Makes sense to me. County Sheriffs are elected by the residents of the county that they will serve. If you get a bad one then it’s your own fault for choosing poorly.
Anyway, not all states elect their sheriffs, or even have sheriffs at all. States that appoint their sheriffs don’t appear to have a noticeably lower level of incompetents.
It’s been done. Emacs, for example, has rx notation. From the manual:
35.3.3 The ‘rx’ Structured Regexp Notation
------------------------------------------
As an alternative to the string-based syntax, Emacs provides the
structured ‘rx’ notation based on Lisp S-expressions. This notation is
usually easier to read, write and maintain than regexp strings, and can
be indented and commented freely. It requires a conversion into string
form since that is what regexp functions expect, but that conversion
typically takes place during byte-compilation rather than when the Lisp
code using the regexp is run.
Here is an ‘rx’ regexp(1) that matches a block comment in the C
programming language:
(rx "/*" ; Initial /*
(zero-or-more
(or (not "*") ; Either non-*,
(seq "*" ; or * followed by
(not "/")))) ; non-/
(one-or-more "*") ; At least one star,
"/") ; and the final /
or, using shorter synonyms and written more compactly,
(rx "/*"
(* (| (not "*")
(: "*" (not "/"))))
(+ "*") "/")
In conventional string syntax, it would be written
"/\\*\\(?:[^*]\\|\\*[^/]\\)*\\*+/"
Of course, it does have one disadvantage. As the manual says:
The ‘rx’ notation is mainly useful in Lisp code; it cannot be used in
most interactive situations where a regexp is requested, such as when
running ‘query-replace-regexp’ or in variable customization.
Raku also has advanced the state of the art considerably.
Don’t be disingenuous. The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job.
These groups are also documented to have harassed people who are _not_ federal officers under the mistaken impression that they are. That’s just assault. Probably stalking too. Anyone who participates in these groups will be committing crimes, and should be prosecuted for it.
If you don’t like the job that an officer is doing then the right thing to do is to talk to your Congress–critter about changing the law. Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law that was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. No attempt has been made to modify that law in the last 30 years. If Democrats didn’t like it, they had several majorities during that time when they could have forced through changes. They didn’t even bother.
These groups exist to observe and document the actions of federal agents and share that information with their communities. That is constitutionally protected activity.
Their stated purpose and their actual function can be different, and speech that would otherwise be free can be illegal if involved in incitement, bribery, collusion, etc.
If I’m having a conversation with my friend, it’s free speech. If we’re plotting the overthrow of the government, it’s insurrection.
>The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs.
To observe them, and prevent them from committing crimes. Which if it isn't legal, is moral as all get out.
> to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job.
Filming officiers performing their jobs is not obstruction, even if it does make them uncomfortable. If it makes their jobs harder that's only because they know what they're doing is unpopular and don't want to be known to have done it.
> If you don’t like the job that an officer is doing then the right thing to do is to talk to your Congress–critter about changing the law. Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law that was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. No attempt has been made to modify that law in the last 30 years. If Democrats didn’t like it, they had several majorities during that time when they could have forced through changes. They didn’t even bother.
Yeah, there's a massive disconnect between politicians and their voters. This is pretty strong evidence of that disconnect. Even now Democrats refuse to support abolishing ICE, despite majority support among their constituency. Who are voters who want immigration reform supposed to cast their ballots for? There hasn't been such a candidate since ICE was created in the wake of 9/11. Conservatives got to let out their pent up frustration with an unresponsive government by electing Trump. Liberals have no such champion, only community organizing.
> Even now Democrats refuse to support abolishing ICE
I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest" without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?
And you're aware that the Signal groups in question are alleged to include Democratic state officials and a campaign advisor?
For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced? Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?
First you are lying. Second, noise is not an obstruction. It is ok and legal to produce whistles.
What is not legal is point guns at journalists, beat people who record you on the phones and shoot people in the back because they had phone in hand and you are frustrated. What is not legal is to throw pepper spray at people who are no threat. One gotta love the "they mass produce whistles" as a grave accusation while ICE men literally openly threaten to kill people who are no threat. Or kill them and then are proud of their murdering colleagues.
> I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest"
Yes, he had good speeches.
> without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?
Lol, heavily armed cowards jump at observer, 8 on one, there is no resistance and then they call it resisting arrest.
> For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced? Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?
ICE is basically a violent gang with impossible to reform culture. You dont hire gangmembers to do law enforcement. It needs to be abolished and people in it need to be banned from working in law enforcement.
