El Mero Mero posted:

You've said this like 6 times and it's actually not true. There are a dozen or more different types of cases for people that don't have documentation (other posters have mentioned some.) Undocumented people are not "illegal". That term doesn't even have a well understood legal meaning.

Also, "fruit of a crime"? Really? What is this, the old testament? That's another concept with no meaning, it just sounds flowery and dramatic.

What was the crime? What was the benefit? Was harm inflicted? What is the punishment? Is it reasonable in relation to the severity of the crime? Even if it's reasonable, is it cruel and unusual? How long ago was the crime committed? Are there specific details that matter?

These are all questions that matter and that you don't seem give a poo poo about.

Admiral Ray posted:

The real way to prevent these dastardly criminals from coming here and stealing our nation is to institute a citizenship check at grocery stores, DMV's, stop lights, and the sun. Why should these people benefit from our California sunlight? Why should they have access to food? Should they be allowed to have safety on the street? Should they be able soak in the aura of America? I say no. These benefits are allocated to US citizens alone, and these nefarious illegal actors benefiting from our climate, food, and water would be the fruit of a crime. Let them die in the street, I say! Stack their bodies like cordwood, so that we may look upon their emaciated faces in triumph! Turn them away from hospitals, so that all shall see their suffering! Attach sunshades to their bodies so that they may never view the sky again! Only once we have taken these, and many other actions, will we have corrected the eldritch imbalance that comes with undocumented immigrants!

Admiral Ray posted:

The real way to prevent these dastardly criminals from coming here and stealing our nation is to institute a citizenship check at grocery stores, DMV's, stop lights, and the sun. Why should these people benefit from our California sunlight? Why should they have access to food? Should they be allowed to have safety on the street? Should they be able soak in the aura of America? I say no. These benefits are allocated to US citizens alone, and these nefarious illegal actors benefiting from our climate, food, and water would be the fruit of a crime. Let them die in the street, I say! Stack their bodies like cordwood, so that we may look upon their emaciated faces in triumph! Turn them away from hospitals, so that all shall see their suffering! Attach sunshades to their bodies so that they may never view the sky again! Only once we have taken these, and many other actions, will we have corrected the eldritch imbalance that comes with undocumented immigrants!

Instant Sunrise posted:

You joke but I'm pretty sure most John and Ken listeners would unironically advocate for this.

stone cold posted:

oh my god are those fuckers still on the air

Instant Sunrise posted:

You joke but I'm pretty sure most John and Ken listeners would unironically advocate for this.

Instant Sunrise posted:

I just looked it up and unfortunately yes.

El Mero Mero posted:

You've said this like 6 times and it's actually not true. There are a dozen or more different types of cases for people that don't have documentation (other posters have mentioned some.) Undocumented people are not "illegal". That term doesn't even have a well understood legal meaning.

Also, "fruit of a crime"? Really? What is this, the old testament? That's another concept with no meaning, it just sounds flowery and dramatic.

What was the crime? What was the benefit? Was harm inflicted? What is the punishment? Is it reasonable in relation to the severity of the crime? Even if it's reasonable, is it cruel and unusual? How long ago was the crime committed? Are there specific details that matter?

These are all questions that matter and that you don't seem give a poo poo about.

Admiral Ray posted:

Dead Reckoning posted:

Entering the country without permission, and deliberately evading our immigration and border control systems, with the intent of either remaining or working without proper permission.

Their presence is the result of an illegal act, and their desire to be in the country was their motivation for breaking our laws. Do you disagree?

Dead Reckoning posted:

You're the one who brought up the idea of running a warrant check on someone before allowing them to receive certain services, so accusing me of drawing an equivalency is hilariously disingenuous. It's literally your example.

Dead Reckoning posted:

You're articulating an unlimited right without grappling with what that means in a world with limited resources. You cannot hand wave things like the discrepancy in care that would inherently exist if California offered free-at-the-point-of-service health care for all while other states do not.

