Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 18, 2024 8:44:37 GMT -5
One last thing, Rip about your comment of reducing the amount of money to Ukraine. We can help Ukraine by financing their defense against Russia's attempt of taking over the country. Or we can finance Ukraine with tokens amounts of money and Russia will take over Ukraine. Once Russia takes over Ukraine it will most likely start going after the Baltic States which were once part of the Soviet Union. All three countries of which comprise the Baltic States are current members of NATO. By treaty through NATO, the United States as well with the rest of the NATO nations, will get dragged into a war with Russia. Not sure you really are aware of what war costs. The direct cost of World War II, in current U.S. dollars, was $4.1 trillion. And the Vietnam war, a much smaller geographical war, cost the U.S. $738 billion in current dollars. War Debt: America’s Cost of Going to WarYou appear to only be looking at dollars (and the hell with the deaths of Ukrainian citizens I guess). Well war costs many dollars and lives. Even a blind man can see Putin’s plan and the fact that those Baltic countries want NATO protection isn’t rocket science as to what they are concerned about. This is, scarily, a replay of what happened in 1939, and appeasement in Europe. The only difference is the name of the aggressor. ripvanwinkle, how’s your Russian? To add to that, Putin was just elected to a fifth term which will keep him in office until 2030. Plenty of time to continue to create deadly havoc in Europe. Putin secures 5th term as Russian president in election with no real opposition, addresses Navalny death
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 18, 2024 8:47:56 GMT -5
One last thing, Rip about your comment of reducing the amount of money to Ukraine. We can help Ukraine by financing their defense against Russia's attempt of taking over the country. Or we can finance Ukraine with tokens amounts of money and Russia will take over Ukraine. Once Russia takes over Ukraine it will most likely start going after the Baltic States which were once part of the Soviet Union. All three countries of which comprise the Baltic States are current members of NATO. By treaty through NATO, the United States as well with the rest of the NATO nations, will get dragged into a war with Russia. Not sure you really are aware of what war costs. The direct cost of World War II, in current U.S. dollars, was $4.1 trillion. And the Vietnam war, a much smaller geographical war, cost the U.S. $738 billion in current dollars. War Debt: America’s Cost of Going to WarYou appear to only be looking at dollars (and the hell with the deaths of Ukrainian citizens I guess). Well war costs many dollars and lives. Conservatives used to know that sending arms and sometimes help to other countries was a way to maintain freedom in the US and keep fighting off our shores. Now because of DT's marketing program, they fall for the Trump first, Russia second and America third marketing. Those against helping Ukraine need to take off their blinders and realize the reason Trump is pushing to reduce money to Ukraine is because he cares more about helping Putin than he cares about US security.Trump is successively selling Russian propaganda to them. Its sad and worrisome. The funds set aside for Ukraine goes to American military contractors which make the military hardware to send to Ukraine. Add to the highlighted area 'and Putin helping him' because that is what trump is counting on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,231
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 18, 2024 11:58:53 GMT -5
One last thing, Rip about your comment of reducing the amount of money to Ukraine. We can help Ukraine by financing their defense against Russia's attempt of taking over the country. Or we can finance Ukraine with tokens amounts of money and Russia will take over Ukraine. Once Russia takes over Ukraine it will most likely start going after the Baltic States which were once part of the Soviet Union. All three countries of which comprise the Baltic States are current members of NATO. By treaty through NATO, the United States as well with the rest of the NATO nations, will get dragged into a war with Russia. Not sure you really are aware of what war costs. The direct cost of World War II, in current U.S. dollars, was $4.1 trillion. And the Vietnam war, a much smaller geographical war, cost the U.S. $738 billion in current dollars. War Debt: America’s Cost of Going to WarYou appear to only be looking at dollars (and the hell with the deaths of Ukrainian citizens I guess). Well war costs many dollars and lives. Conservatives used to know that sending arms and sometimes help to other countries was a way to maintain freedom in the US and keep fighting off our shores. Now because of DT's marketing program, they fall for the Trump first, Russia second and America third marketing. Those against helping Ukraine need to take off their blinders and realize the reason Trump is pushing to reduce money to Ukraine is because he cares more about helping Putin than he cares about US security. Trump is successively selling Russian propaganda to them. Its sad and worrisome. The funds set aside for Ukraine goes to American military contractors which make the military hardware to send to Ukraine. conservatives used to be the staunchest advocates of such efforts. it was once a point of great difference between myself and them. but don't fool yourself. conservatives STILL believe that. but only to aid fascism.
