The future of the US

[kallend 2,129]

15 hours ago, BIGUN said:

 

Crime from undocumented alone has quadrupled in the past seven years. 

 

 

And it's STILL less than crime committed by citizens (absolute, AND per capita).

Fact is, the person most likely to rob or kill you is a citizen. (The person most likely to kill you is your spouse, using your own gun).

https://www.cato.org/blog/why-do-illegal-immigrants-have-low-crime-rate-twelve-possible-explanations

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/immigrants-and-crime

 

EDIT:  Interesting that the DoJ's web page documenting the lower crime rate among immigrants (including undocumented)  has recently been removed.

Edited June 9 by kallend

[jakee 1,582]

12 hours ago, BIGUN said:

IMartial law cannot be enacted by the President. It has to be done at the state level. 

The funny / truly scary thing here is the denial of the street level reality of what is actually happening in the real world, today.

It's clear now that your argument relies on conflating martial law with Posse Comitatus even though you know they are two completely different things. What you're really claiming is that the President can't deploy the National Guard, State Governors have to take the decision to deploy the National Guard within their own States. But here's the thing, you do understand that the National Guard is in LA right now, doing law enforcement, right? You do understand that Newsom didn't send them there or want them there, Trump sent them there, right? You do understand that no one is stopping him from doing it, right?

So another way of stating your argument is that the president can't declare martial law because the President isn't allowed to do what he is currently (successfully) doing. You get why (even if the foundation of that argument wasn't as fatally flawed as it is) it's not remotely reassuring, don't you?

[BIGUN 1,450]

25 minutes ago, jakee said:

But here's the thing, you do understand that the National Guard is in LA right now, doing law enforcement, right?

You don't understand the difference between martial law and assisting law enforcement as defined in the laws that not only I posted; but you posted.   

[BIGUN 1,450]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Fact is, the person most likely to rob or kill you is a citizen.

Unless you know someone close to your family who has been killed by a noncitizen. Some folks don't give a shit about the laws in their own country, much less ours.  

[jakee 1,582]

9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You don't understand the difference between martial law and assisting law enforcement as defined in the laws that not only I posted; but you posted.   

You know that's a lie. You know that the only sources you've put forward so far say that in general the President is not allowed to deploy the Armed Forces to assist law enforcement. You know that I just explained that in the part of the post you didn't quote. You know that you are ignoring the very clear statements in your sources, that I have shown you, which say martial law / insurrection etc is an exception to any of those limits. You know you are pretending that the general case is the absolute case and you know that it is a lie.

In that context you are then ignoring the fact that the situation on the ground, today, is exactly what you are saying the President is not allowed to do. So even if we accept your overall argument (which you know is false), what in reality is the check against the President declaring martial law - since he's already doing the thing which you say is illegal?

Edited June 9 by jakee

[BIGUN 1,450]

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

the President is not allowed to deploy the Armed Forces to assist law enforcement.

Like I said earlier, you're not familiar with all the interlacing of US law. Instead of attacking me; your argument should be:  

Two days ago, Trump invoked Title 10 - with serious questionable authority. To do that; it had to reach the level of rebellion (which is an organized and violent attempt to overthrow or undermine the government); which this is not. Protests are lawful free speech rights and even though there is some chaos and violence - the threshold of rebellion does not exist.   

That should be the focus. 

[gowlerk 2,262]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

To do that; it had to reach the level of rebellion (which is an organized and violent attempt to overthrow or undermine the government); which this is not. Protests are lawful free speech rights and even though there is some chaos and violence - the threshold of rebellion does not exist.   

The problem with that argument is simply that the situation will reach the level of rebellion whenever the president decides that it has reached that level. And the current president is not someone who can be trusted not to abuse that power. I know you love your constitution, but it has proven to be inadequate at protecting your rights and the rights of your fellow citizens. 

[jakee 1,582]

8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Like I said earlier, you're not familiar with all the interlacing of US law. Instead of attacking me; your argument should be: 

Like I said before - you know that your entire argument is false and instead of just admitting you fucked up because you couldn't be arsed to read anything properly you are now just flat out lying and gaslighting everyone.

When Ken said this: in practice, the President can invoke martial law on a national level, you said this Ken, you do not cite a source, so I don't know where you got this, but it is inaccurate. "The Posse Comitatus Act creates a general rule that it is unlawful for federal military forces to engage in civilian law enforcement activities - even if they are merely supplementing rather than supplanting civilian authorities - except when doing so is expressly authorized by Congress." even though your own source explicitly told you that 'general rule' did not apply to insurrection / martial law. Now instead of just acknowledging you mistake you are lying to cover it up.

 

You then said there was something somewhere in 10USC 271-184 that would back you up, even though 278 explicitly told you that the entire chapter makes no restriction whatsoever on anything that the President can do with the military. Now instead of acknowledging your mistake you are lying to cover it up. 

