Governor Greg Abbott issued a declaration arguing he has the legal power to overrule federal authorities in case of an “invasion.” — Fooloso4

At what point does a citizen reinterpret the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA as an "invasion"?

Possibly when they cannot be admitted into a hospital for treatment because the medical system is flooded with non-citizens. Or when a mayor or governor asks the population to take these people into their homes. Or when the Tijuana cartel runs a major California city.

Until then, its merely a political issue. Or a humanitarian issue.

At what point does a citizen reinterpret the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA as an "invasion"? — jgill

At no point. The question of the interpretation of the law is to be left to the courts. Otherwise the law becomes whatever any citizen interprets it to be. What else might an individual or state regard as an invasion? There are many private citizens and in government who believe that this is a white Christian nation. What they might consider "too many" of those who are not white Christians to be an invasion and an existential threat to their God given rightful way of life.

I do agree that there is a serious problem at the border that must be dealt with but it cannot be solved through lawless disregard of the courts.

Problem at the border. Yeah, sure. The numbers have increased, and there’s a traffic jam. The rest is conservative media frenzy and stupid political stunts by right-wing governors. They don’t want the problem solved— they just want to use it in an election year.

So, let’s call it what it really is: Racist fear mongers blaming a Democratic administration for an overblown problem.

At what point does a citizen reinterpret the flow of illegal immigrants into the USA as an "invasion"? — jgill

At no point. — Fooloso4

You misinterpret what I am asking. I'm not speaking of a citizen advancing a legal opinion. Only when does anyone begin thinking of the border problem as an invasion? When does a mother feeding her family a meal hear the latest news report and think, "Wow, sounds like an invasion!".

So, let’s call it what it really is: Racist fear mongers blaming a Democratic administration for an overblown problem — Mikie

OK, now I know what it really is. Thanks.

https://www.voanews.com/a/democratic-mayors-renew-pleas-for-federal-help-over-migrant-crisis-/7415519.html

See above.

You misinterpret what I am asking. I'm not speaking of a citizen advancing a legal opinion. — jgill

These is an important difference between someone thinking it sounds like an invasion and acting to secure the border in a way that courts have determined is illegal. If she claims that she is within her rights to act this way because of an invasion she is advancing a legal opinion.

If she claims that she is within her rights to act this way because of an invasion she is advancing a legal opinion — Fooloso4

I've spoken with her and she is shocked to hear that people think she is grabbing her shotgun and joining a convoy to the Border. What the court rules, she will follow . . . but reluctantly. Poor thing.

The number of illegal migrants bussed or flown to Denver has reached roughly 6% of the existing population. There was a piece on the news of a busload being driven to Colorado Springs, NOT a sanctuary city. The Springs has enough of a problem housing the homeless already there.

Those few from Venezuela are able to get work permits, but most are not.

Now THAT'S a majority. The kind of majority Trump felt entitled to in New Hampshire and Iowa (but *didn't* get).

I do hear you on the alarm about undocumented arrivals. It's definitely a serious issue, but again, requires bipartisan support as it's bigger than either party. And that support is being jeopardised by Trump and his congressional minions for purely political reasons. He has no interest in solving it, only in exploiting it.

Of course it does. But up to 5,000 illegals/day is too many. Bring that number way, way down and perhaps re-institute a Trump executive order or two and an agreement might result.

This issue is so muddled with money for Ukraine and Israel - entirely separate concerns.

This issue is so muddled with money for Ukraine and Israel - entirely separate concerns. — jgill

Yeah and who did that muddling, eh? Who was it, exactly, that tied them together. Hint: it wasn't Joe Biden.

Pretty pathetic Biden is the best they can do.

Yeah at my age I don’t much like age discrimination.

Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump". But yes, 84 is too fucking old. You call that age discrimination, the rest of us call it common sense. There's a lot of things that start deteriorating from our 30s onwards. Memory and recall being the most important one.

He’s been a perfectly sound leader as far as I’m concerned notwithstanding all the eye rolling. But rest easy, I won’t argue the case.

:mask: 30Jan24 predictions:

• US courts will deny that a president or former president has "absolutely immunity" from criminal prosecution. — 180 Proof

6Feb24: DENIED by Federal Appeals Court, Washington DC Circuit. The order of the Federal District Court is upheld and affirmed. Criminal Defendent-1 has to appeal to SCOTUS by 12Feb24, otherwise the district court can proceed with the "J6 Conspiracy" trial.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68026175

i.e. Affirmed:

Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. — Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington DC Federal District Court

Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump" — Benkei

It would help if he chose another VP this time around. Gavin Newsom, perhaps.

It would help if he chose another VP this time around. Gavin Newsom, perhaps. — jgill

:up: Or Gretchen Witmer.

Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump". — Benkei

He also brings "not Republican" to the table, which entails (among other things) the expectation he'd block attempts to further restrict women's reproductive rights. It also entails appointment of judges that are more apt to have a more expansive view of civil rights.

a more expansive view of civil rights. — Relativist

Not always going to be a good thing. But hte former is definitely true, and good (in the sense that its worse to have a Republican swaying reproductive legislation).

