Toggle sidebar

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) (part II)

Bazza said:
Another aspect here is what is fair to those who came in under our traditional immigration policy.

Waiting patiently while being a productive citizen to get their legal status.

To then see others cut in line?

Doesn't seem fair.
Click to expand...

2010. President Obama shoots down the whole "stop deportations and just let the illegal immigrants be" argument that the Democrat party is currently pushing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2015921101696585788

Asked and answered!
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: crimsonaudio and JDCrimson
Bazza said:
Anne Frank was targeted and murdered solely because she was Jewish. Leaders making false equivalencies to her experience for political purposes is never acceptable. Despite tensions in Minneapolis, exploiting the Holocaust is deeply offensive, especially as antisemitism surges.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2015830385331216482
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Anne Frank’s story is about a child who was murdered because of who she was and shouldn’t be exploited for modern day political purposes.

I was at the Holocaust Memorial Museum with my students earlier this month, and that experience makes it even harder to take these comparisons lightly. Turning the Holocaust into a political analogy doesn’t advance the conversation. It only serves to diminish a historical atrocity.
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: 75thru79, crimsonaudio and CrimsonJazz
editder said:
Comparing federal law enforcement to the Gestapo is close enough for me. If I thought the Gestapo was here dragging innocent people out and taking them to concentration camps, I would consider it my responsibility to oppose it. He knew what he was doing. He should have been calling for everyone to go home, so it’s not enough to say he’s off the hook because he didn’t specifically use the words “riot” or “insurrection.”
Click to expand...
“Calling for everyone to go home?” So no one should be protesting what ICE is doing?
 
2015: Hillary Clinton is asked about the murder of Kate Steinle by a criminal alien in sanctuary San Francisco.

Hillary says she has “absolutely no support" for cities that don’t listen to DHS on deportations:

“Any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which, as I understand it, urged them to deport this man."

"The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported."

"I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2015903119423529109
 
Huckleberry said:
That’s still not rhetoric that encourages violence. It’s an argument that harsh criticism of law enforcement might influence unstable people to act. That’s speculation, not incitement.

You can fairly criticize inflammatory language or bad historical analogies without redefining political criticism as a call to violence. If calling state actions authoritarian or abusive is treated as encouraging violence, then meaningful criticism of power becomes impossible.

Responsibility for violence belongs to the person who commits it, not to politicians who never urged it.
Click to expand...
criticism or questioning of dear leader is considered inherently inflammatory. it's very convenient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulD and Huckleberry
Huckleberry said:
I agree with this. Anne Frank’s story is about a child who was murdered because of who she was and shouldn’t be exploited for modern day political purposes.

I was at the Holocaust Memorial Museum with my students earlier this month, and that experience makes it even harder to take these comparisons lightly. Turning the Holocaust into a political analogy doesn’t advance the conversation. It only serves to diminish a historical atrocity.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly why I get my shorts in a knot over this stupid nazi rhetoric. It trivializes a truly horrific event and is an insult to the dead. Fling insults at OMB all you want, but for God's sake, show some decency.

EDIT: after re-reading this, I feel like it comes off as being directed at you, Huck. This was not my intention as this message is meant for everyone (including Hank Jr. who tried this, too.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry
editder said:
What are you saying they’re doing that should be protested? Enforcing the law?
Click to expand...

Buying non East India Company tea was illegal, and not allowing soldiers to room and board was illegal. Are you saying that both shouldn’t have been protested and pushed back against? If not then you are openly admitting that this country was built on protesting the enforcement of laws and government policies.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: tusks_n_raider and Huckleberry
Huckleberry said:
That’s still not rhetoric that encourages violence. It’s an argument that harsh criticism of law enforcement might influence unstable people to act. That’s speculation, not incitement.

You can fairly criticize inflammatory language or bad historical analogies without redefining political criticism as a call to violence. If calling state actions authoritarian or abusive is treated as encouraging violence, then meaningful criticism of power becomes impossible.

Responsibility for violence belongs to the person who commits it, not to politicians who never urged it.
Click to expand...
Governor Walz urged Minnesotans to engage in "good trouble," which is ambiguous enough for him to stay out of trouble, but specific enough for his listeners to know what he meant.

The US Army defines leadership this way: "the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization.”

