Would you support deporting people who are criminals? Or have no intention of ever working and just want to live off various welfare programs? Trying to find some common ground here.
Nope. Access to food, water, shelter, and freedom of movement are fundamental human rights. I'm not a proponent of executing useless eaters. If you commit a crime with a prison sentence then you serve that sentence where you committed the crime.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position.
So if China or some other country decided to send 10 million people here for whatever reason, you think our official policy should be to welcome then in and provide them food, shelter, etc...?
What about 100 million people?
Should they also be given citizenship and right to vote in addition to food/shelter?
The only issue would be logistics. Getting supporting infrastructure and housing set up. But yeah, ultimately. More hands, more consumers. Why wouldn't we want as many citizens as possible, we certainly have the land for it.
I wonder in such a case if more populous countries like India or China could in theory send over 100 million+ people to our country over the course of a decade, and then once those people are citizens, legally vote for the US to be annexed by China, etc..
You could conquer a country without a single shot fired.
The person you are referring to rammed an ICE agent with their vehicle and the agent suffered internal bleeding as a result.
Sorry but there is no scenario where you can strike law enforcement with your car after being repeatedly ordered to exit your vehicle where their wouldn't be a justifiable use of lethal force. Trying to frame it as "shoot U.S. civilians in the face for not listening" is extremely disingenuous.
The "interal bleeding" thing is so unbelievably ludicrous. He got a bruise because he was lurching for the car while juggling his phone in one hand and a gun in the other. She was clearly neither trying to, nor succeeding in "ramming" him.
So the “ICE agent” presented identification to her showing he was law enforcement? Nope. Oh so he got out of a vehicle marked as ICE? Nope.
Do you want to live in a country where an unidentified masked individual with a gun can say “im a fed”, stop a car and force someone out without proper ID? That’s what you’re in support of. I’d say one would have a right to self defense.
Also internal bleeding was literally just a bruise, like the internal bleeding I get from walking into the corner of my coffee table.
This is such a bizarre argument because the entire reason the two women were there in the first place is because they thought they were following ICE agents. Both women were part of "ICE Watch", an anti-ICE activist group. They had been following the agents around throughout the day, attempting to disrupt them, which is why the car was parked perpendicular in the street (to block the ICE vehicles) prior to the incident.
So to claim the women didn't know it was Federal law enforcement ordering them to exit the vehicle is baffling to me because that was the entire reason the women were there in the first place.
> Both women were part of "ICE Watch", an anti-ICE activist group
Based.
> which is why the car was parked perpendicular in the street (to block the ICE vehicles) prior to the incident.
That giant ass street that could fit three of her car across its entire width? The one where she was signaling them to go around her? It doesn't sound like she was very effective at disrupting ICE.
But even if she was the most effective giant-road-blocking ICE inconveniencer Minneapolis has ever seen, she still should not have been murdered by ICE. It's morally indefensible, there's no world wherein she deserved to be shot unless she had a gun and was shooting first.
While I agree she knew who they were and disagree with the other person’s implication that she could have not known, in the US we are entirely within our rights to monitor law enforcement, despite attempts to end it (see what recently happened in Louisiana with bans on filming police within 25ft). So what you see as a provocation or “looking for trouble,” I see as exercising her rights and doing her civic duty. I imagine your opinion would change if you agreed with what she was doing a la “ one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.”
The sad reality is these people need to be monitored. If they think nobody is watching then they will behave worse than they already are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_Cave
Regardless of the exact circumstances of that scenario, there has been no efforts towards even the most token forms of accountability, and your echoing of state propaganda only furthers their success. You are on the wrong side of history with this one. An armed state police force that exists above accountability (except to the executive) is by definition a Geheimestaatspolizei.
> Trying to frame it as "shoot U.S. civilians in the face for not listening" is extremely disingenuous.
Describing what she did as "ramming" an ICE agent is extremely disingenuous. She tapped him, probably on accident[†]. He got a bruise, and she got shot in the face.
"These people are akin the mold growing upon a rotting city-state economy. They have to be removed." --our poster
"humanity suffers today under Jewish parasitism" --Adolf Hitler
It is this fake injury or mis-assignment of blame for real harm that serves as justification for actual crimes against humanity be they at CEDOT or Dachau
Disagree. The debate showed that his communication abilities are nearly gone, but his mind behind them is intact, just slower than it was.
Which is a really unfortunate position for him to be in. It can't be pleasant. He's not suitable to lead the country for another four years for sure. The country needs a leader who inspires people, and no one on that debate stage was that.
Surely "nearly all" is implicit in the word "revolution" more than in "communist"? (And socialism being so much vaguer in practice that I never know if the person saying it means "The Democratic Party of the USA" or the way that the nordic countries are "socialist", which are a long way from Chinese communism, which is itself denounced as being "state capitalism" by some).
Again, you assume their goal is the continuation of the republic as it exists and to make that more likely. This is probably not the case, first of all these agencies are compartmentalized, different projects can and often do have competing goals, and second, their ultimate goal is the continuation of state power, as is the goal of every state, and if that goal conflicts with what Americans view as being in their interest, then any expected loyalty to their countrymen cannot be relied upon.
But why would they not want “the continuation of the republic?” You don’t offer any plausible motive for why they wouldn’t. The power of the state — eg the ability to get folks to row in the same direction towards a common goal — is contingent upon the social contract, which at the present moment most seem to experience as perilously broken.
I don't need to offer you a motive. I can't read peoples minds. I'm just pointing out that your assumption that they view our social goals as valuable is unfounded. Emperors have killed their own people before. The power of a state rests upon social contract until the state has real power, and then it rests on the maintenance of that power. You cannot foresee what the maintenance of that power entails, and neither can I, which is why I can do no more than speculate on motive. Again, I'm not saying they don't value the same things we value, I believe that but that's not a claim I'm making here. I'm just pointing out that that doesn't have to be the case. You're ascribing a motive you cannot possibly know to the actions of other individuals, I won't do that. Remember, the state is comprised of people, with goals and ends and desires and beliefs, it's not a perfect alamgamation of the desires of those governed.
Let me ask you, why might a state view a foreign population, not a foreign state but a foreign population, as an enemy or a threat? What is it specific to that population that poses a threat to said state? Is it something that precludes the domestic population from being a similar threat? Why must the state view us as anything more than another colony?
>why might a state view a foreign population, not a foreign state but a foreign population, as an enemy or a threat? What is it specific to that population that poses a threat to said state? Is it something that precludes the domestic population from being a similar threat? Why must the state view us as anything more than another colony?
The state might view a foreign population as an enemy because they support their government which is an enemy. If we support a foreign government, the state might also view us as an enemy. My original point was that the CIA wants us to support the US government.
That's because the author of the linked thread is being intentionally misleading about the careers and expertise of these individuals, and what they do as corporate executives.
Over the Holidays they even increased the exit bonus to $3000: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/22/increased-incentives-dhs...
Yet another reason why I find the haphazard comparisons to Nazi Germany/Gestapo so farcical.