>> Filming officiers performing their jobs is not obstruction
> This is irrelevant, because many people have been observed physically obstructing officers, whether or not they were filming at the time.
The OP made a point and you constructed the strawman of a hasty generalization.
This is disingenuous.
>> while ICE men literally openly threaten to kill people who are no threat.
> Please show me where you think this has happened.
Re: "You raise your voice, I erase your voice," - January 27, 2026
Free speech is a right and I support their right to say whatever they want. They are subject to their own policies beyond that.
> he was not an "observer" (as demonstrated by the fact that he was in the middle of the street and a car had to swerve to avoid him),
You are cherry picking. He was an observer, among other things.
>> and then are proud of their murdering colleagues
> Please show me where you think this has happened.
I'm not trying to get you to agree with anything, but it's not constructive to continue. Many of your questions are asking other people for information that is readily available. Not everyone needs to agree on everything, but I don't think it's hard to understand the various sentiments.
> This is irrelevant, because many people have been observed physically obstructing officers, whether or not they were filming at the time.
Not the last guy they executed. He was recording, then backed away when an officer approached him. Then he got dogpiled, his holstered gun was taken, and then he was shot repeatedly.
> Have you heard the constant blowing of whistles in these videos? Did you know that protesters have organized the mass 3d-printing and distribution of these whistles?
I'm quite aware of the intentionally annoying whistles. You're taking a pretty broad interpretation of "interference." I didn't realize that feds had a protected right to a calm and quiet work environment.
> I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest" without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?
Yeah, Walz is a weak Democrat who can't even condemn the organization killing and abducting his State's citizens. Exactly the kind of politician voters are tired of. All he can say over and over is to "not take the bait" by resisting occupation more forcefully.
> And you're aware that the Signal groups in question are alleged to include Democratic state officials and a campaign advisor?
I've not heard that alleged, but it wouldn't be surprising for some to be monitoring the situation. If you mean to imply that Democrat officials are organizing the resistance then that's laughable. If you're a Conservative then there are only a handful of Dems you should be afraid of, and the rest of the Dems will help you make sure they're not too influential.
> For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced?
A more focused INS under the DoJ would be a good reset. A paramilitary with twitchy trigger fingers is no way to enforce any law, much less something as nonviolent and bureaucratic as immigration. If someone is being violent, send the Police, hold a trial. If you need to sort out immigration status you can send a pencil pusher to get papers in order.
> Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?
No barriers? No. Extremely low ones though, absolutely. You do realize that almost all undocumented people living in the US are on overstayed visas, right? We let them in after checking they weren't dangerous, then they started working and living here. Now they make up a sizable chunk of the population. Clearly our immigration system is broken if it leaves this many residents undocumented. And your proposed solution is strict enforcement?
Imagine, if you will, applying this standard to, say, speeding. Repeated instances of speeding result in increasing fines, and eventually revocation of your license. That's what the law says! Should we not enforce this law?? Well. If we used cars' and phones' GPS and cameras to reconstruct a few days of driving behavior, then handed out punishment as dictated by law, 90% of drivers would instantly lose their license. Half of the population would be unable to go to work, buy food, of get their kids to school. It would be a disaster of historic scale. The problem then, is the law. To put it more succinctly: I am not a proponent of enforcing bad laws, and neither is just about anyone else here in reality.
> I'm quite aware of the intentionally annoying whistles. You're taking a pretty broad interpretation of "interference." I didn't realize that feds had a protected right to a calm and quiet work environment.
This kind of behavior would not be tolerated any more if it targeted other work environments. Harassment (and that's the most generous interpretation) is not free speech.
People are arguing the actions of ICE officers is warranted because they're being obstructed and harassed, blowing whistles is obstruction and harassment, their actions include shooting murdering people in the streets.
QED.
I don't know how else to read it. Inform me.
If anything the actions ICE is taking is even worse, Pretti didn't even have a terrorist assault whistle.
None of the argument has to do with "harassment", although of course that is not okay.
I mentioned the whistles specifically because it impedes communication between officers. Better communication between officers might, for example, have led to Pretti not getting shot, because they might have been able to understand better that he had already been disarmed. Hence "Can you imagine how this level of noise interferes with a job that involves verbal communication with both coworkers and civilians?", which was omitted from a reply that quoted the rest of the paragraph.
