Well, the concentration camp murder had started, but Gestapo wasn't running around murdering people in the streets in broad daylight yet.
Yeah, murdering unarmed people in the streets is the police's job.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
+24
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
What gets my goat is that they are purporting to penalize localities and justify it simply by them not wanting to spend resources doing the federal government's job for them.
It would be like suing a city because it refused to perform the census. Not for blocking census workers or something, but just for not spending the resources and manhours to perform the census itself. Because of course a city or state isn't going to do that; it isn't their responsibility and they have more pressing issues to attend to.
I don't know how someone can profess to be conservative and then be totally okay with such a heavy hand by the federal government. I mean I do get it, they're being completely hypocritical. But this whole mess is just astounding.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
What gets my goat is that they are purporting to penalize localities and justify it simply by them not wanting to spend resources doing the federal government's job for them.
It would be like suing a city because it refused to perform the census. Not for blocking census workers or something, but just for not spending the resources and manhours to perform the census itself. Because of course a city or state isn't going to do that; it isn't their responsibility and they have more pressing issues to attend to.
I don't know how someone can profess to be conservative and then be totally okay with such a heavy hand by the federal government. I mean I do get it, they're being completely hypocritical. But this whole mess is just astounding.
Conservatives have never cared about states rights.
+15
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
What gets my goat is that they are purporting to penalize localities and justify it simply by them not wanting to spend resources doing the federal government's job for them.
It would be like suing a city because it refused to perform the census. Not for blocking census workers or something, but just for not spending the resources and manhours to perform the census itself. Because of course a city or state isn't going to do that; it isn't their responsibility and they have more pressing issues to attend to.
I don't know how someone can profess to be conservative and then be totally okay with such a heavy hand by the federal government. I mean I do get it, they're being completely hypocritical. But this whole mess is just astounding.
Conservatives have never cared about states rights.
If there's one thing that has been driven home to me in the past few years, is that my definition of that term, and the way most people who continue to self describe as such seem to define it, are almost completely different.
EDIT: I'm talking about "conservative" not "state's rights". The latter term is super loaded and I refuse to use it in a sentence because it is basically a dogwhistle. I prefer to say "Municipal Autonomy" because I care more about the state staying out of the city's business than I care about the feds staying out of the state's business... though in the end I care about both quite a bit.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
Okay, going to cut slightly against the thrust of the thread here. This is the point of sanctuary cities. Local law enforcement will not spend money doing immigration enforcement, so the natural step would be for the federal government to do their own jobs, which will mean more funding for enforcement in those cities.
Now, sending in the task force intended to deal with smugglers is a misappropriation of resources, and that also doesn't forgive other tactics used (going into courthouses, etc), but like... sending more enforcers to those areas is the EXPECTED reaction to local police not policing federal immigration laws.
The Point of sanctuary city policy is you can’t police a population where no one will talk to you
It also doesn't prevent the deportation of convicted violent criminals. It mostly just makes traffic stops and witness reports easier because people don't have to worry about losing their livelihood if they interact with a beat cop.
The Point of sanctuary city policy is you can’t police a population where no one will talk to you
It also doesn't prevent the deportation of convicted violent criminals. It mostly just makes traffic stops and witness reports easier because people don't have to worry about losing their livelihood if they interact with a bear cop.
I realize you probably meant to type "beat cop", but that is one heck of an image.
+13
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
The Point of sanctuary city policy is you can’t police a population where no one will talk to you
It also doesn't prevent the deportation of convicted violent criminals. It mostly just makes traffic stops and witness reports easier because people don't have to worry about losing their livelihood if they interact with a bear cop.
I realize you probably meant to type "beat cop", but that is one heck of an image.
Totally normal behavior here. Just go on your way, citizen. Nothing to see. ICE is your friend. You will report any communists or socialists. Stay away from foreign nationals. They will infect you.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
+15
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
When do the inevitable shootouts between ICE and local police because one pulled a gun on the other?
""We are desperate -- desperate -- for more people," Mulvaney said during private speech in London. "We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.” w/@nickmiroff:"
*link to a WaPo article*
- Josh Dawsey (and Nick Miroff) is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Seems like they're NOT opposed to all immigration. Just certain types of immigration. From certain countries.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think that this Administration is a touch racist.
