Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
Tribal leaders here in Derplahoma are advising their citizens to keep their tribal IDs on them at all times. Irony so thick it cuts with a knife.
I saw an article just today that ICE has pulled some Native Americans in Minneapolis off the street already. No details as to if they were later released. Cause y'know, so of them pickups are catch-n-release.
sorry, I haven't been in here for a couple of days. (not) but ...
Crime is crime. Excusing or minimizing crime because a certain group commits less of it per capita which is the argument put forth, does not excuse it at any level.
The flawed logic: The proposition is that anytime an illegal migrant commits a violent crime that stands as support for the position that there is a crisis requiring emergency measures to keep illegal migrants from entering the United States and detaining and deporting all of those already here. The logic is that if the illegal migrant who committed the violent crime had not entered illegally, the crime would not have happened. True enough,; it indeed, has initial appeal. But think about the underlying logic and where it takes us. For example, if a person who has gained entry to the U.S. through legal migration commits a violent crime, one could maintain that the crime would not have happened if that person had not been permitted to enter the country. Is that a good argument for curtailing legal immigration? Apparently the Trump administration thinks so.
Take it out of the immigration context. A person serving time in prison is released on parole and then commits a violent crime. Is that a good argument for curtailing parole or otherwise releasing prisoners? A person who has been arrested and charged with a crime is released on bail pending trial and commits a violent crime while out on bail. Is that a good argument for curtailing release on bail?
You get the idea. This is not to say that I am in favor of allowing persons to enter the country illegally â or to stay illegally after the expiration of a visa. However, the reality is that some number always will do so. And if one of those commits a violent crime while here, does that mean we have a crisis because that life somehow could have been spared if we had only let loose an army of ICE, Border Patrol, and DHS officers in American cities with inadequate training and charged with the mission of finding and detaining as many immigrants as possible who entered illegally at any and all costs?
There always will be a point of diminishing returns. That is not to say that I do not value each American life. Nor am I necessarily opposed to targeted detentions and deportations. I am opposed to unnecessarily demonizing groups of people and stoking fear because that likely will lead to more senseless acts of violence being committed, not fewer.
And here we are . . . with an army of ICE, Border Patrol, and DHS officers terrorizing Minneapolis.
Thanks for a reasoned reply.
But why are the feds in Minneapolis ? Because that is where a concentration of illegal immigrants on deportation lists are to be found.
Kinda like I forget who but when asked, why did he rob banks, the reply was because that is where the money is.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 16, 2026 - 1:42pm
kurtster wrote:
sorry, I haven't been in here for a couple of days. (not) but ...
Crime is crime. Excusing or minimizing crime because a certain group commits less of it per capita which is the argument put forth, does not excuse it at any level.
The flawed logic: The proposition is that anytime an illegal migrant commits a violent crime that stands as support for the position that there is a crisis requiring emergency measures to keep illegal migrants from entering the United States and detaining and deporting all of those already here. The logic is that if the illegal migrant who committed the violent crime had not entered illegally, the crime would not have happened. True enough,; it indeed, has initial appeal. But think about the underlying logic and where it takes us. For example, if a person who has gained entry to the U.S. through legal migration commits a violent crime, one could maintain that the crime would not have happened if that person had not been permitted to enter the country. Is that a good argument for curtailing legal immigration? Apparently the Trump administration thinks so.
Take it out of the immigration context. A person serving time in prison is released on parole and then commits a violent crime. Is that a good argument for curtailing parole or otherwise releasing prisoners? A person who has been arrested and charged with a crime is released on bail pending trial and commits a violent crime while out on bail. Is that a good argument for curtailing release on bail?
You get the idea. This is not to say that I am in favor of allowing persons to enter the country illegally â or to stay illegally after the expiration of a visa. However, the reality is that some number always will do so. And if one of those commits a violent crime while here, does that mean we have a crisis because that life somehow could have been spared if we had only let loose an army of ICE, Border Patrol, and DHS officers in American cities with inadequate training and charged with the mission of finding and detaining as many immigrants as possible who entered illegally at any and all costs?
There always will be a point of diminishing returns. That is not to say that I do not value each American life. Nor am I necessarily opposed to targeted detentions and deportations. I am opposed to unnecessarily demonizing groups of people and stoking fear because that likely will lead to more senseless acts of violence being committed, not fewer.
And here we are . . . with an army of ICE, Border Patrol, and DHS officers terrorizing Minneapolis.
You fail again by conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration. There is a difference that you fail to acknowledge, let alone see.
No, this is 100% you or you'd be railing against ICE going after US CITIZENS. You say you're all for legal immigration but here are people who came in "the right way" and you're silent about it, and the indiscriminate racist methods used to round up whoever isn't white.
JFC. You're impossible.
These US citizens ICE are dealing with in your context are paid "observers" who do not observe but interfere with lawful activities of ICE and in doing so are trying to provoke the responses that they are getting. Be those photo ops for misdirection that good old dave keeps posting memes of or worse, they are cannon fodder (aka, useful idiots) sent out by their employers to get killed in order to further along their narrative / agenda.
It is a crime to interfere with federal law enforcement actions.
These paid observers are in the belief that there are no risks or consequences for their actions as their employers reinforce them to believe that as they act out with their unlawful behaviour.
What makes no sense to me is that if these people are trying to make a statement, then allow themselves to be arrested peacefully. They will be back out on the streets before dinner time with no bail of fines. But that does nothing to further their employers narrative.
So in essence, you are supporting these professional agitators and believe, like they, that there should be no consequences for their behaviour at all.
I am quite sure that I am the only one here who sees it this way.
You fail again by conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration. There is a difference that you fail to acknowledge, let alone see.
