Politics And Current Events

[Troy Loney]

The golden god... the bronze bomber... the titian titan... stands 6'3", 224 pounds.

Guys, I think this man might just be a habitual liar.

He must be built like Gumby to only weigh 224 under all that flab

[MWB]

[Morkle]

Like I said, imagine Biden doing this. What firestorm would there be?

[Troy Loney]

Get ready to hear more about FDR and the Japanese concentration camp whattaboutisms. We see they’re already on the memes

[MWB]

[Shyster]

Is spray painting a swastika onto a Tesla domestic terrorism?

I think everyone here agrees: vandalism... arson... charge 'em, give them their day in court, and levy punishment accordingly. The fact that the Trump/Bondi/Musk dream team would like all of this to be raised to the level of "domestic terrorism" is what is drawing an eyebrow raise from a lot of folks.

Spray painting alone? Probably not. Setting it in fire by throwing a Molotov cocktail on it? Potentially yes. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5):

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States[.]

Vandalizing cars because you were motivated by a desire to send a "message" to the owners that they need to sell their cars or join in your Tesla boycott would be something designed to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population." The question would be whether the act was also "dangerous to human life." Spray painting, keying, and the like wouldn't be, but acts of arson may qualify. So if arson was involved, charging an act of domestic terrorism is not really a stretch under current definitions.

[tifosi77]

This is something we've talked about in this thread before. "Domestic Terrorism" is not a chargeable offense under US law, nor (I believe) is it even an enhancement. (e.g. arson is 3 yrs in prison, but 'arson + DOMESTIC TERRORISM' is 7 yrs in prison) There are no penalties provided; as near as I can tell it's basically no different than a defined term in a contract.

I believe that's an accurate characterization, and if that's correct I am glad because I am not the slightest bit supportive of that ever changing. 'Terrorism' is such a loaded term in American politics, law enforcement, and culture, and invoking it has historically given carte blanche to all manner of sins against civil liberty.

[Shyster]

Shyster, on the other hand, is a big fan of legal immigrants being detained for no legally defendable reason

I've never said that.

I do think there are unsettled questions vis-à-vis persons with legal status, such as those with resident alien status or student visas. There is no question that constitutional rights extend to immigrants and even to aliens in the United States, so all the folks out there asserting stuff like "Aliens don't have constitutional rights" are entirely incorrect. Rights like due process, free speech, etc. apply to everyone. But I do not believe there is any high-level precedent (such as a SCOTUS case) as to whether the protections of the First Amendment extend to continued residence in the United States. Certainly, the fedgov could not charge someone with resident-alien status with a crime purely on the basis of their speech, unless that speech somehow met a recognized 1A exception (which are few and far between). But I don't believe it's clear whether the fedgov may or may not detain and then deport resident aliens on the basis of their speech, which I think is probably also intertwined with the question of whether and to what extent there is a right for a non-citizen to remain in the United States.

Generally speaking, historically, topics of immigration and border security have involved much more deference to the fedgov and much less enforcement of constitutional protections that might otherwise apply. That's why, for example, people entering the US—even US citizens returning from abroad—can be searched without a warrant and without probable cause of a crime. If you get pulled over for a traffic infraction, the police can't search a suitcase in your car without a warrant or without having arrested you for something else. But Customs and Border Protection can absolutely open up and search your luggage when you just landed back in the US from overseas, and you can't refuse that search. Does that sort of deference to the fedgov apply when it comes to immigration issues extend to deporting resident aliens on the basis of speech? Does it matter than the speech in question may be supportive of terrorist organizations (such as Hamas)? Is there a countervailing right to continued residence that overrides the fedgov in this area? I think ultimately all of those are SCOTUS questions.

This administration is like a jobs program for con-law lawyers. The cases are still percolating up, but the Solicitor General's office is going to be busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.

[Shyster]

At least two of those statements are incorrect. First, Kilmar Garcia was not here legally. He entered the United States illegally and was undocumented. What he did have was an order from an immigration ALJ saying that the feds could not deport him to El Salvador. That there was an order saying that he could not be deported does not mean he was here legally.