There is speculation that the first shot may have come from an accidental discharge of Pretti's gun, as it was carried by the officer who took it away. That could reasonably have spooked other officers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_shooting is a relevant concept here) who didn't have a clear view of everything that was going on. (There is also footage where Pretti appears to be reaching for where the gun would be, after it had been taken. Someone might not have realized it had in fact been taken.)
Refusing to comply with orders, and obstructing officers, justifies arrest. Presenting threats of death or serious injury during the arrest is what justifies self-defense actions. "Murder" is definitionally an unjustified killing; the entire point of a self-defense argument (and LEO do have some legal protections here that civilians don't, along with their responsibilities) is to establish that a killing was not murder. To call it "murder" is therefore assuming that which is to be established.
I am not asserting that a self-defense action is justified in Pretti's case. But I am saying that people are making the argument, and that there is a clear basis for it.
> None of the argument has to do with "harassment"
The guy I replied to literally said:
> Harassment (and that's the most generous interpretation) is not free speech.
> Better communication between officers might, for example, have led to Pretti not getting shot
You know what would have also led to the officers not murdering Pretti? The officers not being heavily armed, having the officers be better trained, have the officers not treat everyone as a threat to be handled, have the officers not assaulting people on the streets.
ICE is supposed to be serving civil infractions. They shouldn't be this armed to do so.
> There is speculation that the first shot may have come from an accidental discharge of Pretti's gun
There's zero evidence of this, and the video evidence shows the officer that actually shot Pretti experienced recoil in the hand holding his gun at the sound of the first shot. Meanwhile the officer holding Pretti's gun experienced no recoil at all, and instead of looking at the gun in his hands that supposedly misfired he turned to look at the guy who actually fired the first shot. If it was really Pretti's gun that misfired, wouldn't the guy holding it react by at least looking at it? I don't know about you, but if I'm holding a gun that suddenly goes off I'm not looking around elsewhere I'm looking at the gun that's unreliably going off!
Please don't continue pushing the false narrative (lie? slander? misinformation?) that it was some accidental discharge of Pretti's gun. It is not supported by reality.
>This kind of behavior would not be tolerated any more if it targeted other work environments. Harassment (and that's the most generous interpretation) is not free speech.
"Work Environments" jfc. Harassing harassers is morally ok in anyones book. That they get paid for harrassment is irrelevant. People dont need to endure oppression because the oppressors are on the job.
This is an inaccurate description of what they are doing. For example Renee Good was actively blockading a street, by placing her car perpendicularly across it. Some may be engaged in observation, but that is not broadly the case, and organizationally, their apparent goal is to obstruct.
If she was trying to blokade the street she was doing a pretty bad job. A car goes past hers in the video where the murderer shoots her three times and calls her a "fucking bitch" while her corpse weights down the gas and her SUV goes careening down the road.
That's just normal law enforcement behavior though. I'm sure if she hadn't been short with him he would've otherwise been well-behaved and enforced our immigration laws without incident.
Oh, that's one blue state; right? What do the rest of Americans think?
> The Economist/YouGov poll, 55 percent of respondents said they had “very little” confidence in ICE, while 16 percent said they have “some” confidence in the agency. Sixteen percent said they have “quite a lot” of confidence in ICE and 14 percent said they have “a great deal.”
> Democrats overwhelmingly support eliminating ICE (76% vs. 15%), as do nearly half of Independents (47% vs. 35%). Most Republicans (73%) continue to oppose abolishing ICE. Only 19% of Republicans support eliminating the agency
I am talking about 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II (<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12>). This is the law that defines how immigration works in the US, and how illegal aliens are removed. ICE is the Federal agency assigned to the task of locating and removing illegal aliens. Even if you don’t like that illegal aliens are being removed, it is illegal to try to prevent a federal agent from doing just that. Instead you should be trying to change the law so that the job doesn’t exist.
Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law, for example :
(1) Right of counsel
The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18.
When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations.
I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens.
There are two conceptions of law currently in the US. The first is what we see on TV, with lawyers and judges and law enforcement attempting, most often successfully, to apply a set of rules to everyone equally.
The second conception of law is what the federal government is doing now: oppression of opponents of the powerful, and protection of the powerful from any harm they cause to others.
We are currently in a battle to see which side wins. In many ways the struggle of the US, as it has become more free, is a struggle for the first conception to win over the second. When we had the Civil War, the first conception of law won. I hope it wins again.