All's that I can tell about you, old man, is that you are already well into your second childhood and making less and less sense the farther you progress into your second childhood, old man ...
You are becoming dangerously close to senility; so close you can't even tell.
last week I wasn't old enough for you to call myself old, but now I'm senile? Yet you are older than me (as you like to remind me). Now let's do an assessment on how much your depletion of health care resources has impacted other people who are paying into the health care system? It's just not fair that they aren't getting the same treatments that you are (with or without a disease).
You fail again by conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration. There is a difference that you fail to acknowledge, let alone see.
No, this is 100% you or you'd be railing against ICE going after US CITIZENS. You say you're all for legal immigration but here are people who came in "the right way" and you're silent about it, and the indiscriminate racist methods used to round up whoever isn't white.
Now you're agreeing that federal law enforcement has overstepped boundaries.
It's pretty simple, I agree: Both cases are murders. You use the murder of a young woman as a way to vilify an entire subgroup of the American population. The murder of a different young woman gets a shrug from you because why? White guy.
Immigrant kills a girl: Terrorize all immigrants, and people who might be immigrants, citizens or not, doesn't matter, just cause pain and suffering and death to all because isn't she pretty? White Ohio guy kills a girl: arrest, trial, prison. Neighbors, friends and family safe in their homes. No churches staked out or neighborhood Target store clerks curb-stomped. No white moms yanked out of their running cars with kids in the backseat and hauled away while strangers take care of their kids.
And I'm the one being accused of being disingenuous ? Please.
Local law enforcement is to deal with the 'Ohio Man". Or do you want federal law enforcement to overstep that boundary, too ?
Now you're agreeing that federal law enforcement has overstepped boundaries. Nice.
kurtster wrote:
I disagree.
What you are doing is conflating local law enforcement actions with federal immigration actions. Local law enforcement has a different mission and purpose than that of federal immigration enforcement. It is that simple.
It's pretty simple, I agree: Both cases are murders. You use the murder of a young woman as a way to vilify an entire subgroup of the American population. The murder of a different young woman gets a shrug from you because why? White guy.
Immigrant kills a girl: Terrorize all immigrants, and people who might be immigrants, citizens or not, doesn't matter, just cause pain and suffering and death to all because isn't she pretty? White Ohio guy kills a girl: arrest, trial, prison. Neighbors, friends and family safe in their homes. No churches staked out or neighborhood Target store clerks curb-stomped. No white moms yanked out of their running cars with kids in the backseat and hauled away while strangers take care of their kids.
Not like there are any white guys around who use far more resources than they put into the system (cough, cough, your insurance company).
Maybe we just see a benefit from helping people who need it to become valuable and contributing members of the society? And we believe that on average those people are a net benefit. Birth rates are down. By 2030 we are projected to have more deaths than births. That means in 4 years we will be DEPENDENT on immigration for growth, which is what your whole economic model is based on (for better or worse argument tabled here). Also, much to your chagrin, immigrants tend to have more babies.
Look Cap'n Kiddie.
You fail again by conflating legal immigration with illegal immigration. There is a difference that you fail to acknowledge, let alone see.
All's that I can tell about you, old man, is that you are already well into your second childhood and making less and less sense the farther you progress into your second childhood, old man ...
You are becoming dangerously close to senility; so close you can't even tell.
What you are doing is conflating local law enforcement actions with federal immigration actions. Local law enforcement has a different mission and purpose than that of federal immigration enforcement. It is that simple.
The first priority for removal and deportation is those who are criminals. You disagree with that ? Evidently.
Local law enforcement is to deal with the 'Ohio Man". Or do you want federal law enforcement to overstep that boundary, too ?
And square that with "Defund the Police" from your side. So "Ohio Man" can keep walking free.
You are the one who is making no sense.
Truth is, you want no one deported. To you there is no such thing as illegal immigration and our borders should be wide open to anyone and everyone who wants to come in. And shower them with benefits by taking the funds away from US citizens to benefit the "recent arrivals" who you so steadfastly support.
Not like there are any white guys around who use far more resources than they put into the system (cough, cough, your insurance company).
Maybe we just see a benefit from helping people who need it to become valuable and contributing members of the society? And we believe that on average those people are a net benefit. Birth rates are down. By 2030 we are projected to have more deaths than births. That means in 4 years we will be DEPENDENT on immigration for growth, which is what your whole economic model is based on (for better or worse argument tabled here). Also, much to your chagrin, immigrants tend to have more babies.
This is because you are looking at the argument he is making. What he means is that people with darker skin need to be rounded up and made to go away and it's okay to use any convenient pretext, legitimate or not, to make that happen. Now go back and look at his argument and it will make more sense.
You really are a fucking asshole. Nowhere do I mention race, ethnicity or skin color in any of my arguments.
You however, keep injecting it into your arguments. You are the real racist. It is the only means you have of making your case.
I'm not defending any crime anywhere, that's your schtick. What I'm saying is your insistence that immigrants need to be terrorized into leaving because some pretty girl got murdered is stupid reasoning. Murderers need to be arrested and dealt with, period. The girl in my linked article was killed by a white guy somewhere near you. I could easily find the same somewhere near me or anywhere in the US because white men killing young women is pretty goddam common. Yet you're not advocating for rounding up middle aged white guys. Why not? They kill more young women per capita than immigrants, but you're content to let the wheels of justice grind slowly for the more dangerous group but insist on total eradication for the other, less dangerous group. You make no sense.
This is because you are looking at the argument he is making. What he means is that people with darker skin need to be rounded up and made to go away and it's okay to use any convenient pretext, legitimate or not, to make that happen. Now go back and look at his argument and it will make more sense.