""We are desperate -- desperate -- for more people," Mulvaney said during private speech in London. "We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.” w/@nickmiroff:"
*link to a WaPo article*
- Josh Dawsey (and Nick Miroff) is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Seems like they're NOT opposed to all immigration. Just certain types of immigration. From certain countries.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think that this Administration is a touch racist.
Except they've cut legal immigration, even for the 'right' kind of people, waaaaaaay down too, so, no. They really are just xenophobic dickweeds.
""We are desperate -- desperate -- for more people," Mulvaney said during private speech in London. "We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.” w/@nickmiroff:"
*link to a WaPo article*
- Josh Dawsey (and Nick Miroff) is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Seems like they're NOT opposed to all immigration. Just certain types of immigration. From certain countries.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think that this Administration is a touch racist.
I just can't imagine why immigration might be down over the last four years. What could possibly have caused that?????
A federal judge in Arizona has ruled that conditions at U.S. border holding cells operated by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency violated the Constitution.
In a case first launched in 2015 over conditions at Tucson sector holding facilities, U.S. District Judge David Bury said on Wednesday that the conditions migrants and asylum seekers have had to face under CBP custody have been "substantially worse than detainees face upon commitment to either a civil immigration detention facility or even a criminal detention facility, like a jail or prison."
"The Court finds that the conditions of detention in CBP holding cells, especially those that preclude sleep over several nights, are presumptively punitive and violate the Constitution," he said.
The court, Bury noted, heard how plaintiffs complained of overcrowding, with cold, hard concrete floors and bench surfaces, cold temperatures, no blankets or mats and unsanitary cell conditions, precluding sleeping.
It also heard that cell conditions were unsanitary, with a lack of waste receptacles, "insufficient housekeeping," a lack of personal hygiene products and shower facilities, as well as insufficient access to food and water.
Bury also said the court was concerned about the lack of a universal medical questionnaire designed by medical professionals, particularly since medical screenings were being "performed by agents without any medical training."
Noting that migrants and asylum seekers had been held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions for longer than 12 hours, Bury said CBP was not to hold migrants and asylum seekers for more than 48 hours at its Tucson sector going forward.
Condemning CBP for allowing migrants and asylum seekers to be forced to sleep in bathrooms in overcrowded holding areas, Bury said the practice was "unsanitary and degrading" and banned CBP from allowing it to happen again.
"The evidence is undisputed that conditions of confinement at Tucson Sector CBP stations are substantially worse than conditions afforded criminal detainees at the Santa Cruz County jail or other jail facilities, where detainees are medically screened by medical professionals; have a bed with cloth sheets, blankets, and pillows, and an opportunity for uninterrupted sleep; have clean clothing, including second layers for warmth; showers, toothbrushes and toothpaste, and warm meals with a variety of food choices, including fruits and vegetables, accommodating food allergies and religious beliefs," Bury wrote.
"Likewise, the conditions of confinement for civil immigration detainees similarly improve once they are transferred from CBP holding cells to detention centers operated by the United States Marshals, ICE, ERO, Health and Human Services (HHS), and other immigration detention agencies and organization," he said.
The conditions at Tucson Sector facilities, he said, fail to meet the same standards. As such, he said, "there is a presumption that the conditions of extended confinement at the Tucson Sector facilities violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
Note this isn't all detention centers, it's one specifically egregious case where the judge basically said "this is so bad, you either need to get them out of those conditions within 48 hours or let them go at the end of that time." However, it's also precedent that "worse than prison is violating the Constitution," at least.
A federal judge in Arizona has ruled that conditions at U.S. border holding cells operated by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency violated the Constitution.
In a case first launched in 2015 over conditions at Tucson sector holding facilities, U.S. District Judge David Bury said on Wednesday that the conditions migrants and asylum seekers have had to face under CBP custody have been "substantially worse than detainees face upon commitment to either a civil immigration detention facility or even a criminal detention facility, like a jail or prison."
"The Court finds that the conditions of detention in CBP holding cells, especially those that preclude sleep over several nights, are presumptively punitive and violate the Constitution," he said.
The court, Bury noted, heard how plaintiffs complained of overcrowding, with cold, hard concrete floors and bench surfaces, cold temperatures, no blankets or mats and unsanitary cell conditions, precluding sleeping.
It also heard that cell conditions were unsanitary, with a lack of waste receptacles, "insufficient housekeeping," a lack of personal hygiene products and shower facilities, as well as insufficient access to food and water.