It was always people who ruled, it's just more apparent when the people who rule are bullies itching for a fight, who care even less about the appearance of consistency.
For moral accountability, it should always in the end be "I say", not "the law says". No one should "just be obeying orders", they should make choices they can stand behind on their own judgment, regardless of whether some group of possibly long dead legislators stood behind it or not.
The ICE picks brown skinned people without any order or warrant and makes them sign voluntary deportation, no hearings/attorneys/etc. That "works" even for the people who has a valid applications say for asylum, temporary protection status, court orders protecting them from deportation, etc. as long as they sign that "voluntary" thing. It "works" even for citizens! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Guzman
That is just simply not true as was illustrated by many stories in the news. And in particular why would the ICE then use that checklist - young, Latino, tatoos ... -> gang member to extradite (to Guatemala).
And what final order of removal were for example the US citizens picked by ICE subject to?
> ICE has also deported full adult citizens, eg: Pedro Guzman, Mark Lyttle, etc.
Per your sources, these happened in 2007-2008, so that hardly seems relevant to the current discussion. Trump is not responsible for law enforcement overreaches that occurred under GWB.
> Currently there's a running problem simply having access to the names and files of those that disappear into the ICE Gulag.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
allow to birth? Only God does that. US does entice tourists by granting citizenship to anybody born on US territory. If you don't like it - change the Constitution. If you aren't changing it, then you want it for some reason.
Edit: to the commenter below - what "moral" has to do with the Constitution provision? I mean beside the general understanding that Constitution is a law and following law is in general a moral thing, and that US Constitution was generally an attempt to write a good moral thing.
I first have to ask: do you personally think it makes sense that couples can enter the US illegally, remain in the US illegally until a child is born, and have that child automatically become a citizen? Do you think it is moral? Why?
But just to clarify, GP was asking you whether that particular path to citizenship exists in other developed countries.
I do think it's moral and makes sense to make people born here citizens. It prevents the formation of an underclass of stateless residents who do not have rights. The idea of Jus Soli goes back a long time, rooted in English common law.
And yes, lots of other countries have similar policies in place. Racists act like it's something that is only a thing in the United States, and that it was only created by the 14th Amendment, and have managed to dupe many others to become ignorant of history.
This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. In the age of English common law, nations and states were conceived of fundamentally differently.
> This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive.
The history of the 14th amendment, Jus Soli, and birthright citizenship have loads of racism in their debates and history. I'm not necessarily calling you a racist here, I'm just pointing out many racists do these things for racist reasons. But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral.
If you're truly ignorant of the history of the 14th Amendment and it's connection to racism you really need to read up on the US Civil War.
> In the age of English common law
We're still living in the age of English Common Law in many ways. It guides a massive part of our legal theory. I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli, as if only we made it up somewhat recently.
For practically all free white babies born to immigrants living in the US even before the 14th Amendment Jus Soli was the standard. Racism prevented granting this right to others.
What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here? How is the 14th Amendment immoral?
> But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral.
I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting it specifically about people who are born to those who did not have a legal right to be in the country in the first place.
The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations, and the presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens.
> I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli
I'm not. I'm supposing that it's outdated, and was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration — especially from poor countries to much wealthier bordering ones, in an world where wealthy countries provide a social safety net that medieval Brits couldn't even have dreamed of.
Edit: as a sibling comment points out, the progenitors of English common law also could not have foreseen a world of ordinary people wealthy enough to travel internationally and have children abroad because citizenship in other countries would be favourable to their family. They could not even have foreseen a world in which the common folk could travel from England to France within hours on a whim.
The text of the 14th Amendment in regards to birthright citizenship:
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
So now that we have that to reference...
> The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations
Where is the generational requirement?
> presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens
I don't see anything explicitly talking about slavery here.
Sure sounds like someone is trying to rewrite the amendment here. Sure seems to me it says "all persons", not just "all persons who were multi-generational slaves before the passage of this amendment".
> was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration
You mean all those immigrants didn't think about the idea there could be massive amounts of immigration? The passage of the 14th Amendment happened in 1868. That's 18 years after the massive wave of immigration from the Irish Great Famine of 1845. That's after the massive migration of Asians during the California gold rush of 1849. You really think the writers were just fully ignorant of the potential of mass migrations?
I'll grant you they probably would not have imagined the amount of social safety net we have today, but I just can't agree they couldn't think about massive waves of people migrating for economic reasons. Those were definitely very salient issues at the time. Although it wouldn't be until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1889 that they actually took real action to significantly close the gates of US immigration. And they did so on racial lines, go figure.