Second, the SCOTUS did not unanimously order his return. The district judge had entered an order saying that the fedgov had to both "facilitate" and "effectuate" his return. The SCOTUS unanimously agreed that the fedgov had to "facilitate" his return, but they remanded for the district judge to explain further what it meant by "effectuate," because, depending upon what the district judge meant by that term, the order "may exceed the District Court’s authority."

This matters because "facilitate" has a specific meaning when it comes to ICE. When ICE "facilitates" the return of an alien that has been deported to another country, that means that ICE will work with the local US embassy in that country to put together paperwork that the alien can use to travel back to the US, and ICE will also work with the CBP officials at the point of entry to make sure they admit the alien when he or she arrives. For example, if the alien is returning by air:

If the ICE point of contact tells me that ICE will facilitate my return to the United States, what happens?
ICE will contact the appropriate U.S. Embassy or Consulate in the country to which you have been removed to prepare transportation documentation. If/when the U.S. Embassy/Consulate issues transportation documentation, ICE will then work with CBP to facilitate your return. ICE and CBP have a process to exchange information about your return prior to your arrival at the port of entry. CBP will make the final determination about how you will be processed at a port of entry based on the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time of your inspection. Should there be any questions or concerns about your entry into the United States at the time of processing, CBP normally will contact ICE.

See Directive: 11061.1 Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens - FAQs on Facilitating the Return for Lawfully Removed Aliens. "Facilitate," however, does not mean that ICE will actually go get that person, such as by buying them plane tickets or sending an aircraft to pick them up. Rather, aliens are responsible for their own travel:

Am I responsible for making my own travel arrangements to return to the United States?
Yes. You will be responsible for your own travel arrangements and informing the ICE point of contact of your arrangements. ICE's involvement in facilitating your return is generally limited to: (i) reviewing and processing any paperwork necessary for your return; (ii) working with the Department of State, through the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in your country, to obtain a transportation/boarding letter on your behalf; and (iii) and working with CBP to ensure that, upon your arrival, CBP is aware that ICE has worked to facilitate your return.

See id. So an order that ICE must "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Garcia to the United States does not mean that the fedgov has to go to El Salvador and bring him back. And to the extent that the district judge's order (by saying "effectuate") was telling the feds that they had to go down to El Salvador and bring him back, the SCOTUS indicated that "may exceed the District Court’s authority."

[count2infinity]

Homegrowns are next…

[Gaucho]

First they came for the immigrants ...

[Troy Loney]

[count2infinity]

Can’t be accused of deporting citizens if you don’t let them become citizens in the first place… *points to brain meme*

[Viva la Ben]

Wasn’t the (now false) argument that they weren’t against immigration if it was done legally?
Horrific but not surprising as if you’d pay attention.

[Troy Loney]

This is why we shouldn’t seek advice from a lawyer on things that are objectively wrong. It’s horrific what this admin is doing by harassing and torturing immigrants residing in the us.

I don’t care if it’s technically legal to throw a foreign student in a van and throw them in jail or to deport asylum seekers to a gulag. This is depraved and terrifying.

[Gaucho]

Word.

[Trip McNeely]

Like I mentioned previously, the aforementioned lawyer is very happy this is all happening and why libertarianism is a complete falsehood of a political view

[MWB]

At least two of those statements are incorrect. First, Kilmar Garcia was not here legally. He entered the United States illegally and was undocumented. What he did have was an order from an immigration ALJ saying that the feds could not deport him to El Salvador. That there was an order saying that he could not be deported does not mean he was here legally.

Second, the SCOTUS did not unanimously order his return. The district judge had entered an order saying that the fedgov had to both "facilitate" and "effectuate" his return. The SCOTUS unanimously agreed that the fedgov had to "facilitate" his return, but they remanded for the district judge to explain further what it meant by "effectuate," because, depending upon what the district judge meant by that term, the order "may exceed the District Court’s authority."

This matters because "facilitate" has a specific meaning when it comes to ICE. When ICE "facilitates" the return of an alien that has been deported to another country, that means that ICE will work with the local US embassy in that country to put together paperwork that the alien can use to travel back to the US, and ICE will also work with the CBP officials at the point of entry to make sure they admit the alien when he or she arrives. For example, if the alien is returning by air:

If the ICE point of contact tells me that ICE will facilitate my return to the United States, what happens?
ICE will contact the appropriate U.S. Embassy or Consulate in the country to which you have been removed to prepare transportation documentation. If/when the U.S. Embassy/Consulate issues transportation documentation, ICE will then work with CBP to facilitate your return. ICE and CBP have a process to exchange information about your return prior to your arrival at the port of entry. CBP will make the final determination about how you will be processed at a port of entry based on the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time of your inspection. Should there be any questions or concerns about your entry into the United States at the time of processing, CBP normally will contact ICE.