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 874
|
Post by mollyc on Mar 18, 2024 12:44:31 GMT -5
One last thing, Rip. The government has tried to do their job. In January, and at the order of donald trump, Congressional republicans shot down a border bill developed by a bipartisan Senate committee. The bill would have given what the border patrol has been wanting for years to help them curb border crossings. trump offered nothing, absolutely nothing, to replace what he told republican members of congress to kill. So if any more Americans are murdered by people not legally eligible to be in the U.S., then the murders fall on trump, republicans in congress and you. If the Dems had conceded a little more like reducing the number of illegals let in from 5000 per day to maybe 500 per day they might have had a deal. I'd like to see 100 per day. Reduce the amount of money to Ukraine. And do we really have any real evidence that Trump said to kill the bill? Texts etc? Has anyone come forward to verify this? Mitt Romney Go to the hill.com Look for headline Romney: Appalling Trump wants to kill border bill so he can blame Biden
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 18, 2024 17:09:20 GMT -5
Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrantsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday extended its block on a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out. Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Texas Attorney General has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.” The Biden administration sued to strike down the measure, arguing it would usurp core federal authority on immigration, hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Civil rights groups have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. Rest of article here: Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 18, 2024 22:36:38 GMT -5
Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrantsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday extended its block on a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out. Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Texas Attorney General has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.” The Biden administration sued to strike down the measure, arguing it would usurp core federal authority on immigration, hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Civil rights groups have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. Rest of article here: Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,191
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 18, 2024 23:13:38 GMT -5
Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrantsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday extended its block on a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out. Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Texas Attorney General has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.” The Biden administration sued to strike down the measure, arguing it would usurp core federal authority on immigration, hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Civil rights groups have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. Rest of article here: Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. Don't complain too much. It's one of the few where this Court actually followed the Constitution.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,231
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 18, 2024 23:57:55 GMT -5
Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrantsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday extended its block on a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out. Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Texas Attorney General has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.” The Biden administration sued to strike down the measure, arguing it would usurp core federal authority on immigration, hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Civil rights groups have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. Rest of article here: Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. so, let's just be clear here. you are advocating that a state should be able to do what it wishes regarding immigration, against the will of ICE. is that correct?
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,415
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Mar 19, 2024 5:24:59 GMT -5
We fought a war over this question
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 19, 2024 7:42:25 GMT -5
Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrantsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday extended its block on a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out. Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Texas Attorney General has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.” The Biden administration sued to strike down the measure, arguing it would usurp core federal authority on immigration, hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Civil rights groups have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. Rest of article here: Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. You also believe minors in the U.S. charged with a crime should have their names and facial pictures plastered all over the media which is against U.S. law. And you were all for the caning/physical punishment of minors ( like your example of American teenager, Michael Fay received in Singapore). In the U.S., physical beating as legal punishment of people convicted of a crime, whether they are minors or adults, is not allowed. So I put little stock into your opinion of the SCOTUS ruling mentioned earlier.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 19, 2024 14:17:04 GMT -5
Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrantsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday extended its block on a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out. Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Texas Attorney General has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.” The Biden administration sued to strike down the measure, arguing it would usurp core federal authority on immigration, hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Civil rights groups have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. Rest of article here: Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. We all have things that we wish weren’t in the constitution.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 19, 2024 17:12:33 GMT -5
Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrantsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday extended its block on a Texas law that would give police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of illegally entering the U.S. while the legal battle it sparked over immigration authority plays out. Opponents have called the law, known as Senate Bill 4, the most dramatic attempt by a state to police immigration since an Arizona law more than a decade ago, portions of which were struck down by the Supreme Court. The Texas Attorney General has said the state’s law mirrored federal law and “was adopted to address the ongoing crisis at the southern border, which hurts Texans more than anyone else.” The Biden administration sued to strike down the measure, arguing it would usurp core federal authority on immigration, hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. Civil rights groups have argued the law could lead to civil rights violations and racial profiling. Rest of article here: Supreme Court extends block on Texas law that would allow police to arrest migrants Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. Well, Rip. You got your wish. SCOTUS unfroze it today and waiting for the case/issue to go through the lower courts before they rule again. So let the racial profiling begin! Supreme Court Allows Texas Deportation Law in Biden LossSo, Rip: what's your take on racial profiling? You knows the police stopping people because they look 'Mexican' or 'Guatemalan' as the people are sitting in a restaurant, or walking on the street. How about going into businesses because someone told the police an employee looked like he might be from Brazil? Mind you the people don't have to have done something bad to be stopped and questioned by the police. They just have to look 'Hispanic'. Thoughts?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 19, 2024 17:49:35 GMT -5