My family came here before the passage of the 14th Amendment by pretty much just showing up and staying here for a couple of years. Their kids automatically became citizens at their birth even for the parents that never actually applied for citizenship. This is how it was for most of this country's history.
You've still not directly given me a reason why birthright citizenship is immoral. I've given you arguments as to why it is moral; it prevents the creation of an underclass of residents without full rights, something I'd hope we could both agree is immoral and bad. Can you tell me how granting citizenship to children of those without proper residency is somehow immoral?
> What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here?
Why should someone on vacation be able to automatically tap into already-limited social safety nets for their children? They have contributed next to nothing.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I kind of thought this was an American ideal, something we'd put on one of our most notable national monuments. Nah, sounds like some libtard crap I guess.
> But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. - 1 Chronicles 29:14
> Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. - Matthew 6:19-21
> John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” - Luke 3:11
> Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. - Luke 12:33
Back to your statements...
> They have contributed next to nothing.
And neither did you when you were born, and yet you got citizenship right off the bat. Should we have some kind of requirement that one must pay in enough money in taxes to qualify for citizenship? Maybe bring back poll taxes?
> Both that monument and the Declaration have zero authority in our government or system of laws.
And yet we enshrine them and make monuments out of them. Why would that be if they have zero relevance to our way of life and our nation's ideals, even if we haven't perfectly followed them in history? Why shouldn't we continue to reference them when we decide what to do going forward?
We're talking about morality in the US here. >62% of Americans say they're Christian. Citing the bible in discussions about morality in the US seems pretty relevant to me. Can you tell me how its not?
I also gave additional arguments and points unrelated to ancient texts, but you're not bothering to respond to those. What a joke.
> lots of other countries have similar policies in place
"Lots" of countries that nobody is clamoring to obtain citizenship in. Exactly one of them has a higher HDI score than the US, all of the rest are 20+ positions lower.
How many pregnant American tourists are specifically traveling to Brazil to birth their children as citizens there?
If you are a citizen child and your parents are arrested and subsequently incarcerated for breaking the law, you will be placed in foster care absent a suitable alternative guardian.
In this case, the children are being kept with their families. Who else should take them? Foster care?
Parents don't just magically get a free pass to break the law because they birthed a child.
>Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens?
Your response doesn't even approach answering it.
Why is that? Are you unwilling to answer such a question? Did you misunderstand?
Your comment was completely unrelated to the question I asked. Especially since my parents are long dead (51 years and 28 years) and I haven't relied on parental support in 35+ years.
As I mentioned, I'm the child of a non-citizen immigrant. Do you claim that I have fewer rights than other citizens? If so, which rights, and what justification do you use to make such a claim?
I am not talking about your rights: this is a strawman argument. Nobody is talking about you, an adult citizen - was the context difficult to follow?
Maybe English isn't your first language: when people are talking about "children" - they don't mean typically "adult child."
The children (see: not adults) of illegal immigrants who are deported don't have "less rights" in this case than a citizen child.
Let's follow the thread:
> US citizens were extradited? Who? To where?
>> Invariably someone will shoot back with "citizen children of illegal immigrants."
>>> Do the children of immigrants have fewer rights than other citizens?
How exactly does your "my rights!!!" diatribe make sense in context here? Why would "adult children" be the implication in this sentence?
In case you weren't aware: there has been much recent controversy about families being deported together despite their children being citizens - this is what I was referring to. As an adult citizen, you would not be subject to deportation as you do not need a guardian. Find something else to be outraged about.
>I am not talking about your rights: this is a strawman argument.
Whose rights should I be talking/concerned about? Are my rights unimportant? Shall we just go ahead and strip me of my citizenship because I'm not talking about what you want me to talk about?
It's literally the question I asked and your position on that specific question I wanted to understand. I did not misrepresent your belief/argument, rather I asked you to elucidate your thoughts on a specific question.[1]
That's not a strawman argument, that's being curious about your beliefs and understanding of the laws of the United States.
In fact, your initial reply to my comment was, in fact, a straw man as you argued against a claim that I never made -- that somehow asking about the rights of the children, their age is irrelevant, as everyone is someone's child, of immigrants only related to the minor children of undocumented immigrants -- I made no such claim, except in the straw man you set up.
