Political Venting

[anthony]

What’s “weird” is that in red states like Texas and Tennessee ICE is following the law and working with police, but in blue states like Minnesota and California they are breaking federal law by doing traffic stops, arresting without warrants, and racial profiling.

But is that also because in blue states the Government is pushing back and causing issues, compared with red states? I know Minnesota is on the news, Government officials, telling people not to cooperate, make it difficult, etc etc. That is shared globally. That would make it difficult in those states, hence they have to take a very different approach if the Government you work for as ICE, is not helping you in x state, but is in y state, yet you're all Federal Government. State Governments still have Federal components.

 

[Rose White]

Police and sheriffs are city and county, they don’t work for the state. ICE is supposed to work in tandem with them, not be the ones doing the traffic stops, and they certainly aren’t supposed to be arresting without warrants—that violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But also, it might be hard for citizens of provincial governments to understand United States federalism, which is a decentralized form of government where states can pass laws that directly conflict with federal laws or choose to not accept funds for certain programs. Which is why Roe v. Wade was brought down because the argument was “let the states decide this issue for themselves.”

So you are right, that an outcome of federalism is that the federal government sometimes cannot enforce its own laws. AUS and CAN have much tighter central control.

It is a strange irony that MAGA pushed so hard for states’ rights and dismantling Washington.

 

[anthony]

Seems like there are a lot of ways for them to get around that: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/ice-cbp-legal-analysis/

 

[user27357]

one quick route to autocratic rule is to force a battle between the popular opinion of the citizens and the laws governing the actions of the federal government. 6
This was how erdogan took centralised power in turkey after the popular opinion of the people was a return to religious conservatism that was in opposition to their constitution and the courts enforcing it. Erdogan championed the overthrow of the courts and the constitution and took control.
it was tried in mexico where the conflict was between a populace in favor of allowing the military to enforce laws that would reign in the cartels and their constitution that stopped the military from policing citizens.
It is a very old technique that has been used many times throughout history with varying results. trump seems to be flailing about, looking for the rifts that can be used to start the battle between the citizens of the US and the courts sworn to uphold the constitution of the US.
Immigration enforcement in states where democrat majorities are trying to stop the policing of civilians by federal troops might be the battle he pins his hopes on. He was voted into office by people that think border control and immigration enforcement are the most important issues and he has created a department of homeland security that seems willing to skirt the fringes of martial law against citizens. the court battle could tear at the constitution of the US and weaken the guardrails that hold him back from autocracy.
Yes, it appears that he is getting things done and righting wrongs, but thats what covers up the underlying attempts to force supreme court cases where popular opinion runs counter to the constitution and rule of law. If international tarrifs prove to be popular and it appears that the supreme court will be forced to decide if they are constitutional he could have the battle he wants. Invading Venezuela without the backing of congress could. attempting to take control of the federal reserve could.
trying to stop congress from accepting the results of an election was a pretty loud and clear in your face attempt to start a battle between his followers and the constitution.
standing in contempt of courts is his MO. If he can find an issue where a majority of citizens will stand with him and weaken the courts the constitution will be in jeopardy and he will be one step closer to autocracy.

 

[shimmerz]

I think they need to be citizens to be protected by the Constitution.

 

[shimmerz]

one quick route to autocratic rule is to force a battle between the popular opinion of the citizens and the laws governing the actions of the federal government. 6

What happens when there are conflicting ideas of what the popular opinion are? My understanding is that trump got in because the popular opinion was to close down the borders and remove all people residing in the USA when they were not citizens.

 

[user27357]

What happens when there are conflicting ideas of what the popular opinion are? My understanding is that trump got in because the popular opinion was to close down the borders and remove all people residing in the USA when they were not citizens.

that was the popular idea.
He could have set up less inflammatory methods to find and deport illegal migrants. Instead he sent out squads of paramilitary raiders looking to arrest the "insane, murderous rapists" who were here and "eating our pets". This is seen by his supporters as getting things done.