VitalSigns posted:

Healthcare, education, shelter, sustenance, these are universal human rights. That they are not currently provided to every human being is an obstacle to be overcome and a battle to be won, it is not an argument that no one deserves these things. The practical or financial inability of our town or our state to feed and clothe and care for the entire world or even for the whole country singlehandedly is not an excuse to deny these necessities to the people who live in our own communities whom we do have the ability and resources to help.

stone cold posted:

theory: dead reckoning is an extremely caremad extremely owned john and or ken

VitalSigns posted:

Why is it that the people who squawk the loudest about statist tyranny and government overreach are always the first in line clamoring to live under a maximally intrusive police state where you can't get your kid some medicine or take a poo poo without someone demanding your papers to make sure your permits are in order and you're not evading unpaid parking tickets and the penalty for questioning authority is death.

Duckbox posted:

It's interesting seeing what happens when someone who never got beyond the "they broke the law!" level of understanding of immigration policy is faced with what the law actually says.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Sending them back to their countries of origin seems easier and more humane, IMO.

VitalSigns posted:

Why is it that the people who squawk the loudest about statist tyranny and government overreach are always the first in line clamoring to live under a maximally intrusive police state where you can't get your kid some medicine or take a poo poo without someone demanding your papers to make sure your permits are in order and you're not evading unpaid parking tickets and the penalty for questioning authority is death.

stone cold posted:

lol buddy if you think people telling to laugh at how idiotic you are is “mad”

well that would explain a lot about your extremely caremad posting

VitalSigns posted:

Wages from working without authorization are not considered fruit of the crime and are not forfeit if you're caught.

Fruit of the crime is a legal term that refers to the direct gains of the crime like money stolen from a bank or profits from selling drugs. It does not refer to every indirect unrelated thing that the original crime ultimately set in motion. My wages aren't forfeit if I work without authorization, or I jumped a subway turnstile to make my original job interview 10 years earlier...

VitalSigns posted:

Let me repeat that for you: The practical or financial inability of our town or our state to feed and clothe and care for the entire world or even for the whole country singlehandedly is not an excuse to deny these necessities to the people who live in our own communities whom we do have the ability and resources to help.

By definition illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the state long enough to meet residency requirements cannot be a financial threat to public services because they contribute to them in the same manner as every other resident of the state.

VitalSigns posted:

And as Instant Sunrise pointed out, what you want to do is illegal, it's unconstitutional, so it is pointless to scramble around trying to find some kind of legal term that you can misapply to make it vaguely kinda sound like the law backs you up.

Duckbox posted:

It's interesting seeing what happens when someone who never got beyond the "they broke the law!" level of understanding of immigration policy is faced with what the law actually says.

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm well aware of what the law is, I'm talking about what I think the law ought to be. Why do so many people have trouble with this distinction?

Dead Reckoning posted:

Illegal immigrants aren't legitimate members of the community.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Illegal immigrants aren't legitimate members of the community. We've created a legal process for those who wish to join the community on a temporary or permanent basis, and they chose to ignore or subvert it. Again, why do see fraud as different if it occurs at one remove? Why is defining "the community" as "people residing in California" morally superior to defining it as "people legally residing in California"?

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm well aware of what the law is, I'm talking about what I think the law ought to be. Why do so many people have trouble with this distinction?

quote:

California To Meet 2030 Renewable Energy Targets By 2020

A new report from the California Public Utilities Commission has concluded that the state’s major utilities have already met or will all soon exceed the state’s 2020 renewable energy target of 33%, and will likely meet the 2030 target of 50% by 2020.

California is well-known as a world leader in clean energy technology deployment, but the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) annual Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) report published earlier this month shows that the state’s utilities are well ahead of the RPS targets — specifically, to source 33% of retail sales per year from eligible renewable energy sources by 2020 and 50% by 2030.

...