If you didn't want to answer that question, you were under no obligation to reply to me at all. Yet you chose to do so and argue against a claim I never made.
So it was you, not me who engaged in "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."[0]
[1] I suppose that my question could (as you apparently did) be considered a non-sequitur. Definitely not a straw man, as I didn't argue for or against anything. Rather,I asked for your beliefs/understanding of US law and the US Constitution.
Edit: Clarified the difference between a straw man and a non-sequitur -- in case GP's first language isn't English.
People who natively speak English do not assume "children" means "adult children." Obviously everyone is "someone's child."
Citizen children have rights, illegal immigrants have rights. Nobody's rights are being violated when parents who chose to illegally immigrate are deported.
Be angry somewhere else. Nobody was talking about your rights or rights at all.
>Citizen children have rights, illegal immigrants have rights.
Finally, progress! Thank you. Just to clarify, does that mean you believe that all citizens, regardless of whether they're born in the US, the children of US citizen(s), as well as those who are naturalized all have the same rights?
What about non-citizens present (leaving aside diplomats here) in the US? Do you believe that they are under the authority of the US Constitution, US code and the laws of the state/local area where they are?
If so, do the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments, as well as 8USC12[1] apply to those folks?
>Be angry somewhere else.
Who's angry? Not me. I wasn't angry before and I'm not angry now. What would give you that idea?
Or is that just more projection (straw man indeed!) from you?
>Nobody was talking about your rights or rights at all.
That's not really true. I was talking about my rights, as well as the rights of others.
If you don't wish to have this conversation, you're under no obligation to engage with me. I won't be insulted or "angry" either way. I'm sorry that my thought processes seem to get your hackles up. That certainly wasn't my intent.
The point of the Executive branch is to decide how to execute the law using limited resources. The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here. In the past, AGs used their discretion to target dangerous immigrants and low-hanging fruit.
The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors.
> The AG doesn't have enough money, manpower, or time to find and deport every immigrant who's illegally staying here.
Sadly true. Traditionally most removals happen at the border where illegal aliens are easier to detect and where they can simply deny entry. Biden neglected to do that quite deliberately. He made speeches about it.
Trump did increase ICE’s budget though.
Anyway, https://www.dhs.gov/wow has twenty thousand examples of dangerous criminals who were insufficiently targeted by previous administrations if you’re interested.
> The protestors are against the way this administration chooses to carry out the law. They're also against the illegal or unconstitutional acts performed by immigration officers, such as warrantless entry and harassment of protestors.
This is the stated motive, sure, but the observed motive is different. Any time a “protester” sees what they think is an ICE operation their first actions are to try to save the people ICE is there to arrest. Yelling and blowing whistles to warn illegal aliens that ICE are present is just the start. Those Signal groups were training their members on how to surround officers and wrestle the arrestees away from them. They have no actual care at all for warrants; that’s merely an excuse for lawless behavior.
Why are ICE agents targeting Minneapolis? - the current estimate is 3,000 ICE agents that outnumber the Minneapolis-St. Paul police, sworn officers, 3-to-1 in a state with damn near the lowest actual numbers of actual undocumented immigrants.
Clearly this MN deployment is not about efficiency in rounding up criminal immigrants, it's a political power move designed to intimidate that has already been (unsuccessfully) used to leverage access to vote rolls, etc.
As I'm not an American can you refresh my memory as to what the US founders had to say and felt about Federal over reach into state territories?
On a related note, are you aware of the initial moves by both Stalin and Hitler before they each became infamous?
To quote a US historian:
In a constitutional regime, such as ours, the law applies everywhere and at all times. In a republic, such as ours, it applies to everyone. For that logic of law to be undone, the aspiring tyrant looks for openings, for cracks to pry open.
One of these is the border. The country stops at the border. And so the law stops at the border. And so for the tyrant an obvious move is to extend the border so that is everywhere, to turn the whole country as a border area, where no rules apply.
Stalin did this with border zones and deportations in the 1930s that preceded the Great Terror. Hitler did it with immigration raids in 1938 that targeted undocumented Jews and forced them across the border.
> As I'm not an American can you refresh my memory as to what the US founders had to say and felt about Federal over reach into state territories?
Since you’re not an American, I’ll forgive you for forgetting that all matters of immigration are given to Congress, (that is, the Federal government) to regulate. This is not a matter of Federal overreach.