Bury also said the court was concerned about the lack of a universal medical questionnaire designed by medical professionals, particularly since medical screenings were being "performed by agents without any medical training."
Noting that migrants and asylum seekers had been held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions for longer than 12 hours, Bury said CBP was not to hold migrants and asylum seekers for more than 48 hours at its Tucson sector going forward.
Condemning CBP for allowing migrants and asylum seekers to be forced to sleep in bathrooms in overcrowded holding areas, Bury said the practice was "unsanitary and degrading" and banned CBP from allowing it to happen again.
"The evidence is undisputed that conditions of confinement at Tucson Sector CBP stations are substantially worse than conditions afforded criminal detainees at the Santa Cruz County jail or other jail facilities, where detainees are medically screened by medical professionals; have a bed with cloth sheets, blankets, and pillows, and an opportunity for uninterrupted sleep; have clean clothing, including second layers for warmth; showers, toothbrushes and toothpaste, and warm meals with a variety of food choices, including fruits and vegetables, accommodating food allergies and religious beliefs," Bury wrote.
"Likewise, the conditions of confinement for civil immigration detainees similarly improve once they are transferred from CBP holding cells to detention centers operated by the United States Marshals, ICE, ERO, Health and Human Services (HHS), and other immigration detention agencies and organization," he said.
The conditions at Tucson Sector facilities, he said, fail to meet the same standards. As such, he said, "there is a presumption that the conditions of extended confinement at the Tucson Sector facilities violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
Note this isn't all detention centers, it's one specifically egregious case where the judge basically said "this is so bad, you either need to get them out of those conditions within 48 hours or let them go at the end of that time." However, it's also precedent that "worse than prison is violating the Constitution," at least.
That's good for now, but that precedent will never last past the Supreme Court.
Undead Scottsman on
+5
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
The deeply shameful, entirely avoidable humanitarian crisis aside, it's just bad policy. We have an aging population, we need more workers. This xenophobic nonsense is coming at an enormous opportunity cost that an entire generation is going to be forced to pay.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
The deeply shameful, entirely avoidable humanitarian crisis aside, it's just bad policy. We have an aging population, we need more workers. This xenophobic nonsense is coming at an enormous opportunity cost that an entire generation is going to be forced to pay.
... but not their generation, so fuck everyone who comes after them, right?
The deeply shameful, entirely avoidable humanitarian crisis aside, it's just bad policy. We have an aging population, we need more workers. This xenophobic nonsense is coming at an enormous opportunity cost that an entire generation is going to be forced to pay.
... but not their generation, so fuck everyone who comes after them, right?
It will be their generation, as they go into the understaffed nursing homes in a few years and are left to sit hopelessly in filth as there are not enough workers to tend to them.
The deeply shameful, entirely avoidable humanitarian crisis aside, it's just bad policy. We have an aging population, we need more workers. This xenophobic nonsense is coming at an enormous opportunity cost that an entire generation is going to be forced to pay.
... but not their generation, so fuck everyone who comes after them, right?
It will be their generation, as they go into the understaffed nursing homes in a few years and are left to sit hopelessly in filth as there are not enough workers to tend to them.
The rich ones certainly have nothing to worry about. The middle class and poor Trumpers can just crap into their MAGA hats when their Depends undergarments start overflowing, I guess, all the while refusing to accept any blame for their part in the labor shortage.
A federal judge in Arizona has ruled that conditions at U.S. border holding cells operated by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency violated the Constitution.
In a case first launched in 2015 over conditions at Tucson sector holding facilities, U.S. District Judge David Bury said on Wednesday that the conditions migrants and asylum seekers have had to face under CBP custody have been "substantially worse than detainees face upon commitment to either a civil immigration detention facility or even a criminal detention facility, like a jail or prison."
"The Court finds that the conditions of detention in CBP holding cells, especially those that preclude sleep over several nights, are presumptively punitive and violate the Constitution," he said.
The court, Bury noted, heard how plaintiffs complained of overcrowding, with cold, hard concrete floors and bench surfaces, cold temperatures, no blankets or mats and unsanitary cell conditions, precluding sleeping.
It also heard that cell conditions were unsanitary, with a lack of waste receptacles, "insufficient housekeeping," a lack of personal hygiene products and shower facilities, as well as insufficient access to food and water.
Bury also said the court was concerned about the lack of a universal medical questionnaire designed by medical professionals, particularly since medical screenings were being "performed by agents without any medical training."