On top of the fast pace of renewable energy deployment, California’s RPS program has similarly helped reduce the cost of renewable electricity, with the price of utility solar contracts between 2008 and 2016 falling by 77%, while the price of wind contracts between 2007 and 2015 fell by 47%.

Further, the CPUC predicts that, on aggregate, California’s utilities will meet its 2030 RPS requirements of 50% by 2020.

CPColin posted:

Yeah, I can't find it now, but I saw a headline the other day that building new renewable energy plants had just become cheaper than just running existing fossil fuel plants.

Cicero posted:

I'm not sure how you could make that comparison in a way that makes sense, one is an ongoing cost where you have to pick a specific window in time to get a number, the other is a one-off event. Like, is building a renewable plant cheaper than running a fossil fuel plant for a week, a month, a year, or what?

quote:

As LCOE values for alternative energy technologies continue to decline, in some scenarios the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear. This is expected to lead to ongoing and significant deployment of alternative energy capacity.

Global costs of generating electricity from alternative energy technologies continue to decline. For example, the levelized cost of energy for both utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind technologies are down approximately 6% from last year.

Despite the modestly slowing rate of cost declines for utility-scale alternative energy generation, the gap between the costs of certain alternative energy technologies (e.g., utility-scale solar and onshore wind) and conventional generation technologies continues to widen as the cost profiles of such conventional generation remain flat (e.g., coal) and, in certain instances, increase (e.g., nuclear). Specifically, the estimated levelized cost of energy for nuclear generation increased ~35% versus prior estimates, reflecting increased capital costs at various nuclear facilities currently in development.

quote:

Mexico’s Energy Auction Just Logged the Lowest Solar Power Price on the Planet

Preliminary results show Enel bid two solar projects at just $17.70 per megawatt-hour. Wind power also hit a record-low price point in Mexico.

Preliminary results from Mexico’s latest energy auction have broken the lower boundary for solar costs, following a trend seen in other auctions around the world.

The Mexican government this month announced the average price achieved in its third long-term auction of 2017 was $20.57 per megawatt-hour, which it said is “one of the lowest prices achieved internationally.”

A breakdown of the winning bids, published by Electrek, shows Italian developer Enel pitching two solar lots at $17.70 per megawatt-hour, or just 1.77 cents per kilowatt-hour -- the lowest bid achieved anywhere in the world so far. Two years ago, the U.S. solar sector was cheering projects priced below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The record-low rate comes hot on the heels of an auction in Chile that saw Enel bidding $21.48 per megawatt-hour of solar power on one sub-block of capacity.

It was the lowest price for solar in the whole of Latin America, but not quite as cheap as bids achieved in the Middle East not long before.

In October, a tender for 300 megawatts of solar power in Saudi Arabia saw Abu Dhabi developer Masdar offering a price of $17.86 per megawatt-hour, the lowest cost on the planet up until Mexico’s results this month.

raminasi posted:

You understand that nobody you’re arguing with agrees with this, right?

Duckbox posted:

So wait, you're not just being ruthlessly legalistic and saying "rules are rules?" You actually think the system is flawed and can and should be changed? And the only change you'd make would be to strip marginalized immigrant families of their few existing rights? Why?

Dead Reckoning posted:

Illegal immigrants aren't legitimate members of the community. We've created a legal process for those who wish to join the community on a temporary or permanent basis, and they chose to ignore or subvert it. Again, why do see fraud as different if it occurs at one remove? Why is defining "the community" as "people residing in California" morally superior to defining it as "people legally residing in California"?

Dead Reckoning posted:

I think our border control and immigration systems are legitimate, and their enforcement is legitimate. Everything else flows from that.

Jaxyon posted:

It's not. It's a racist system set up specifically to cause this particular situation and it has been for a very long time.

FCKGW posted:

i agree with everything dead reckoning says and find no faults in his arguments. i think i speak for the entire thread when i say thank you for bringing this to our attention now can we PLEASE talk about a GENDER NEUTRAL BATHROOMS ?!??!?!?!?!?