This is the thing that kills me the most.
I wish that you were wrong, but I could totally see it. The moment this really goes south for Trump I predict most of the GOP will be all "I never really liked him!"
A DEMOCRAT can't change their stripes!
https://www.ajc.com/news/national-g...-off-for-mystery-case/JyerATnO5wL4gJKcS6nVJP/
Awooga! Awooga! Entire floor if court house sealed off?
We can have this debate when the issue isn't about purging the USA of fascism.
GasBandit
Staff member
Precedent's set now, bizzzynitchers. Goose, meet gander.
I'd have figured an immigrant who's trying to stay here would be more concerned about this.
Especially since he speaks Mexican.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's one of the more ignorant appeals to emotion you've made. And that's saying something.
Man, that was one of the rare times I actually acknowledged that "both sides" was true in a case.
Edit:And don't get me wrong, I appreciate the state's rights thing since as long as we give the shithole states a disproportionate say in the federal government, it's nice that we have some measures keeping the rest civilized. I just don't pretend that it's out of some noble belief in the state.
Edit:And don't get me wrong, I appreciate the state's rights thing since as long as we give the shithole states a disproportionate say in the federal government, it's nice that we have some measures keeping the rest civilized. I just don't pretend that it's out of some noble belief in the state.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
It was more of an "It's ok when WE do it"
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here, aren't I supposed to be the one pulling out my alien card? You should understand why I made a McCarthy reference, though to be fair maybe I should've just linked The Video as gets done every so often:
Assuming I finish immigrating and get permanent residence or even citizenship, why do you think I want to find I've done it for a lawless shithole of a country? Of course I'm concerned with these topics--I'm just concerned on more than one front, and with longer timelines than "fuck you got mine".
If you're trying to say I should be self-interested... My current immigration path is literally not doable anymore, due to two separate changes (one by each administration I've been under) that would've seen me out of status during my F-1 days.
It was ICE under Obama that almost deported me. It was an underfunded and overworked USCIS under Obama that left me unemployed almost a year. It was the law under Obama that narrowed my employer's options to where they threw me away instead of sponsoring me for a work visa. Trump's immigration plans would've made my life easier--I'm a highly-educated European working in an in-demand field that speaks English and has no dependents. Does this all mean I should be wearing a fucking MAGA hat or something, since clearly my individual benefit is all that matters?
Mexican't
figmentPez
Staff member
An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal is claiming that Flynn lying to the FBI was entrapment... Because the FBI didn't specifically tell the National Security Advisor that lying to the FBI in an interview was a crime. 
The Washinton Examiner also has a headline about "entrapment", but I can't be bothered to even read that drivel.
The Washinton Examiner also has a headline about "entrapment", but I can't be bothered to even read that drivel.
*coughCIVILWARIDIOTcough*
If his family loses everything, that they actually do own, from all of their grifting . . . that'd be nice
Honestly, were these things that Democrats wanted to fix but couldn't because of Republicans, or are you just shaking your fist at the figurehead while you're life melted down?
If you believe it was about states rights, I have a bridge to sell you.
I mean, yes the cry of "states' rights" was specifically raised by those states that wanted to enshrine a practice the rest found distasteful...because those states wanted to bundle that practice up in "states
rights" trappings so it couldn't be taken away from them, but nobody really thought it was about the concept of allowing states to have differing opinions and enforcement on things. Everyone knew it was just about that one thing.
...and even now, I could make the claim that the XIIIth needs a little clarification, since we have already established here that the powers that be lean awful hard on the part that says "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" as a loophole to conscript an arbitrary number of involuntary servants.
--Patrick
B
BErt
I think elements of both parties want to fix immigration, but it's not an important enough issue to warrant the damage of bipartisan solutions at the whole-party level, so they just let it fester while, at best, adding more regulations to an already choked system. I blame both, and neither. It's politics.
I disagree. The Democrats have largely wanted an improved path to citizenship, because currently it's difficult for an undocumented immigrant to become a citizen, trapping them in a legal underclass. An example of this would be the Dreamer Act. The corporations that largely back the Republicans, however, want to keep undocumented immigrants as a permanent underclass because they can be underpaid and abused since they don't have legal protection and can't go to the authorities without fear of being deported.
So the reason there isn't a bipartisan solution to immigration is because the two sides have very different goals for the issue.
So the reason there isn't a bipartisan solution to immigration is because the two sides have very different goals for the issue.
Republicans are also a big fan of the current H-1B visa, because it lets them import cheap technical experts from places like India but still keep the threat of deportation on the table. H-1B's need a reform; not just in how they are applied (Businesses usually CAN fill these jobs with locals but don't want to pay 10k+ more for someone who can leave) but in how the actual rights of workers to whom they apply.
figmentPez
Staff member
1. Other articles I've read said that's expected to be overturned.
2. The ruling is based on changes made to the ACA in 2017. It's ridiculous that Trump is touting this as Obamacare being unconstitutional, since this it's Trump administration changes that made it unconstitutional.
But, yeah, CRAP; of many kinds.