See Directive: 11061.1 Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens - FAQs on Facilitating the Return for Lawfully Removed Aliens. "Facilitate," however, does not mean that ICE will actually go get that person, such as by buying them plane tickets or sending an aircraft to pick them up. Rather, aliens are responsible for their own travel:

Am I responsible for making my own travel arrangements to return to the United States?
Yes. You will be responsible for your own travel arrangements and informing the ICE point of contact of your arrangements. ICE's involvement in facilitating your return is generally limited to: (i) reviewing and processing any paperwork necessary for your return; (ii) working with the Department of State, through the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in your country, to obtain a transportation/boarding letter on your behalf; and (iii) and working with CBP to ensure that, upon your arrival, CBP is aware that ICE has worked to facilitate your return.

See id. So an order that ICE must "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Garcia to the United States does not mean that the fedgov has to go to El Salvador and bring him back. And to the extent that the district judge's order (by saying "effectuate") was telling the feds that they had to go down to El Salvador and bring him back, the SCOTUS indicated that "may exceed the District Court’s authority."

True, he wasn’t here legally, but he was sent to El Salvador illegally, since the courts said he couldn’t be sent there. Are you okay with what this administration has done to Garcia? You’re picking out specific legal aspects, which I get given your profession, but there’s a much broader issue here with what the administration is doing. Are you okay with those human rights violations? And are you okay with us citizens being sent to a foreign country for prison?

[Shyster]

True, he wasn’t here legally, but he was sent to El Salvador illegally, since the courts said he couldn’t be sent there. Are you okay with what this administration has done to Garcia? You’re picking out specific legal aspects, which I get given your profession, but there’s a much broader issue here with what the administration is doing. Are you okay with those human rights violations? And are you okay with us citizens being sent to a foreign country for prison?

My personal preference, which I believe I have stated before, would be for border control to be a thing of the past, and for free movement of people. I have also said that I believe my view is incompatible with a welfare state, and a necessary precondition for abolishing borders would be the elimination of the welfare state and the negation of any ability for immigrants to make any demand upon the public fisc. I don't care who comes across the border so long as they can make no claim on me or my money, whether directly or indirectly though taxation (which as a libertarian I am required to say is theft). So long as the welfare state exists, then I believe would-be immigrants need to play by the rules, and that includes not entering the country illegally. "Illegal" immigration is only a problem for a welfare state. Since that's what we have, who crosses the border and how many cross the border absolutely does matter to me. I wish it didn't, but it does.

Garcia did enter the country illegally, which is a crime. I don't believe he has any entitlement to be here, and I do not object sending him back to where he came from, which is El Salvador. I don't view that as a human-rights violation, either, because I don't think one has a "right" to remain in a country illegally. I don't like the fact that he's apparently in prison in El Salvador, but I don't think he has any right to be here.

The situation would of course be different for US citizens, and any effort to deport US citizens to other countries would be flatly illegal and unconstitutional.

[Shyster]

Like I mentioned previously, the aforementioned lawyer is very happy this is all happening and why libertarianism is a complete falsehood of a political view

How so?

[Shyster]

This is why we shouldn’t seek advice from a lawyer on things that are objectively wrong. It’s horrific what this admin is doing by harassing and torturing immigrants residing in the us.

You may be shocked that I agree with you. Ask a lawyer about whether something is legal or illegal. As to right and wrong, I dunno, go ask a priest or something. That's more their wheelhouse.

[MWB]

True, he wasn’t here legally, but he was sent to El Salvador illegally, since the courts said he couldn’t be sent there. Are you okay with what this administration has done to Garcia? You’re picking out specific legal aspects, which I get given your profession, but there’s a much broader issue here with what the administration is doing. Are you okay with those human rights violations? And are you okay with us citizens being sent to a foreign country for prison?

