Politics

[Tanks]

TANKS. No need to reconcile anything. No need for equivalency! Treat citizen criminal gang members as criminals, try them and deport them to jail. Treat alien and non citizen criminals as criminals and deport them back to home country or any country who will take them. Then maintain strict legal entry requirements and closed border policy like we’ve been doing under Trump. It is not complicated,

My point was that they did not become gang bangers as a result of having illegal alien parents. That's a completely different issue.

 

[Scott CWO]

I learned Spanish working construction and landscaping with Mexicans as a teenager. Now days, most young people do not work thanks to their parents. It is normal to see Mexicans doing the lawn and pool work while the teenagers are sitting on the porch playing with their phone. A large part of society thinks their children are geniuses bound for college and common labor is beneath them.

I have spent the greater part of my life working in Latin America and being with Latinos. I will boldly state that I have a true "insider" opinion. Years ago, I worked with BORTAC in the El Paso and Tucson sectors during a support cycle. We had to have permission or a warrant to enter private properties on the border. It was always granted but often came with a "don't detain family X, they cross every year for work and then go back home." It was incredible how obvious it was if someone crossing was coming for work or crime and freebies.

Latinos often look at me as "one of them" and the ones that don't know me assume it is impossible that I speak or understand Spanish. I have constant access to some great "chisme" (gossip). Years ago, Latinos would often approach me asking if I knew where they could find work without papers in the US. I would listen to conversations about guaranteed work with a friend or family member if they could find a way into the US. Now the conversations are primarily about what they can get free in the US (and other countries). I listened to a group of young people recently on a FaceTime call talking to a "prima" (cousin) in the US about what to say when the Border Patrol or Immigration catches them. Names and contacts for groups that will help them (mostly churches) and all their rights and freebies. Not the first time I have heard those conversations and believe me, it makes my blood boil. Mama often has Colombians asking if her Gringo husband will help them. She has been very clear telling them her Gringo is a very patriotic US citizen and military veteran and he does not support or condone illegal activities against his country. She also adds that she is a US citizen and military spouse and does not support illegal activities against the US either. But they still try. Don't even get me started on the "marriage for papers".

I don't have an answer, just thoughts and opinions. The "measured intelligence" for a VISA is an interesting thought. But most alleged geniuses are successful in their own country and have a VISA to the US. Many even have homes in the US and do the back and forth living between countries like we do. I do know we have a lot of hard working, productive members of society that are in the US illegally now. Why can't we have a program to "fast track" them to become US citizens. Also continue to fast track the parasites back to where they came from.

In general, the days of the hard working illegal immigrant that wants the American dream is over. Now, most of the new wave of illegals and immigrants want to live off the taxpayer or work enough to live off a small social security check in their native country. Economic status and intelligence level aside, if a person isn't a productive member of society in their own country, do we really think they will become "employee of the month" in the US or cure cancer?

Just a few thoughts as I enjoy a morning cocktail on my balcony in the Eje Cafetero.

Have a safe and pleasant weekend.

Thanks for your insight and insider perspective. It is much more valuable than our liberal indoctrinated Canadian lawyer counterparts up north.

 

[Altitude sickness]

The Dark Side of Marxism | Peterson Academy | How to Think, Not What to Think.

In The Dark Side of Marxism, a nine-hour course, Dr. Paul Kengor traces the story of Marxism from the life and ideas of Karl Marx to the ideology’s far-reaching global consequences. Along the way, we examine The Communist Manifesto, its 10-point plan, and its call for the forcible overthrow of...

share.google

Every Democrat Voter should have to take this course before voting.

 

[Big_Easy]

However, the supremacy clause in the constitution means federal law supersedes state law.

That's true, but sanctuary cities are not making law that conflicts with federal law, they simply aren't helping the feds enforce federal law anymore like they used to.

"...The easiest way to address this would be to remove all federal funds from states that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement actions..."