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 19, 2024 19:12:49 GMT -5
Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. so, let's just be clear here. you are advocating that a state should be able to do what it wishes regarding immigration, against the will of ICE. is that correct? Yes. Until they can get a grip on it.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 19, 2024 19:22:02 GMT -5
Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. You also believe minors in the U.S. charged with a crime should have their names and facial pictures plastered all over the media which is against U.S. law. And you were all for the caning/physical punishment of minors ( like your example of American teenager, Michael Fay received in Singapore). In the U.S., physical beating as legal punishment of people convicted of a crime, whether they are minors or adults, is not allowed. So I put little stock into your opinion of the SCOTUS ruling mentioned earlier. Yep, put their faces on TV and newspaper. Shame them with their peers. Others will think twice before doing crime. We have coddled our society to where people do not take responsibility for their actions. They can do it cloaked in anonymity. And caning might have a impact also.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,231
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 19, 2024 19:28:21 GMT -5
so, let's just be clear here. you are advocating that a state should be able to do what it wishes regarding immigration, against the will of ICE. is that correct? Yes. so you have no problem with "sanctuary states", then? because that is precisely their position.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 19, 2024 19:33:17 GMT -5
You also believe minors in the U.S. charged with a crime should have their names and facial pictures plastered all over the media which is against U.S. law. And you were all for the caning/physical punishment of minors ( like your example of American teenager, Michael Fay received in Singapore). In the U.S., physical beating as legal punishment of people convicted of a crime, whether they are minors or adults, is not allowed. So I put little stock into your opinion of the SCOTUS ruling mentioned earlier. Yep, put their faces on TV and newspaper. Shame them with their peers. Others will think twice before doing crime. We have coddled our society to where people do not take responsibility for their actions. They can do it cloaked in anonymity. And caning might have a impact also. So you are all about breaking U.S. laws. I expect other trump supporters like yourself feel the same. Until it happens to your children and grandchildren that is.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 19, 2024 19:35:56 GMT -5
so you have no problem with "sanctuary states", then? because that is precisely their position. I imagine rip has no problem then with abortion being legal in some states. States' rights and all.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,082
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Mar 19, 2024 19:39:17 GMT -5
What exactly does “suspicion of entering the US illegally” look like? Unless the cops see you crossing the border, how would they have any idea of whether you entered illegally (or at all)? I cannot see how this could be implemented without being completely racist.
Also, since when are we required to show proof we are in the country legally? The only way to do that for sure is to have a US passport, birth certificate, green card, or REAL Id. Who Carries one of those around all the time? What about people who can’t get a Real Id? Are they just detained indefinitely?
My grandma cannot prove she is a citizen . Her birth certificate from 1929 is not certified. Her passport and drivers license (non-REAL ID) are expired and she can’t get them renewed (see no certified birth certificate above). So what does she do? Just hope she gets left alone because she is whitey mcwhiterson?
Do the local cops in Texas know how to review and identify all the different types of possible ids (foreign passports, green cards, visas, etc) that a person can carry who are here legally? If not, how do we know we aren’t going to be having a bunch of legal folks detained for no reason. That seems pretty unAmerican
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 19, 2024 20:04:23 GMT -5
Thats a bad SCOTUS ruling. I think Texas or any other state should be able to detain and turn over to ICE people they suspect are here illegally. Well, Rip. You got your wish. SCOTUS unfroze it today and waiting for the case/issue to go through the lower courts before they rule again. So let the racial profiling begin! Supreme Court Allows Texas Deportation Law in Biden LossSo, Rip: what's your take on racial profiling? You knows the police stopping people because they look 'Mexican' or 'Guatemalan' as the people are sitting in a restaurant, or walking on the street. How about going into businesses because someone told the police an employee looked like he might be from Brazil? Mind you the people don't have to have done something bad to be stopped and questioned by the police. They just have to look 'Hispanic'. Thoughts? I think you're going overboard on this. I don't think it will happen the way you say. There will be checks and balances on how they do it. If you commit a crime and get arrested, drunk driving, driving without a license, run a red light etc that would be grounds for checking you out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,231
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 19, 2024 20:20:04 GMT -5
What exactly does “suspicion of entering the US illegally” look like? vaguely brown. with an accent.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 19, 2024 20:23:56 GMT -5
Another wrong decision by a activist judge. Probably liberal. According to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g): The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802); who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The article does not say how he got the gun in the first place but I suspect he obviously did not buy it through a ATF approved gun dealer who would have had him fill out the ATF form and do a background check like US citizens have to do.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 19, 2024 20:47:24 GMT -5
Well, Rip. You got your wish. SCOTUS unfroze it today and waiting for the case/issue to go through the lower courts before they rule again. So let the racial profiling begin! Supreme Court Allows Texas Deportation Law in Biden LossSo, Rip: what's your take on racial profiling? You knows the police stopping people because they look 'Mexican' or 'Guatemalan' as the people are sitting in a restaurant, or walking on the street. How about going into businesses because someone told the police an employee looked like he might be from Brazil? Mind you the people don't have to have done something bad to be stopped and questioned by the police. They just have to look 'Hispanic'. Thoughts? I think you're going overboard on this. I don't think it will happen the way you say. There will be checks and balances on how they do it. If you commit a crime and get arrested, drunk driving, driving without a license, run a red light etc that would be grounds for checking you out. And I think you underestimate the damage to the state of Texas and the country it will create. Just like caning as punishment for minors and aduts you propose you would dbe okay with. Would you be okay with caning your children and grandchildren as a form of criminal punishment?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 19, 2024 20:49:14 GMT -5
Another wrong decision by a activist judge. Probably liberal. According to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g): The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802); who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The article does not say how he got the gun in the first place but I suspect he obviously did not buy it through a ATF approved gun dealer who would have had him fill out the ATF form and do a background check like US citizens have to do.