18 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Two days ago, Trump invoked Title 10 - with serious questionable authority. To do that; it had to reach the level of rebellion (which is an organized and violent attempt to overthrow or undermine the government); which this is not. Protests are lawful free speech rights and even though there is some chaos and violence - the threshold of rebellion does not exist.   

I literally just told you that. I made it really, really clear. Telling me that should be my argument when you know damn well it is my argument is, once again, blatant lies and gaslighting on your part.

And again - think how that affects what you are trying to say. You said the President cannot enact martial law. Do you seriously not see from what I said above (that you clearly agree with since you just said it back to me) that regardless of your misrepresentations of the law, in the real world in which we both live the President absolutely can declare martial law if he wants to?

[jakee 1,582]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Some folks don't give a shit about the laws in their own country

Since the US has the highest number of inmates in the world by far and the highest per capita of any functioning democracy, I'd say those folks are called Americans - wouldn't you?

Edited June 9 by jakee

[kallend 2,129]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Unless you know someone close to your family who has been killed by a noncitizen. Some folks don't give a shit about the laws in their own country, much less ours.  

Anecdote <> data

or if, you prefer

Anecdote != data

[kallend 2,129]

The Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that blocked the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing the Social Security Administration’s data systems. Since Social Security tracks data from cradle to grave, here is just some of the information DOGE will now have access to:

Your name, Social Security number, date and place of birth, gender, addresses, marital and parental status, your parents’ names, lifetime earnings, bank account information, immigration and work authorization status, health conditions if you apply for disability benefits, and your use of Medicare after a certain age. Before the ruling, Social Security data was always tightly restricted.

Anyone see a potential for abuse here?

[BIGUN 1,450]

23 minutes ago, kallend said:

Anecdote != data

True. But, anecdotal evidence matters to the person. 

[BIGUN 1,450]

26 minutes ago, kallend said:

Anyone see a potential for abuse here?

But. But. They anonymized the data! 

[nigel99 599]

42 minutes ago, jakee said:

Since the US has the highest number of inmates in the world by far and the highest per capita of any functioning democracy, I'd say those folks are called Americans - wouldn't you?

Are you joking or on crack? 

The important question is how does the US inmate population compare against other banana republic’s? 

[gowlerk 2,262]

22 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

True. But, anecdotal evidence matters to the person. 

Yes. The same as the RonD argument. What really matters is the feels. Facts are nothing in the face of your feels.

[BIGUN 1,450]

11 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

The important question is how does the US inmate population compare against other banana republic’s? 

Don't be so hard on the UK, Brother. They're trying to do better.  

[jakee 1,582]

25 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

True. But, anecdotal evidence matters to the person. 

Sure - so any person who’s been victimised by an American citizen who got away with and wants habeus corpus, the 4th amendment, the right to representation and a fair trial etc to all be thrown out should be taken seriously. 

[jakee 1,582]

Just now, BIGUN said:

Don't be so hard on the UK, Brother. They're trying to do better.  

Better than the US? Well yeah - trying and really obviously succeeding.

Now though - react to stop gaslighting and admit that you were completely wrong regarding martial law, and either misunderstood or misrepresented every one of your sources?

[BIGUN 1,450]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Facts are nothing in the face of your feels.

My feels are the result of an undocumented person killing someone I knew. That is a fact. 

[BIGUN 1,450]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

wrong regarding martial law, and either misunderstood or misrepresented every one of your sources?

I'm sorry you misinterpreted or misunderstood my sources. 

[jakee 1,582]

18 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I'm sorry you misinterpreted or misunderstood my sources. 

So you are going to keep lying and gaslighting instead of admitting the mistakes which have been clearly pointed out to you by the sources you introduced? Even though it’s so incredibly obvious that you’re doing it? 
 

The weird thing is that there would have been no shame at all in being wrong before you looked at the evidence. So why did you instead decide to get your shovel out and start digging? 

[olofscience 492]

46 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

My feels are the result of an undocumented person killing someone I knew. That is a fact. 

This is disappointing coming from you.

It's like you're saying that all container manufacturers should change to a 3-canopy system because you knew someone who died from a double mal. Ignoring that most fatalities are due to low turns...

[kallend 2,129]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Don't be so hard on the UK, Brother. They're trying to do better.  

Yes, Liz Truss lasted what, 7 weeks, before being thrown out.  We have to put up with Trump, who is even more incompetent, authoritarian, and certainly more evil, for another  190 weeks.

 

 

Edited June 9 by kallend

[billvon 3,092]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

My feels are the result of an undocumented person killing someone I knew. That is a fact. 

But it's what you do with that fact that matters.

I've had two good friends killed by skydivers.  Another skydiver I knew was convicted of child porn.  Two more of drug trafficking.  But I'm not going to demand that you be deported.  Or even that you accept any of that blame.

[kallend 2,129]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

My feels are the result of an undocumented person killing someone I knew. That is a fact. 

Sorry to hear that, but it is still not a sound basis for national policy.

It is also a fact that if you are walking down a dark street at night, the person most likely to rob or kill you will be a citizen, not an undocumented immigrant.