That's an interesting argument. However, it would need to first be passed by congress. Which I doubt it could be. And even then, the Republican's on the Supreme court have already ruled on a similar case, and found such actions are "unconstitutionally coercive." Remember that ObamaCare case back in 2012? The one where they ruled that states aren't required to expand Medicaid or loose federal funding? Yep, that's the one. The federal gov wanting to throw its monetary weight around is a double-edged sword.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

No doubt about it.

But they never had the power of the state to ban their language, rip their children away from their families, engage in widespread sexual abuse etc.

Indigenous racists are just common assholes, like any other asshole. The white racists in Canada used the power of the state to pummel those folks based on their race.

Two very different things.

That is actually not a true statement there are numerous historical cases of native bands taking captives on raids (generally children) and assimilating the into there own tribes generally Violently. I’m sure those captives were beaten for using their wrong language and possibly sexually abused. I believe the Iroquois called it the mourning wars were they had the practice of kidnapping people to replace those lost in war.

 

[Altitude sickness]

WATCH: Under proposed rule, USPS won't deliver mail ballots to states that don't provide voter rolls, postmaster general says

Postmaster General David Steiner told a Senate committee Wednesday that, if a proposed rule is adopted, the U.S. Postal Service would withhold mail ballots from states that do not hand over to the federal government lists of people who have requested absentee or mail ballots.

www.pbs.org

 

[Doug3006]

That's true, but sanctuary cities are not making law that conflicts with federal law, they simply aren't helping the feds enforce federal law anymore like they used to.

"...The easiest way to address this would be to remove all federal funds from states that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement actions..."

That's an interesting argument. However, it would need to first be passed by congress. Which I doubt it could be. And even then, the Republican's on the Supreme court have already ruled on a similar case, and found such actions are "unconstitutionally coercive." Remember that ObamaCare case back in 2012? The one where they ruled that states aren't required to expand Medicaid or loose federal funding? Yep, that's the one. The federal gov wanting to throw its monetary weight around is a double-edged sword.

It’s funny. I’ve never heard a conservative refer to the Warren Court as a “Democrat Court” although they were clearly not on the Republican side of most decisions. Progressives like yourself have such a hard time with jurists who don’t agree with your preferred policies.

 

[LivingTheDream]

That's true, but sanctuary cities are not making law that conflicts with federal law, they simply aren't helping the feds enforce federal law anymore like they used to.

"...The easiest way to address this would be to remove all federal funds from states that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement actions..."

That's an interesting argument. However, it would need to first be passed by congress. Which I doubt it could be. And even then, the Republican's on the Supreme court have already ruled on a similar case, and found such actions are "unconstitutionally coercive." Remember that ObamaCare case back in 2012? The one where they ruled that states aren't required to expand Medicaid or loose federal funding? Yep, that's the one. The federal gov wanting to throw its monetary weight around is a double-edged sword.

We are in agreement that they aren't enforcing federal law and saying they are a sanctuary city isn't a law and therefore doesn't contradicts federal law. States have passed laws saying they won't help enforce immigration laws (which is redundant). Totally within the constitution rights. However, I am not sure there are many other cases where there is a federal detainer or arrest warrant where the state or local law enforcement completely ignore that request.

The funding issue could be done, could be done through reconciliation, or in a new budget (but that doesnt seem to be something that could happen). Congress can place requirements on recipients of federal funding. And though I am not familiar with the Obamacare case but did a quick review. The reason why that one is different is the Medicare expansion is a new requirement. Directly from Congress.gov, here are the constitutional requirements around how congress can limit federal funds, "First, funding conditions must provide clear notice to the recipient of what actions are required in exchange for federal funds and the consequences of noncompliance. Second, funding conditions must be related to the purposes of the federally funded program or activity—though the required degree of connection is unsettled. Third, although Congress may incentivize states to adopt a particular policy in order to obtain specific federal funds, it may not coerce state participation. Congress may not, for example, tie an existing funding source on which a state has come to rely on compliance with a new kind of requirement. Fourth, the funding condition may not violate an independent constitutional bar or the related unconstitutional conditions doctrine."

So basically the arguement would be is holding someone with a warrant be a new requirement? Would that funding condition violate a states 10th amendment?