Too bad for you. Live with it or get out. .
|
|
dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
Member is Online
|
Post by dondubble on Mar 19, 2024 22:20:53 GMT -5
Another wrong decision by a activist judge. Probably liberal. According to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g): The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802); who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The article does not say how he got the gun in the first place but I suspect he obviously did not buy it through a ATF approved gun dealer who would have had him fill out the ATF form and do a background check like US citizens have to do.
Your team is still opposed to universal background checks.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 20, 2024 0:14:58 GMT -5
I figured that they wanted to stand at Eagle Pass and arrest anyone they see.
Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 20, 2024 5:42:48 GMT -5
Breaking overnight news: Appeals court has frozen the Texas law. The law must work its way through the courts again.
Link later
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,639
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 20, 2024 8:54:53 GMT -5
What exactly does “suspicion of entering the US illegally” look like? Unless the cops see you crossing the border, how would they have any idea of whether you entered illegally (or at all)? I cannot see how this could be implemented without being completely racist. Also, since when are we required to show proof we are in the country legally? The only way to do that for sure is to have a US passport, birth certificate, green card, or REAL Id. Who Carries one of those around all the time? What about people who can’t get a Real Id? Are they just detained indefinitely? My grandma cannot prove she is a citizen . Her birth certificate from 1929 is not certified. Her passport and drivers license (non-REAL ID) are expired and she can’t get them renewed (see no certified birth certificate above). So what does she do? Just hope she gets left alone because she is whitey mcwhiterson? Do the local cops in Texas know how to review and identify all the different types of possible ids (foreign passports, green cards, visas, etc) that a person can carry who are here legally? If not, how do we know we aren’t going to be having a bunch of legal folks detained for no reason. That seems pretty unAmerican funny that you mention this, it calls to mind a memory that came up recently. I was in Miami about 20y ago, about to head out on a cruise. due to a comedy of errors, a friend overnight shipped my wallet to the hotel I was staying at near the port. I arrived to the concierge desk to pick it up, Canadian passport in hand. the concierge refused to accept it, claiming he needed a driver's license as an ID - which was inside the box. being in my early 20s and dumb, I stood there and actually argued with him for 15 minutes before I gave up and demanded his manager. said manager arrived, heard my issue, and told his employee to go find something else to do before apologizing profusely to me and giving me the box.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 20, 2024 9:15:37 GMT -5
Breaking overnight news: Appeals court has frozen the Texas law. The law must work its way through the courts again. Link later Court puts Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants who cross illegally back on holdMcALLEN, Texas (AP) — Plans by Texas to arrest migrants suspected of entering the U.S. illegally were again on hold Wednesday after setting off uncertainty along the border and anger from Mexico flared during a brief few hours that the law was allowed to take effect. A late-night order Tuesday from a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel put on hold — again — Texas' dramatic state expansion into border enforcement. Earlier in the day, the U.S. Supreme Court had cleared the way for the strict immigration law, dealing a victory to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and encouraging GOP lawmakers in other states that are pushing for similar measures. Rest of article here: Court puts Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants who cross illegally back on hold
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 20, 2024 9:22:01 GMT -5
Mexico Condemns Texas Law, and Says It Will Not Accept Deportations From the StateMexico’s top diplomat for North America rejected the Supreme Court’s ruling, saying that immigration policy was something to be negotiated between federal governments. Mexico will not accept deportations made by Texas “under any circumstances,” the country’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow Texas to arrest migrants who cross into the state without authorization. The ministry condemned the state law, known as Senate Bill 4, saying it would separate families, violate the human rights of migrants and generate “hostile environments” for the more than 10 million people of Mexican origin living in Texas. Mexico’s top diplomat for North America, Roberto Velasco Álvarez, rejected the ruling on the social media on Tuesday, saying that immigration policy was something to be negotiated between federal governments. The Mexican government has severely criticized the measure since last year, and rejected the idea of local or state agencies, rather than federal authorities, detaining and returning migrants and asylum seekers to Mexican territory. Rest of article here: Mexico Condemns Texas Law, and Says It Will Not Accept Deportations From the State
|
|