- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

The US Department of Justice is out of control!

#41

Do I really need to remind you that nations the world around have borders and laws in the year 2025?

If they did not, they could hardly be called nations. Vague, romantic notions to the contrary quickly depart from hard reality.

Out of curiosity, do you feel that in the year 2025 ten or fifteen million Russians could rightfully cross into Ukraine on a whim, heedless of Ukrainian law and depending instead upon some airy notion of "what's right" in their own minds?

In the year 2025, could ten or fifteen million folks from the United States barge into Canada and stay, without regard to Canadian law? Do you think Canada would or should be okay with that?

Well?

Have you ever reflected upon, or been taught, the several serious, useful purposes of immigration law?

No, it has nothing to do with "racism." Countries all around the globe have immigration law of their own choosing, with few (if any) exceptions. Why do you think that is? Those laws exist for real, sound reasons.

Modern countries are not part of a vast, unchartered, lightly populated wilderness in the fifteenth century. Humans are ever-evolving, as are their institutions. Specifics and context both matter.

Do I really need to remind you that nations the world around have borders and laws in the year 2025? If they did not, they could hardly be called nations. Vague, romantic notions to the contrary quickly depart from hard reality. Out of curiosity, do you feel that in the year 2025 ten or fifteen million Russians could rightfully cross into Ukraine on a whim, heedless of Ukrainian law and depending instead upon some airy notion of "what's right" in their own minds? In the year 2025, could ten or fifteen million folks from the United States barge into Canada and stay, without regard to Canadian law? Do you think Canada would or should be okay with that? Well? Have you ever reflected upon, or been taught, the several serious, useful purposes of immigration law? No, it has nothing to do with "racism." Countries all around the globe have immigration law of their own choosing, with few (if any) exceptions. Why do you think that is? Those laws exist for real, sound reasons. Modern countries are not part of a vast, unchartered, lightly populated wilderness in the fifteenth century. Humans are ever-evolving, as are their institutions. Specifics and context both matter.
#42

ALWAYS remember this !! The rest of your life ... What would have happened if EINSTEIN had not immigrated to the USA or was denied entry to the USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come back to the statement a few times & ponder what I have said just now for awhile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Always remember it forever for we would not be free

ALWAYS remember this !! The rest of your life ... What would have happened if EINSTEIN had not immigrated to the USA or was denied entry to the USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come back to the statement a few times & ponder what I have said just now for awhile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Always remember it forever for we would not be free
#43

@ThunderClap said in #42:

ALWAYS remember this !! The rest of your life ... What would have happened if EINSTEIN had not immigrated to the USA or was denied entry to the USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come back to the statement a few times & ponder what I have said just now for awhile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Always remember it forever for we would not be free
Well, Einstein did immigrate legally to the US due to anti-Semitic harassment and deaths threats from Nazi Germany. An EB-1 visa.

@ThunderClap said in #42: > ALWAYS remember this !! The rest of your life ... What would have happened if EINSTEIN had not immigrated to the USA or was denied entry to the USA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Come back to the statement a few times & ponder what I have said just now for awhile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Always remember it forever for we would not be free Well, Einstein did immigrate legally to the US due to anti-Semitic harassment and deaths threats from Nazi Germany. An EB-1 visa.
#44

@Noflaps said in #39:
land even got conveyed to the European colonists at times, in exchange for real and significant compensation. Native Americans even formed alliances with some settler jurisdictions, although in my personal opinion New France often did the best job of seeing the utility of such cooperation.

I'd continue to elaborate upon the history that too many seem to supplant with vague, popular notions that, I suspect, tend to be derived from motions pictures or television much more than from a careful study of the actual history. But what would be the point?

Enjoy your day. Sincerely.

Like that point is even pertinent to the overarching flow of events - lies, betrayal, forced removal, massacres, and disease formed the theme of events from the 15th century onwards.

Trying to silver line such an event is like going out of your way to talk about all the great social programs of the Nazi's without mentioning anything else about them

Today's immigrants are saints compared to colonial settlers - the vast majority of them work vital jobs, in sectors americans wouldn't work themselves, don't commit meaningful/harmful societal crime (I include that cause I assume you'll just say them being there is a crime) , they pay into the system, and they definitely aren't taking land like colonists lol

Immigration strengthens a nation. Do you think things like ICE arresting 300 highly skilled South Korean plant workers and then the SK government having to extradite them is a -GOOD- thing for the country? Please tell me its a good thing and that you agree with trumps actions on that, tell me how much it'll improve the economy by our factory being greatly delayed.