Could congress give notice that states have to provide evidence that there are no illegals issued a driver's license from that state in order to get new federal funding related to highways? Or could it be no new grants to law enforcement if they don't honor warrants?

My guess is it could be done, would require it to be done in pieces. But it would require a nuanced approach.

 

[cwpayton]

Centuries ago, x was pronounced as j.

Mexico and Méjico.

YES and in Greek ,Hebrew , and , LATIN ,there was no " J" sound either the first 300 years AD, not sure now .also no J sound in english Untill the 14 ,1500,s. IT was a Y sound . This is what I found, but IM not a linguistics scholar. But you can see where Im going with this.

 

[cwpayton]

Empire of the summer moon is a good book on them.

We had several military leaders in the mid 19th century that said if the Comanche had repeater rifles we never would have kept America. People should look up why west texas and New Mexico aren’t Spanish speaking areas even 150 years ago. The Comanche kept the Spanish out

Best calvary in the world! Then one day Quanna Parker ,( a half white chief} rode in off the plains and said we surrender.

 

[Russ16]

Best calvary in the world! Then one day Quanna Parker ,( a half white chief} rode in off the plains and said we surrender.

Running their horses off the cliffs at Palo Duro canyon had a lot to do with that. At the end of the day they were outnumbered in a way they couldn’t overcome. US cavalry could replace losses much faster then they could.

 

[cwpayton]

He was ordered to retire. The position is being downgraded to a three-star billet, and Hegseth stonewalled efforts to move him to another four-star billet. All three and four-stars are promoted and assigned against specific billets. That downgrade is part of the administration's continuing effort to marginalize its commitment to Europe and eliminate anyone that doesn't participate in the particular group think.

Both the Army and members of the senate wanted to move him to another four-star billet. He is very highly regarded. His primary sin seems to be aggressively working to modernizing US Army Europe and US efforts in Africa by incorporating lessons learned from Ukraine and solidifying cooperation with our NATO allies in particular. That effort apparently clashed with the administration's desire to downplay such cooperation.

As a result of the negative publicity, some of Hegseth's munchkins have tried to portray him as some sort of Miley acolyte which has gained some traction among the MAGA faithful on the web. That is patently ridiculous as they arose in two very different parts of the Army, and one would be hard pressed to find less woke environments than the airborne, SOF, or DELTA.

What a shame, alot of Intelligence is accumulated over years , not just book learned.. Chalk up 1 for push-up pete.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

Well worth the watch

 

[cwpayton]

Running their horses off the cliffs at Palo Duro canyon had a lot to do with that. At the end of the day they were outnumbered in a way they couldn’t overcome. US cavalry could replace losses much faster then they could.

Agree ,their life and the horse were inseparable.

 

[Big_Easy]

It’s funny. I’ve never heard a conservative refer to the Warren Court as a “Democrat Court” although they were clearly not on the Republican side of most decisions. Progressives like yourself have such a hard time with jurists who don’t agree with your preferred policies.

I've heard right wingers refer to democrat appointed judges they disagree with as "far-left liberal activist judges" my entire life. Nice try.

 

[pilar]

Running their horses off the cliffs at Palo Duro canyon had a lot to do with that. At the end of the day they were outnumbered in a way they couldn’t overcome. US cavalry could replace losses much faster then they could.

It’s the biological warfare we waged against the American indigenous peoples,
Small pox , measles, , ect , ect wiped out a vast majority of most conquered peoples
All of the new world, Hawaii, Australia, was not conquered by the sword but by different Diseases .

 

[Big_Easy]

We are in agreement that they aren't enforcing federal law and saying they are a sanctuary city isn't a law and therefore doesn't contradicts federal law. States have passed laws saying they won't help enforce immigration laws (which is redundant). Totally within the constitution rights. However, I am not sure there are many other cases where there is a federal detainer or arrest warrant where the state or local law enforcement completely ignore that request.