My personal preference, which I believe I have stated before, would be for border control to be a thing of the past, and for free movement of people. I have also said that I believe my view is incompatible with a welfare state, and a necessary precondition for abolishing borders would be the elimination of the welfare state and the negation of any ability for immigrants to make any demand upon the public fisc. I don't care who comes across the border so long as they can make no claim on me or my money, whether directly or indirectly though taxation (which as a libertarian I am required to say is theft). So long as the welfare state exists, then I believe would-be immigrants need to play by the rules, and that includes not entering the country illegally. "Illegal" immigration is only a problem for a welfare state. Since that's what we have, who crosses the border and how many cross the border absolutely does matter to me. I wish it didn't, but it does.

Garcia did enter the country illegally, which is a crime. I don't believe he has any entitlement to be here, and I do not object sending him back to where he came from, which is El Salvador. I don't view that as a human-rights violation, either, because I don't think one has a "right" to remain in a country illegally. I don't like the fact that he's apparently in prison in El Salvador, but I don't think he has any right to be here.

The situation would of course be different for US citizens, and any effort to deport US citizens to other countries would be flatly illegal and unconstitutional.

That’s a cop out, ie garcia. You’re saying the minute someone enters illegally, the government can do as they please, even though that same government also said he can’t be sent back. Since a “welfare state” exists, you seem to say it gives you an excuse to be okay with anything that happens to illegal immigrants. I don’t really get how human rights can’t be violated if a person does something illegally. Would just shooting Garcia have been okay?

[Shyster]

To follow up and further explain my personal views, I also believe that current immigration law excessively limits the number of people who can legally immigrate to the United States. I also believe that the numbers for legal immigrants (and especially immigrants who would not be coming here to take "skilled" jobs like doctors, engineers, and computer types) are kept unnecessarily low because politicians figure that low-skilled jobs will be filled by illegal immigrants, who primarily come across our southern border. I also think that the state of the southern border is highly and fundamentally unfair to people who don't live in Central or South America and don't have the ability to walk to the United States. There are tons of folks in Africa, Asia, and other places who would love to come here and pursue the American dream but don't have the ability to walk here, and I think it's fundamentally unfair that someone from Costa Rica or whatever just can walk here and swim across the border, while someone in Myanmar or Niger or whatever can't and has to wait in line for years. Thus, so long as we have a welfare state, which means we still need a border, it would be my preference:

1. To slam the southern border shut. No line jumping.
2. To vastly increase the number of legal immigrants, and to expedite the process to become a legal immigrant.
3. To make sure that immigration is offered fairly to people from all over the world.

[Shyster]

That’s a cop out, ie garcia. You’re saying the minute someone enters illegally, the government can do as they please, even though that same government also said he can’t be sent back. Since a “welfare state” exists, you seem to say it gives you an excuse to be okay with anything that happens to illegal immigrants. I don’t really get how human rights can’t be violated if a person does something illegally. Would just shooting Garcia have been okay?

Holy straw man, Batman. I did not say that I would be "okay with anything that happens to illegal immigrants." I'm okay with deporting them back to where they came from. That's it.

[MWB]

That’s a cop out, ie garcia. You’re saying the minute someone enters illegally, the government can do as they please, even though that same government also said he can’t be sent back. Since a “welfare state” exists, you seem to say it gives you an excuse to be okay with anything that happens to illegal immigrants. I don’t really get how human rights can’t be violated if a person does something illegally. Would just shooting Garcia have been okay?

Holy straw man, Batman. I did not say that I would be "okay with anything that happens to illegal immigrants." I'm okay with deporting them back to where they came from. That's it.

It’s not a straw man. You say that you’re okay with him being sent back, which was to a torture prison. That since he broke that law, that is okay, and not a human rights violation. So if it’s okay he is sent to a torture prison, what else are you okay with regarding illegal immigrants? That was my basic question.

Also, why is it okay to pick and choose which parts of the welfare state’s legal proceedings are followed? He came in illegally (at the age of 16, which should also factor into this). He was caught. He had a hearing and it was stated he couldn’t be sent back to El Salvador. He was given a work permit by the government and was checking in yearly with ICE, as he was told to do. So why should someone in this situation be sent to a prison? Morally, that doesn’t make sense, even if you think it should be fine legally.