16Feb24

By 31Jan24 the Trump Org will be effectively dissolved in NY State by order of Justice Engoron and no less than $300 million USD (re: "ill-gotten gains") will be disgorged as well as Fraudster-1 (maybe Beavis & Butthead too) will be barred for life from the real estate industry in NY State. NB: Liquidations to commence soon in order to put up a $300 million or more cash bond that's required by law to Appeal the civil judgment – Loser-1 clearly isn't that liquid (thanks, Ms. Carroll! :clap: :kiss: :flower: Loser-1 also has to put up a total of $88.3 million in order to Appeal both her judgements too) – otherwise, without that combined half-billion in cash (USD), the collection agencies for NYS will slap enforceable liens on all defendents' personal & real properties asap and savage tf out of them like piranha. :wink: :party: — 180 Proof

Apparently, an Appellate-proof (restrained) judgment of over $450 million (disgorgement + interest), barred for (only) 3 years from doing business in NYS & borrowing from NYS chartered banks, an (enhanced) independent financial monitor & corporate compliance officer – straitjacket – for 3 years, but no "corporate death penalty" (yet?) ...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16/politics/takeaways-donald-trump-fraud-ruling/index.html

Still a BFD, Frauster/Loser-1 is butthurt. :kiss:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/881709 :eyes: :rofl:

:D Old Joe versus The Clown

Look, this is going to be a long, grueling, and mostly pointless campaign, since everyone already knows which of the two elderly candidates they prefer to barely tolerate. The one who can’t walk up stairs or the one who can’t walk down ramps.

It gets so dull hearing these talking points. The American dream is dead because Mars bars were $1 and are now $1.25.

I know what you hacks on both sides will say before they say it. Is it really healthy to blame every problem on Joe Biden?

The reason for that [more people have registered as independent voters than ever] is this kind of mindless partisanship.

We gotta get used to it, this is it, this is the race. Biden and Trump, the race is over. This is bad news for the country, I think. Very good news for people who build ramps on debate stages.

Did you know that Bill Clinton, has been out of office for 25 years, is still younger than both of them? I’m not kidding about that. That is a true fact. Their combined age is 158 years old. The first debate is going to be at the Museum of Natural History.

You know what’s trending on Twitter? Dementia Don, because Trump was talking about Nancy Pelosi during January 6, but he kept calling her Nikki Haley.

You know what else Dementia Don did this week? This is a direct quote, I don’t know what it means, no one does, he said word for word, ‘We are an institute in powerful death penalty. We will put this on.’ Even Biden was like, ‘What the f---?'
— Bill Maher (Feb 17, 2024)

The Trump family doll collection.
https://x.com/Roshan_Rinaldi/status/1759088710627299375?s=20

:smirk: Yep, it's only February ... and so it goes.

:D The Donald Dog Toy

$112,000 a day accrued interest ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68407054

:clap: :mask:

28Mar24, NYC

Will Putin bail out Fraudster/Loser-1? Maybe MBS? or Elon Musk? No bank or bond company will ... :rofl:

So he's both a super-successful multi-billionaire, and a person who can't afford 450 million dollars. What a fraud.

Time to sell Trump Tower. Probably can't get much for it though.

By March/April, SCOTUS will uphold the "states' rights" to individually decide whether or not to disqualify Insurrectionist/Criminal-Defendent/Rapist-Defamer/Fraudster-1 from appearing on the 2024 federal election ballot pursuant to the 14th Amendment, Sec. 3 (Insurrection Clause) of the US Consitution. — 180 Proof

Well, I got the date right but the decision wrong: (maga-wingnut) SCOTUS is in the effing tank for (former) SCROTUS aka "Insurrectionist/Criminal Defendant/Fraudster/Rapist/Loser-1" ... making up stoopid ahistorical-ad hoc shit (like they did to overturn Roe v. Wade i.e. to jackboot curbstomp 'stare decisis') in order to further accelerate the bananazation of the US Republic.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/feb/08/14th-amendment-insurrection-disqualify-trump

What?! "States Rights" for forced pregnancy but NOT for ballot qualifications (or e.g. vote recounting re: Bush v. Gore)?!! :shade: :down:


@Ciceronianus @Hanover @Maw

It seems conservative justices are perfectly willing to be activists when it pleases them.

This isn't to contend that what is (or at least should be) the actual holding of the court, that Colorado cannot disqualify someone from being on the ballot for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, wasn't agreed to by all the Justices. It was. But as the concurring opinions point out, the decision goes beyond what was required to resolve the issue before the court, generally a no-no, and also assets that Congress must adopt legislation before Section 3 is enforceable at all. It hasn't done so, and there's no assurance it ever will. In which case, it seems Section 3 is superfluous until that occurs. Usually, it's also considered a no-no to construe a law in such a manner as to render it ineffective.

We can be thankful that the court didn't hold that there was no insurrection while it was at it.