@Noflaps said in #39: land even got conveyed to the European colonists at times, in exchange for real and significant compensation. Native Americans even formed alliances with some settler jurisdictions, although in my personal opinion New France often did the best job of seeing the utility of such cooperation. > > I'd continue to elaborate upon the history that too many seem to supplant with vague, popular notions that, I suspect, tend to be derived from motions pictures or television much more than from a careful study of the actual history. But what would be the point? > > Enjoy your day. Sincerely. Like that point is even pertinent to the overarching flow of events - lies, betrayal, forced removal, massacres, and disease formed the theme of events from the 15th century onwards. Trying to silver line such an event is like going out of your way to talk about all the great social programs of the Nazi's without mentioning anything else about them Today's immigrants are saints compared to colonial settlers - the vast majority of them work vital jobs, in sectors americans wouldn't work themselves, don't commit meaningful/harmful societal crime (I include that cause I assume you'll just say them being there is a crime) , they pay into the system, and they definitely aren't taking land like colonists lol Immigration strengthens a nation. Do you think things like ICE arresting 300 highly skilled South Korean plant workers and then the SK government having to extradite them is a -GOOD- thing for the country? Please tell me its a good thing and that you agree with trumps actions on that, tell me how much it'll improve the economy by our factory being greatly delayed.
#45
<Comment deleted by user>
#46

@HerkyHawkeye said in #43:

Well, Einstein did immigrate legally to the US due to anti-Semitic harassment and deaths threats from Nazi Germany. An EB-1 visa.

Of which Donald J Trump JUST changed from 5,000 dollars to 100,000 dollars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Killing possibly our future Western Civ

@HerkyHawkeye said in #43: > Well, Einstein did immigrate legally to the US due to anti-Semitic harassment and deaths threats from Nazi Germany. An EB-1 visa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of which Donald J Trump JUST changed from 5,000 dollars to 100,000 dollars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Killing possibly our future Western Civ
#47

i thought nms were smart. Thunderclap, mind stating your source?

i thought nms were smart. Thunderclap, mind stating your source?
#49

#41
"nations the world around have borders and laws in the year 2025?"
That was the case all the time.
The Appalachian Mountains were the legal border of the Seven States, but the settlers transgressed them.

The Indian Displacement Act of 1830 was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, but Andrew Jackson proceeded with it nevertheless. Even David Crockett objected.
North America was no pristine or uninhabited land.
Since 20,000 years there lived like 20 million indigenous people before the immigrants (aliens) from Europe came.
It was a genocide.
Jackson was the Hitler of his time.
His face still figures on the $20 banknotes.

There were many treaties, i.e. laws to settle borders agreed with indigenous people, but the United States violate all of them.

#41 "nations the world around have borders and laws in the year 2025?" That was the case all the time. The Appalachian Mountains were the legal border of the Seven States, but the settlers transgressed them. The Indian Displacement Act of 1830 was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, but Andrew Jackson proceeded with it nevertheless. Even David Crockett objected. North America was no pristine or uninhabited land. Since 20,000 years there lived like 20 million indigenous people before the immigrants (aliens) from Europe came. It was a genocide. Jackson was the Hitler of his time. His face still figures on the $20 banknotes. There were many treaties, i.e. laws to settle borders agreed with indigenous people, but the United States violate all of them.
#50

@Noflaps said in #34:

And need I remind that a win in a trial court that is later over-turned is NOT a dependable long-term win. UPON APPEAL the Trump administration this term has been doing pretty well. That's not just my opinion, as I've already pointed out twice. And, in any event, would a genuine "dictator" bother to appeal AT ALL? That's my point.

In my prior post in this thread, I asked whether or not you could support your claim that Trump has won enough appeals to not be considered an autocrat with evidence-- I literally asked for numbers. You responded by saying he'd been doing "pretty well", and saying that was not just your opinion. You have not convinced me-- or even provided much evidence-- of the former, and the latter is flat out false. "Pretty well" IS your opinion. And my request for any sort of supporting evidence has been ignored, apparently.