Noting that migrants and asylum seekers had been held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions for longer than 12 hours, Bury said CBP was not to hold migrants and asylum seekers for more than 48 hours at its Tucson sector going forward.
Condemning CBP for allowing migrants and asylum seekers to be forced to sleep in bathrooms in overcrowded holding areas, Bury said the practice was "unsanitary and degrading" and banned CBP from allowing it to happen again.
"The evidence is undisputed that conditions of confinement at Tucson Sector CBP stations are substantially worse than conditions afforded criminal detainees at the Santa Cruz County jail or other jail facilities, where detainees are medically screened by medical professionals; have a bed with cloth sheets, blankets, and pillows, and an opportunity for uninterrupted sleep; have clean clothing, including second layers for warmth; showers, toothbrushes and toothpaste, and warm meals with a variety of food choices, including fruits and vegetables, accommodating food allergies and religious beliefs," Bury wrote.
"Likewise, the conditions of confinement for civil immigration detainees similarly improve once they are transferred from CBP holding cells to detention centers operated by the United States Marshals, ICE, ERO, Health and Human Services (HHS), and other immigration detention agencies and organization," he said.
The conditions at Tucson Sector facilities, he said, fail to meet the same standards. As such, he said, "there is a presumption that the conditions of extended confinement at the Tucson Sector facilities violate the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
Note this isn't all detention centers, it's one specifically egregious case where the judge basically said "this is so bad, you either need to get them out of those conditions within 48 hours or let them go at the end of that time." However, it's also precedent that "worse than prison is violating the Constitution," at least.
I find it especially distressing that this is a case from 2015, not even part of the new wave of Trump-endorsed abuses.
On January 11, 2018, Trump summoned Dick Durbin, a Democratic senator from Illinois, and Lindsey Graham, from South Carolina, to the White House so that they could explain the terms of a bipartisan deal they’d reached. It would offer a path to citizenship for daca recipients in exchange for increased border security and enforcement measures. The President told the senators that he was ready to back their plan. But, two hours later, when they entered the Oval Office, they found that they were not alone. Miller had invited a group of far-right Republicans—including Tom Cotton and David Perdue, the sponsors of a bill to cut legal immigration in half—to join them. The “fix is in,” Durbin told an aide. When Graham brought up Haitian immigrants, while explaining an aspect of the agreement, Trump asked, “Why would we want all these people from shithole countries?” He now refused to endorse the deal he had supported that morning.
In the weeks that followed, whenever Trump responded positively to an overture by Democrats, Miller interceded. “Whoever has access to the President last—that’s what sticks,” a White House official told me. “Miller always made sure he was that person.” Graham said, “As long as Stephen Miller is in charge of negotiating immigration, we’re going nowhere.”
Miller had ideas of his own. In 2013, during the unaccompanied-minors crisis, an official at ice had suggested separating parents and children once they reached the border, in the hope of deterring other families from travelling north. The White House had dismissed the proposal as inhumane, but Miller took it up again. “He was obsessed with the idea of consequences,” a top D.H.S. official who worked with Miller at the time told me. “He’d always say to us, ‘They are breaking the law, and the only way we’ll change that is if there’s a consequence.’ ” The consequences were specific. The official said, “Miller made clear to us that, if you start to treat children badly enough, you’ll be able to convince other parents to stop trying to come with theirs.” Miller had already led a meeting at the White House to pressure D.O.J. officials to prosecute border crossers as criminals. (Doing so was the basis for separating families: while parents faced criminal charges, their children were treated as unaccompanied minors.) In April, he and Hamilton wrote a Presidential memorandum directing agencies to end catch and release; they also composed a letter, signed by Attorney General Sessions, articulating a policy, called zero tolerance, for prosecuting all adults who were arrested by D.H.S. for illegal entry.
Sessions announced the new policy at a gathering of law-enforcement officials in Arizona, saying that if parents were caught “smuggling” their children into the country they’d be separated from them and treated as criminals. The head of Customs and Border Protection, Kevin McAleenan, and the head of ice, Tom Homan, signed off on zero tolerance, as did Nielsen. Miller, however, forced the policy into action before D.H.S. was ready to implement it. When border agents began separating families, the Administration hadn’t yet made plans to reunite them, a direct result of “the pressure he brought to bear,” a top D.H.S. official said. By late June, more than twenty-five hundred children, including a hundred and two under the age of five, had been separated from their parents, many of whom didn’t know where the government had taken them. In an ice detention center in El Paso, groups of separated mothers secretly exchanged information in the cafeteria to compile lists of their missing children and smuggle out requests to local lawyers for help.