Federal judges have set up roadblocks time after time, protecting human rights, due process, habeous corpus, requiring warrants and limiting the federal governments ability to enforce law on civilians. This is seen by his supporters as hindering progress.

The line is drawn, the sides are set, the battle is on and it will be fought in our courtrooms at the supreme court level. It will appear that it is right wing conservatives that want to deport illegal aliens against left wing liberals that don't care about the pet eating lunatics sent here when other nations cleaned out their insane asylums.

What is really going to play out is a battle over the enforcement of our constitution and the rule of law in our country.

If trump wins, it will be another step towards ending term limits and controlling the judicial and the legislative branches of government from a seat atop the executive branch. that is an autocracy, a dictatorship.
if the constitution is upheld it will un leash right wing anger and violence against the liberal democrats and all of the illegal aliens they want to protect. It will make it OK to kill civilians that get in the way of paramilitary actions against the illegal immigrants. Fascism basically.

My opinion is bleak. When the popular vote swung to a leader that had already tried to storm the capitol and keep power through use of violence we were done. The constitution is in place to limit him and eject him after two terms in office, but what if the constitution is called into question and has no power? Anarchy.

 

[shimmerz]

He could have set up less inflammatory methods

Not trying to be inflammatory here. The perspective that I come from -
He did set up less inflammatory ways of going about this. 1K plus free travel to anyone who was here without going through proper citizenship procedure.

he sent out squads of paramilitary raiders

Because the state was not supportive in this endeavour. Just look at all the inflammatory speeches by the mayor and governor to see that. On top of that having protestors block in ICE agents to block them in, kicking cars, standing in front of police and other cars, etc - that isn't on ICE.

insane, murderous rapists"

There is much proof of this. Are you saying that it didn't matter that there were illegals in the country who were murdering and raping children and adults? If so, I would ask you to rethink that.

This is seen by his supporters as hindering progress.

Well, if the state won't cooperate and protestors are putting the agents at risk while they are trying to eject illegals who are violent - what is supposed to happen? Just leave them:? Let them stay?

right wing conservatives

Yes, and they are in the majority clearly, as they voted in Trump with a huge majority.

battle over the enforcement of our constitution and the rule of law in our country.

Illegals are not covered by the constitution.

swung to a leader that had already tried to storm the capitol

I watched the capital police flipping open the doors for the people so they could come in. They were being given guided tours ffs. The drama caused by these media outlets is out of this world.

Plus the whole Haitian's eating pets was all mainstream media drama as well.

but what if the constitution is called into question and has no power? Anarchy.

Although oddly things in Washington have gotten 1000T times better once he cleared the streets of these criminals on the streets.

Homicide Falls Sharply in Major U.S. Cities Amid Continuing Decline in Overall Crime

A 21% drop would push homicide rate to a new historic low, new CCJ analysis finds

counciloncj.org

Being a Canadian and living in the USA 1/2 of the year, I am going to tell you, Canada has a 100 x worse for violence, migrant replacement, and a political structure that obviously has not got the best interests of the populace in their policies. The USA is a joy to come to in comparison.

 

[user27357]

@shimmerz

Plus the whole Haitian's eating pets was all mainstream media drama as well.

im not sure when I first heard this allegation but i know i heard it leveled by trump during a presidential debate. drama, yes. mainstream media? coverage of the debates was main stream media, yes.

Illegals are not covered by the constitution.

all people are covered under the bill of rights and considered innocent until proven guilty. It has to be that way or it us inevitable that US citizens will lose their protection under the law if they are suspected of being illegal or of being foreign agents. Aliens are arrestable yes, but the law requires that they be tried and convicted before being punished or deported and treated civilly during the process under protections afforded by the constitution.

Are you saying that it didn't matter that there were illegals in the country who were murdering and raping children and adults?

this is exactly the argument against upholding the rule of law that trump wants his supporters to use. Of course i am not saying that and now i am supposed to react violently against the allegation.

thats the plan.