When you make claims, it is YOUR responsibility to back them up with reliable sources and convincing data. Discussion is not simply a matter of "I assert X to be true"-- that would be an announcement. In conversation, you need to be ready to have your beliefs questioned, and to be able to defend them convincingly with evidence to support your claim. Thus far, your evidence provided includes references to a vapid and jingoistic op-ed and a sentence from another source, both cited in a previous thread, neither of which discuss his total appeals record.

To your point about dictators appealing rulings-- sure, one could easily imagine a situation in which dictators would want to appeal. For example, it maintains rule of law (side note: if you google the phrase "Limited Autocracy", there is an interesting little paper by a guy named Johnathan Klick that pops up that describes this exact scenario). But more specifically to this situation, I believe the accusations are that Trump is implementing a "liberal autocracy", which would not preclude aspects of democratic government-- it simply reduces their impact.

And it's not "whataboutism" to point out that any who might make such a claim have gotten a LOT wrong in the past. THAT's the other point. I'm not remotely "irrational," even if some find my refusal to nod along to be frustrating.

It IS whataboutism to point out various flaws in the prior administration and say "what about that?" as a deflection. That's literally what whataboutism is. Hence the name. The definition of whataboutism from Merriam-Webster is as follows:

"the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse"

If your point is to say that the news provided by various sources MUST be inaccurate because journalistic slant in the past has been debated, I believe that is a Bulversim (although I'm sure that someone more familiar with rhetoric would be better able to diagnose such cases than I am).

Regarding Portland, not being friendly to immigration agents deployed in a city where they are unwanted by a president that is despised by the city isn't the same as The Purge. Unless I'm mistaken, it's perfectly legal not to be friendly to an ICE agent.

PS: What's with the NPR references?

@Noflaps said in #34: > And need I remind that a win in a trial court that is later over-turned is NOT a dependable long-term win. UPON APPEAL the Trump administration this term has been doing pretty well. That's not just my opinion, as I've already pointed out twice. And, in any event, would a genuine "dictator" bother to appeal AT ALL? That's my point. In my prior post in this thread, I asked whether or not you could support your claim that Trump has won enough appeals to not be considered an autocrat with evidence-- I literally asked for numbers. You responded by saying he'd been doing "pretty well", and saying that was not just your opinion. You have not convinced me-- or even provided much evidence-- of the former, and the latter is flat out false. "Pretty well" IS your opinion. And my request for any sort of supporting evidence has been ignored, apparently. When you make claims, it is YOUR responsibility to back them up with reliable sources and convincing data. Discussion is not simply a matter of "I assert X to be true"-- that would be an announcement. In conversation, you need to be ready to have your beliefs questioned, and to be able to defend them convincingly with evidence to support your claim. Thus far, your evidence provided includes references to a vapid and jingoistic op-ed and a sentence from another source, both cited in a previous thread, neither of which discuss his total appeals record. To your point about dictators appealing rulings-- sure, one could easily imagine a situation in which dictators would want to appeal. For example, it maintains rule of law (side note: if you google the phrase "Limited Autocracy", there is an interesting little paper by a guy named Johnathan Klick that pops up that describes this exact scenario). But more specifically to this situation, I believe the accusations are that Trump is implementing a "liberal autocracy", which would not preclude aspects of democratic government-- it simply reduces their impact. > And it's not "whataboutism" to point out that any who might make such a claim have gotten a LOT wrong in the past. THAT's the other point. I'm not remotely "irrational," even if some find my refusal to nod along to be frustrating. It IS whataboutism to point out various flaws in the prior administration and say "what about that?" as a deflection. That's literally what whataboutism is. Hence the name. The definition of whataboutism from Merriam-Webster is as follows: "the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse" If your point is to say that the news provided by various sources MUST be inaccurate because journalistic slant in the past has been debated, I believe that is a Bulversim (although I'm sure that someone more familiar with rhetoric would be better able to diagnose such cases than I am). Regarding Portland, not being friendly to immigration agents deployed in a city where they are unwanted by a president that is despised by the city isn't the same as The Purge. Unless I'm mistaken, it's perfectly legal not to be friendly to an ICE agent. PS: What's with the NPR references?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.