According to a D.H.S. official who worked closely with Miller, as “the problems got more complex, and as the frustrations mounted,” his behavior became erratic. At meetings, he would ask for data that were irrelevant to the discussion, then launch into a monologue. Another D.H.S. official said, “You didn’t know which Stephen you were going to get. He could be very articulate, then he’d be quoting Breitbart in a diatribe. It was all over the place.” His policy ideas were often impracticable or unrelated to the issue under discussion. He wanted the department to house all migrants at Guantánamo Bay, and the F.B.I. to conduct immigration arrests. One official told me, “It got tedious. None of it would solve the problem we had. And, at the end of the operations he was pushing, the question would just be: Are you going to have something meaningful and sustainable that isn’t just a sharp elbow?”
With the border virtually sealed, Miller is turning his attention inward. D.H.S. has begun sending armed agents from Border Patrol swat teams to New York, Chicago, and other so-called sanctuary cities, where local law enforcement has limited its coöperation with ice. “There’s no one left at D.H.S. to say ‘No’ to Miller anymore,” a senior department official told me. Another official was present at a meeting in which Miller advocated allowing ice officers to pull children out of school.
This summer, months before the election, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether the Administration can cancel daca. “Everything—everything!—hinges on that decision,” a former senior D.H.S. official told me. If the Supreme Court ends daca, then “Miller will be in ecstasy. He’ll finally have the leverage over the Democratic Congress that he’s been dying to have this entire time. He’ll say, ‘Well, you’re all worried we’re going to deport them. What will you agree to?’ ” The official continued, “It’ll be the summer of a huge campaign, and Miller will be in his glory.”
For me the biggest difference between Trump's immigration policies and anything Obama did is the desire to hurt people, including innocents, as much as possible because the cruelty might dissuade them.
Cruelty is not the result of not caring or being unable or unwilling to dedicate sufficient resources to an issue. It is the entire point.
I'm wondering what the hell Miller is expecting from the court. They aren't going to rule that DACA is illegal, nor are they going to rule that there is no path to ending DACA. If they hadn't used this flimsy excuse to start with and just drafted a slightly better once, DACA would be gone by now. But then Miller doesn't sound like the type to understand law in the first place.
I'm wondering what the hell Miller is expecting from the court. They aren't going to rule that DACA is illegal, nor are they going to rule that there is no path to ending DACA. If they hadn't used this flimsy excuse to start with and just drafted a slightly better once, DACA would be gone by now. But then Miller doesn't sound like the type to understand law in the first place.
Be thankful of the small miracle that is this Administration's incompetence outweighing it's corruption and cruelty, or there'd be zero chance (rather than the slim to maybe) of unfucking the country.
I mean, admittedly, it doesn't feel great to see the damage they're doing while being this incompetent. But it's better that it's Three Stooges than Ozymandias playing with the levers of power.
I'm wondering what the hell Miller is expecting from the court. They aren't going to rule that DACA is illegal, nor are they going to rule that there is no path to ending DACA. If they hadn't used this flimsy excuse to start with and just drafted a slightly better once, DACA would be gone by now. But then Miller doesn't sound like the type to understand law in the first place.
He's likely hoping that either Trump will continue impersonating his favorite president by ignoring the judiciary, or hoping that it'll kick off another "evil unelected judges are letting terrorists attend your kid's schools!" moral panic.
I mean, dude's a white-supremacist cryptofascist; he was never seriously planning on working with the system.
A 5-4 conservative split in a major immigration case, Hernandez v. Mesa. Court rules that a US border-patrol agent cannot be held to account for killing a Mexican boy at play across the southern border.
A border patrol agent killed a Mexican kid in Mexico because he was playing near the border. The Conservative judges have declared that the rule of the land is that there is no accountability period for border patrol agents who shoot people so long as the person they shoot is in Mexico. RBG in particular disagrees strenuously.
Posts
... or fixing the mold problems in on-base housing.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Eh, what's the worst that could happen, someone gets a headache?
Yet another "Oh shit" moment caused by an unchained Trump.