I have had trump supporters accuse me of so many things that this is just one more and it frankly is boring at this point. I didnt vote against trump because i wanted sex changes to be free for prisoners. i didnt vote against him so that boys could compete in high school sports against girls. I am not deluded by the mainstream media that wants me to believe the day of love when the peaceful tours of the capitol building took
place was a riot and an attempted coup either. I believe that one all on my own, people died, nooses were hung.
This forum is flirting with personal attack, i have stated my political beliefs and i think it is time to withdraw from the thread before the next step gets taken.
Its all fun and games until someone gets their feelings hurt here on line.
in the real world the protesters and the ice agents are just playing roles until the shots are fired. Then, everyone goes home and thinks about where it all got out of hand.
I think this thread is headed for a predictable end so i am headed for the exit. peace. out.

 

[Rose White]

I think they need to be citizens to be protected by the Constitution.

Due process, probable cause, habeas corpus

Because the state was not supportive in this endeavour.

In Canada and Australia federal and provincial governments tend to coordinate and especially in Canada, a centralized national government is strong.

Well, if the state won't cooperate

America has a system often called dual federalism (vs centralized federalism of Canada and cooperative federalism of Australia). In the U.S. federal and state governments operate in different spheres and may openly resist each other. (See history of Civil War.). In the U.S. it is constitutionally normal for states to refuse to enforce federal programs, pass laws directly challenging federal priorities, and frequently litigate against federal government. This is very different and probably feels “wrong/abnormal” to Canadian or Australian political culture.

A key difference is that in U.S. the president is not elected by congress, there is no parliamentary system. The executive is separate from the legislative and does not depend on a parliament for approval to change or enforce immigration policy, the way prime ministers and the cabinet would in Canada and Australia.

State resistance is NORMAL. States can refuse cooperation, sue the federal government, and pass laws directly challenging federal policy. This creates ongoing visible conflict. CONFLICT IS BUILT INTO THE STRUCTURE.

In Australia and Canada immigration policy comes from parliament so the prime minister is responsible for enforcing it. Provinces negotiate with the federal government but rarely engage in regular constitutional standoffs. The political system discourages open executive vs provincial combat.

From a Canadian or Australian perspective you might ask, “If immigration law exists why wouldn’t it just be uniformly enforced?” In your system if the federal government wants enforcement, it generally gets enforcement.

In the U.S. enforcement can swing drastically between presidents, states can refuse cooperation, and courts intervene constantly.

So what you deem “chaos manufactured by the left” is constitutional friction that is built in to the system, state-level autonomy, and a very strong tradition of American protest politics (see January 6th example) misread as coordinated destabilization.

From inside the U.S. we call it polarization. From outside you see it as systemic breakdown.

 

[shimmerz]

this is exactly the argument against upholding the rule of law that trump wants his supporters to use. Of course i am not saying that and now i am supposed to react violently against the allegation.

Can you explain this a bit more please. This is where my head starts to spin. I have no idea why people would want alien invaders in a country who harm citizens. Makes no sense at all to me. I am trying to figure out the missing piece that will make it make sense to me.

Are you thinking that if illegals have no due process, that citizens won't have it either? What process exactly in shipping them out of the country takes away their rights when they have no right to be in the country?

Is the only answer to simply shut down all ports of entry to any people from alien countries until a proper check is done on them so this doesn't happen again?

Do you believe the stories of army aged men walking over the borders without id because they were seeking asylum?

Do you believe the stories of minors accompied by adults that were not their parents being brought into the country to be trafficked?

From a Canadian or Australian perspective you might ask, “If immigration law exists why wouldn’t it just be uniformly enforced?” In your system if the federal government wants enforcement, it generally gets enforcement.

Which is one of the reasons Alberta is very actively trying release itself from Canada. And there are shifty and shady things happening to those who are open about them wanting out of Canada. They are being targeted and threatened.

I would be interested in both of your comments on the questions above and anyone else who thinks along these lines.

 

[shimmerz]

Not trying to be inflammatory here. The perspective that I come from -
He did set up less inflammatory ways of going about this. 1K plus free travel to anyone who was here without going through proper citizenship procedure.

Also, nobody addressed this. I am interested in why this isn't being acknowledged.