A leader (at the federal level and the state and local level) in this case would urge federal subordinates (at the federal level) and citizens (at the state and local levels) to take a step back and let things calm down.
Maybe the guy who sees himself as a deal-maker should suggest announcing the ending of the ICE operation in Minnesota (gives Walz and Frey a win) and tell citizens to go home. In exchange Minnesota and Minneapolis police will give full cooperation to a much scaled-down (and much less visible) ICE presence imbedded in Minneapolis police patrols to continue to apprehend those illegal immigrants who do have violent/serious crime convictions and valid deportation orders and skip those without such convictions for the time being (gives federal authority a win). That to me would be leadership. There are a lot of ICE detentions in red states, without all the drama and violence because local auythorities are cooperating with ICE and keeping things calm.

I understand people are outraged by the deaths of two citizens but it is important on leaders to emphasize that filming in public is fine, protesting (in compliance with local direction as to time, place, and manner) is fine, but interfering is not.
 
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: Huckleberry
81usaf92 said:
Buying non East India Company tea was illegal, and not allowing soldiers to room and board was illegal. Are you saying that both shouldn’t have been protested and pushed back against? If not then you are openly admitting that this country was built on protesting the enforcement of laws and government policies.
Click to expand...
Or how about we skip the protest and go straight to revolutionary war? Seems more efficient that way. I'll be staying home of course, but to quote Miracle Max, "Have fun storming the castle!" 😝
 
CrimsonJazz said:
Or how about we skip the protest and go straight to revolutionary war? Seems more efficient that way. I'll be staying home of course, but to quote Miracle Max, "Have fun storming the castle!" 😝
Click to expand...

Or storming the capitol. But apparently no right winger wants to have to talk about the legality of that or the fact that they were literally killing cops. But we want to complain about it here
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: tusks_n_raider, selmaborntidefan, Huckleberry and 1 other person
john_lewis.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: tusks_n_raider, PaulD and Huckleberry
81usaf92 said:
Buying non East India Company tea was illegal, and not allowing soldiers to room and board was illegal. Are you saying that both shouldn’t have been protested and pushed back against? If not then you are openly admitting that this country was built on protesting the enforcement of laws and government policies.
Click to expand...
We were talking about protesting, not overthrowing the government.

I didn’t say I was against protesting. I was just trying to establish whether Huckleberry was talking about protesting the enforcement of the law or protesting the actions of ICE in the chaos caused by agitators (not protestors) while ICE was trying to enforce the law.

But to your point, there should be some discernment exercised in determining which laws are worth overthrowing the government over. Are you saying that enforcing immigration laws, let alone rape and assault laws, rise to that level?
 
editder said:
We were talking about protesting, not overthrowing the government.

I didn’t say I was against protesting. I was just trying to establish whether Huckleberry was talking about protesting the enforcement of the law or protesting the actions of ICE in the chaos caused by agitators (not protestors) while ICE was trying to enforce the law.

But to your point, there should be some discernment exercised in determining which laws are worth overthrowing the government over. Are you saying that enforcing immigration laws, let alone rape and assault laws, rise to that level?
Click to expand...

I guess people don’t color the way I do so I’ll try to be less vague.

I hate flag burning… I hate seeing the flag upside down in protests, and I hate vets wearing uniforms during protests. I think it’s poor and anti American imagery. However, at the same time it’s legal and something that separates us from places like Russia and any authoritarian government. I think too often we don’t see the subjectivity of protests and a good example is Colin Kaepernick. Personally I didn’t care for his method but if he saw it as a useful method then good for him and his exercise of the first amendment.

Ultimately I think the question shouldn’t be “are they protesting something legal” and it’s should be “are they protesting legally”. Because if we can’t voice our opinions on controversial laws then are we really a free nation? I think for the most part Minnesota protests have been legal protests. If people act outside those parameters then arrest them… don’t shoot them or raise the temperature to an inferno like ICE has done.

My problem is that most of this could be avoided by a little restraint. But restraint and law enforcement rarely go hand in hand when Trump is involved.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
  • Full Banjeaux!
Reactions: UAllday, JDCrimson, tusks_n_raider and 3 others
81usaf92 said:
Or storming the capitol. But apparently no right winger wants to have to talk about the legality of that or the fact that they were literally killing cops. But we want to complain about it here
Click to expand...
I denounced and continue to denounce the storming of the capitol, just as I denounced the summer of riots in 2020 that killed numerous innocent people and destroyed the property of people of all walks of life, and I denounce the agitators in Minneapolis.

I’m against lawless behavior in principle, regardless of who is doing it. I don’t selectively pick which insurrections I’m for or against.

That’s the problem: things have gotten so polarized that people can’t even come out against rioting in the streets over the arrest of violent criminals.

At least we still have the Tide in common I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back