I wonder when they're gonna start simply murdering people they think are illegals
Well, the concentration camp murder had started, but Gestapo wasn't running around murdering people in the streets in broad daylight yet.
Yeah, murdering unarmed people in the streets is the police's job.
It would be like suing a city because it refused to perform the census. Not for blocking census workers or something, but just for not spending the resources and manhours to perform the census itself. Because of course a city or state isn't going to do that; it isn't their responsibility and they have more pressing issues to attend to.
I don't know how someone can profess to be conservative and then be totally okay with such a heavy hand by the federal government. I mean I do get it, they're being completely hypocritical. But this whole mess is just astounding.
Why do you think the cops wanted ICE to stop wearing the POLICE badge on their stuff.
Conservatives have never cared about states rights.
If there's one thing that has been driven home to me in the past few years, is that my definition of that term, and the way most people who continue to self describe as such seem to define it, are almost completely different.
EDIT: I'm talking about "conservative" not "state's rights". The latter term is super loaded and I refuse to use it in a sentence because it is basically a dogwhistle. I prefer to say "Municipal Autonomy" because I care more about the state staying out of the city's business than I care about the feds staying out of the state's business... though in the end I care about both quite a bit.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It basically comes down to the desire for a pyramidal power structure where they happen to be on the upper half.
Now, sending in the task force intended to deal with smugglers is a misappropriation of resources, and that also doesn't forgive other tactics used (going into courthouses, etc), but like... sending more enforcers to those areas is the EXPECTED reaction to local police not policing federal immigration laws.
It also doesn't prevent the deportation of convicted violent criminals. It mostly just makes traffic stops and witness reports easier because people don't have to worry about losing their livelihood if they interact with a beat cop.
I realize you probably meant to type "beat cop", but that is one heck of an image.
Though not the one I expected!
New York Times reporter:
Totally normal behavior here. Just go on your way, citizen. Nothing to see. ICE is your friend. You will report any communists or socialists. Stay away from foreign nationals. They will infect you.
Possibly plainclothes
""We are desperate -- desperate -- for more people," Mulvaney said during private speech in London. "We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.” w/@nickmiroff:"
*link to a WaPo article*
- Josh Dawsey (and Nick Miroff) is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Seems like they're NOT opposed to all immigration. Just certain types of immigration. From certain countries.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think that this Administration is a touch racist.
Except they've cut legal immigration, even for the 'right' kind of people, waaaaaaay down too, so, no. They really are just xenophobic dickweeds.
I just can't imagine why immigration might be down over the last four years. What could possibly have caused that?????
Note this isn't all detention centers, it's one specifically egregious case where the judge basically said "this is so bad, you either need to get them out of those conditions within 48 hours or let them go at the end of that time." However, it's also precedent that "worse than prison is violating the Constitution," at least.
That's good for now, but that precedent will never last past the Supreme Court.
... but not their generation, so fuck everyone who comes after them, right?
It will be their generation, as they go into the understaffed nursing homes in a few years and are left to sit hopelessly in filth as there are not enough workers to tend to them.
The rich ones certainly have nothing to worry about. The middle class and poor Trumpers can just crap into their MAGA hats when their Depends undergarments start overflowing, I guess, all the while refusing to accept any blame for their part in the labor shortage.
I find it especially distressing that this is a case from 2015, not even part of the new wave of Trump-endorsed abuses.
Cruelty is not the result of not caring or being unable or unwilling to dedicate sufficient resources to an issue. It is the entire point.
Be thankful of the small miracle that is this Administration's incompetence outweighing it's corruption and cruelty, or there'd be zero chance (rather than the slim to maybe) of unfucking the country.
I mean, admittedly, it doesn't feel great to see the damage they're doing while being this incompetent. But it's better that it's Three Stooges than Ozymandias playing with the levers of power.
He's likely hoping that either Trump will continue impersonating his favorite president by ignoring the judiciary, or hoping that it'll kick off another "evil unelected judges are letting terrorists attend your kid's schools!" moral panic.
I mean, dude's a white-supremacist cryptofascist; he was never seriously planning on working with the system.
(Economist reporter)
A border patrol agent killed a Mexican kid in Mexico because he was playing near the border. The Conservative judges have declared that the rule of the land is that there is no accountability period for border patrol agents who shoot people so long as the person they shoot is in Mexico. RBG in particular disagrees strenuously.
I wonder how those same justices would feel if mexico adopted that policy