stuff and also to avoid out and out stating "we're not enforcing your immigration policies" because that would prolly look bad in the media. Let's not get our tighties in a twirl. The Feds are probably just making the states say it outright or find a new excuse in an effort to shake them into cooperating, which might not work depending on the state. CA is gonna say gently caress off either way. AZ might go 'thanks for the additional resources!' quote:It's a procedural chess move designed to create a later legal showdown. yea Stop giving the 'fake news!' nuts ammunition ffs. Brown shirts lol. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:"actually it's OK, the military force will only be doing the paperwork for the brownshirt police to round up the immigrants. no, you don't get it, it's much more woke" The fact that recidivist criminals don't have their legal status verified is a legitimate complaint and states are dumb for not doing it and opening this door in the first place. It would have been a much better idea to leave protections for the law-abiding immigrants in place without using blanket measures like this that have resulted in disaster scenarios where people were killed by a repeat offender that should have been deported.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:The fact that recidivist criminals don't have their legal status verified is a legitimate complaint and states are dumb for not doing it and opening this door in the first place. It would have been a much better idea to leave protections for the law-abiding immigrants in place without using blanket measures like this that have resulted in disaster scenarios where people were killed by a repeat offender that should have been deported. To be fair, killing a bunch of people is a pretty good way to blend into American culture at large
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
I just wish people would be reasonable. I'm not super rah rah anti illegal immigration by any means but bro if a dude commits a violent felony and they are not a legal immigrant then they should be deported. ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
How many walls can Trump build in the frozen time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I just wish people would be reasonable. I'm not super rah rah anti illegal immigration by any means but bro if a dude commits a violent felony and they are not a legal immigrant then they should be deported. No person is illegal, Nazi
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Spunky Psycho Ho posted:No person is illegal, Nazi Well it is either deportation or prison but for the latter to be the better choice then we need a huge revamp of our prison system because it is a fuckin' mess. Another mess we've inherited!!!!! Also imo my sympathy ended when they committed a violent felony man idk. Can't just be the world's doormat. Otherwise there should be a reasonable path to legal status for the people already here. Then we have to fix our foreign policy wrt to everyone south of the border so the incentive to escape shitlands (that the USA helped make that way) and come to America isn't as strong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Well it is either deportation or prison but for the latter to be the better choice then we need a huge revamp of our prison system because it is a fuckin' mess. Another mess we've inherited!!!!! American prisons gave us this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inAl3sbj4ZM
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
You know, when someone runs for office on a rather overt platform xenophobia and right wing nationalism and then within the the first few weeks of taking office takes aggressive action to consolidate power into an unprecedentedly small closed group of people that are openly hostile to and unwilling to compromise with everyone outside that group, maybe it's not the best time to be giving that person the benefit of doubt. Perhaps, given the well documented history of similar events in just the past century and what they lead too, it is totally justified to be overly critical and demanding that the burden of proof be on those now in power as to what their true intentions are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
NeoHentaiMaster posted:You know, when someone runs for office on a rather overt platform xenophobia and right wing nationalism and then within the the first few weeks of taking office takes aggressive action to consolidate power into an unprecedentedly small closed group of people that are openly hostile to and unwilling to compromise with everyone outside that group, maybe it's not the best time to be giving that person the benefit of doubt. Perhaps, given the well documented history of similar events in just the past century and what they lead too, it is totally justified to be overly critical and demanding that the burden of proof be on those now in power as to what their true intentions are. Just say Trump is literally Hitler
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
NeoHentaiMaster posted:You know, when someone runs for office on a rather overt platform xenophobia and right wing nationalism and then within the the first few weeks of taking office takes aggressive action to consolidate power into an unprecedentedly small closed group of people that are openly hostile to and unwilling to compromise with everyone outside that group, maybe it's not the best time to be giving that person the benefit of doubt. Perhaps, given the well documented history of similar events in just the past century and what they lead too, it is totally justified to be overly critical and demanding that the burden of proof be on those now in power as to what their true intentions are. That's a pretty different argument than what was being made though, which was mostly nitpicking about words and handwringing about misinterpretations of federal orders. If you want to say "it is irrelevant what the wording of the order is, it still creates new avenues to enforce policies pushed by xenophobic nationalist crazy people" then okay sure maybe. But you people were saying "this is brown shirts rounding people up!" and no, it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Immigration reform was one of the early wells poisoned by identity politics. No reasonable person is in favor of rounding up productive members of society and shipping them out but also it's not inherently racist to acknowledge that importing shitloads of exploitable labor into our country is bad for the population at large or that deporting criminals is a good idea. The demographic details of immigration also make any type of policy aimed at eliminating or curbing illegal immigration seem like racist policy against Latinos because they make up the majority of the group. Both sides are dug into fairly irrational ideological holes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Waterbed Wendy posted:We had father-daughter dances in Girl Scouts. It was basically a fun way to have a family night out where you get to dress up and dance the Twist with your dad and then go eat cookies with your friends. It's not like they were playing Jamaican Dancehall music or whatever. Daggering Dad videos should definitely not be a thing I am thinking about when you mention Jamaican dancehall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:weird the stocks of all these failing media companies seem to be at 1Y highs trump made late night talk shows great again
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:I was in the Army, he ain't wrong I was in the Navy in the early 90s. It wasn't much different then either. And most of the kids created by those dumb fucks (in some cases just so they could get assigned to a shore command. In spite of our ship spending 80% of it's time on base and not underway) are military if not drinking age. The amount of idiots in the services cannot be underestimated. From the rawest 18 year old E1 recruit to O 6+ officers there are tons of assholes! dumbfucks! and mentally unstable loonies in. poo poo, in many cases lots of them are in because it's about the only way they can have a job while still mentally acting like an idiot in High School. It's a microcosm of people really. Just people who do harder jobs. Well the ones who actually work and give a gently caress anyhow. Lots of people spent more time and effort not working than if they just did their loving jobs and quit worrying about their genitals or alcohol/smokes dependencies.. When in training schools your superiors all have stories about hookers some poo poo is hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Meltdown May has come early. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Waterbed Wendy posted:My mother was a liberal when she married my Conservative Republican father. They just didn't talk about politics a lot. She would vote D in elections and he R. friend, j/w how old are you? Your dear mother won't be around forever. Just saying, love your fam while they're around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:I was in the Navy in the early 90s. It wasn't much different then either. And most of the kids created by those dumb fucks (in some cases just so they could get assigned to a shore command. In spite of our ship spending 80% of it's time on base and not underway) are military if not drinking age. otoh civilians
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:Meltdown May has come early. Well we got to this point pretty fast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
GREAT SATAN posted:friend, j/w how old are you? Your dear mother won't be around forever. Just saying, love your fam while they're around. Hey bud, I'm in my late 20's. I love my parents and talk with them regularly, so don't worry about that. I just refuse to engage with them on political topics is all which seems to be a fairly common way of dealing with political differences inside a family.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Niwrad posted:Meltdown May has come early. On one hand, more than 90% of all media is owned by like 5 companies and they spew nothing but propaganda, half-truths, and try to spin a narrative that benefits their owners, the rich, and the establishment in general. On the other hand, holy loving lmao the president of the United States, Donald Tromp, just called the media the enemy of the American people 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 01:59
|
|