The funding issue could be done, could be done through reconciliation, or in a new budget (but that doesnt seem to be something that could happen). Congress can place requirements on recipients of federal funding. And though I am not familiar with the Obamacare case but did a quick review. The reason why that one is different is the Medicare expansion is a new requirement. Directly from Congress.gov, here are the constitutional requirements around how congress can limit federal funds, "First, funding conditions must provide clear notice to the recipient of what actions are required in exchange for federal funds and the consequences of noncompliance. Second, funding conditions must be related to the purposes of the federally funded program or activity—though the required degree of connection is unsettled. Third, although Congress may incentivize states to adopt a particular policy in order to obtain specific federal funds, it may not coerce state participation. Congress may not, for example, tie an existing funding source on which a state has come to rely on compliance with a new kind of requirement. Fourth, the funding condition may not violate an independent constitutional bar or the related unconstitutional conditions doctrine."

So basically the arguement would be is holding someone with a warrant be a new requirement? Would that funding condition violate a states 10th amendment?

Could congress give notice that states have to provide evidence that there are no illegals issued a driver's license from that state in order to get new federal funding related to highways? Or could it be no new grants to law enforcement if they don't honor warrants?

My guess is it could be done, would require it to be done in pieces. But it would require a nuanced approach.

Yes but federal detainer and arrest warrant are two different things. And I don't see how it would qualify for the reconciliation procedure. As it doesn't have much to do with taxation, mandatory spending, or the federal debt limit. And is very much, by definition, primarily a policy related change.

Since states/municipalities are not currently required to hold an immigrant with a federal detainer, one would think that qualifies for a "new requirement." And thus violates your third point above regarding ".....it may not coerce state participation. Congress may not, for example, tie an existing funding source on which a state has come to rely on compliance with a new kind of requirement...." And that's assuming that they don't prevail on 10th amendment grounds. Although, that would require the state to sue, and not merely a municipality.

But in any case, doing any of this would further erode any legitimacy of the Republican party to further claim states-rights in the future. As this entire action would be one large anti-state's-rights campaign, further proving that the Republican Party is very much a fan of big government involvement.

 

[Russ16]

It’s the biological warfare we waged against the American indigenous peoples,
Small pox , measles, , ect , ect wiped out a vast majority of most conquered peoples
All of the new world, Hawaii, Australia, was not conquered by the sword but by different Diseases .

It was both. Disease played a huge part especially in the north. Less so against the Comanches.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

It’s the biological warfare we waged against the American indigenous peoples,
Small pox , measles, , ect , ect wiped out a vast majority of most conquered peoples
All of the new world, Hawaii, Australia, was not conquered by the sword but by different Diseases .

While some of it was intentional, the vast majority of the death from old world disease was accidental. The diseases introduced spread so rapidly along native trade and travel routes that something like 80-90% of the native population was gone within less than 200 years. White settlers often found abandoned villages in places that hadn’t yet made direct contact with Europeans.

One has to keep in mind that Europeans had a very poor understanding of disease at the time of contact and that modern germ theory wasn’t widely understood/accepted until the 19th century.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Yes but federal detainer and arrest warrant are two different things. And I don't see how it would qualify for the reconciliation procedure. As it doesn't have much to do with taxation, mandatory spending, or the federal debt limit. And is very much, by definition, primarily a policy related change.

Since states/municipalities are not currently required to hold an immigrant with a federal detainer, one would think that qualifies for a "new requirement." And thus violates your third point above regarding ".....it may not coerce state participation. Congress may not, for example, tie an existing funding source on which a state has come to rely on compliance with a new kind of requirement...." And that's assuming that they don't prevail on 10th amendment grounds. Although, that would require the state to sue, and not merely a municipality.

But in any case, doing any of this would further erode any legitimacy of the Republican party to further claim states-rights in the future. As this entire action would be one large anti-state's-rights campaign, further proving that the Republican Party is very much a fan of big government involvement.

Good discussion but still think you are taking too literal interpretation, and there is a way to remove funding.

For what it is worth, I became less of a states right guy during COVID, because there is legal precedent for states to mandate vaccines.