As for Hitler and Stalin, your comparisons are inapt. They were motivated by antisemitism, ie racism. While racism and antisemitism are, sadly, on the rise in the United States, that blight is concentrated in the universities and colleges where the faculty and students feel free to hold rallies where they chant about the destruction of all Jews in the world.
Say whatever else you want about Trump, but he is clearly motivated in opposition to this rise in racism. To imply otherwise is to admit your ignorance or political bias.
again, what the law says and what the ICE does is 2 very different things. Otherwise, explain how that law provides for random picking off the street dark skinned people, including citizens, that ICE has been doing.
Does murdering someone who is driving away from you prevent immediate harm to you? Uncontrolled moving vehicles with bricks on the accelerator are very dangerous.
Self–defence is extremely limited in scope. Basically, if someone is about to stab you, you can do anything necessary to prevent that stabbing. Self–defence doesn't include that after someone fails to stab you and runs away, you can shoot them while they are running away. It doesn't include revenge. If you shoot someone who fails to stab you and runs away, it is murder like any other shooting. Self–defence doesn't include shooting someone who invades your house and isn't currently trying to hurt you, that is castle doctrine.
You assume the consequent with your language; a dead person is not necessarily a "brick on the accelerator"; and human reaction time is a thing. Officers are expected to make decisions in the moment that are reasonable given the totality of circumstances up to that point, without the benefit of hindsight. The decision to shoot was clearly made before the SUV could at all be said to be "getting away"; if you're a trained LEO (or even just someone with a firearm and specific self-defense training) you are going to fire multiple shots.
Regardless of Good's intent (which is irrelevant to the self-defense case), at the moment the vehicle was put into drive, it was clearly pointed straight at the officer (after straightening out from the first point of the two-point turn) and only began turning later. And she was being counseled to "drive, baby, drive", which does not exactly suggest being careful. The fact that this posed a serious threat meeting the standard for self-defense is pretty easy to argue, especially given that he actually was struck by the vehicle.
The left front wheel of the SUV can be seen (in the video from behind) to spin in place for a moment on an icy road; it's unclear exactly what the officer perceived in that moment, but it could very easily be argued that the officer reasonably believed he could prevent the car from moving forward by shooting, and by the time it was moving forward it was too late. Again, human reaction time is a thing.
Cars move forward and backward. They do not move sideways. A car is not about to move sideways and crush you. If you kill a driver of a car to the side to prevent her from driving sideways into you, the technical legal term for you is an idiot, and you are guilty of murder.
Cars turn. No part of my argument relies on cars being able to move sideways. Ross was clearly in front of the vehicle as it began to move forward. Ross was demonstrably struck by the vehicle, with multiple pieces of corroborating evidence.
By virtue of the car continuing to turn during continuous burst fire. Human reaction time is a thing; officers (as well as responsible gun owners with self-defense training) are taught to fire multiple shots when shooting in self defense (and it actually weakens their legal argument if they don't).
> The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job.
If that's the case, then why has no one been prosecuted on those grounds?
She was fully within her legal rights, as has been pointed out many times by US civil rights lawyers including those that have successfully defended MAGA people deplatformed during the past administration.
But he is correct. If you have a large enough budget for new construction it can make any maintenance expenditure look tiny. The right figures to compare are normalized by length and age of track, not percentages of the total budget.
It’s still nonsense. Everyone doing FTTH is using passive optical networking (PON, or NGPON or XGPON or XGSPON or …) which actually has a line rate of 10Gbps. It then uses TDMA to give each subscriber enough time slots to send and receive at a particular speed. My ISP, Ziply Fiber, just gives every subscriber enough time slots to send at the advertised speed _after_ protocol overhead, even at gigabit and higher speeds. If you buy the 500 Mbps service it really will speed test at 500 Mbps. If you buy gigabit it really will test at 1000Mbps provided you have faster than gigabit Ethernet between you and the router. The router that they rent connects to the ONT at 10Gbps, so speed tests done on the router itself always test at the speed you’re subscribed to.
At 10Gbps and above they start using direct–attached fiber (DIA) instead, so the speed you subscribe to is the line rate and it will test lower due to protocol overhead. But if you can max out a 50Gbps link then I think the overhead will not bother you much.
They also allow residential customers to run BGP and use their own addresses. They’re a great ISP.
Which is a shame, because it puts a huge support burden on ISPs. Every time some WiFi interference slows someone’s internet down they’ll end up blaming the ISP and calling support.
Actually, you don’t know that. You’re merely assuming it.
reply