Invisible Man
Member

I was referring to Bukele.

Interesting. What's in it for him?

Does not compute.

Yes. Especially when these factories are in other countries where we can exploit cheap labor and less burdensome regulations, so that we can free up Americans to do other jobs that instead of these factory jobs that, as you point out, are not good.

It looks like its shaping up that way. How many Republicans in Congress will oppose him on this? And how many Democrats will join those Republicans versus allying with Trump on the common ground they have with him on this issue?

I have never said anything contrary to either of these claims. However, the Constitution never says that a search cannot be reasonable without a warrant. And as far as I know, it has always been understood that certain warrantless searches can still be reasonable. This is not a new concept post-9/11. Also, what I'm being is the opposite of a tyrant. When tyranny is constitutional, the Constitution is wrong. It's the worshipers of the Constitution who are tyrants.

"Foreign terrorist" without due process to determine that someone is a foreign terrorist means everyone. You can't restrict it to foreign terrorists unless you keep in place the means of confirming that the targets are foreign terrorists.

I thought your entire position was that surveilling you wouldn't be an abuse of the system of someone called you a terrorist.

So if someone in the government wants to surveil you, all they have to do is claim you're a foreign terrorist. They don't need to provide anyone with any reason to believe this accusation is true first.

The point was about what the Constitution says. Not what one might presume.

By that reasoning, it still makes no difference if they are Americans or not. We should round up everybody who is going to terrorize us in the future, regardless of their national origin, and get rid of them. Being an American should not be an excuse for someone who is going to terrorize us in the future being allowed to roam free in society. Edit: Every year, almost 20,000 people get murdered in America. 90% of those murders are committed by right-handed people. My plan is to deport all right-handed people from the country, to prevent 90% of future murders. If I were president, 18,000 murder victims each year would still be alive. Once we've completed that, we can move on to deporting all the left-handed people, and then all the ambidextrous people, followed lastly by everybody who has no hands. Then we will have effectively prevented 100% of future murders in America.

Here is what the 4th Amendment says. Let's look at it together. If you can see anywhere in there that it says that a warrant is required to search the communications of Americans, or for that matter, anywhere that it mentions anything at all that the government is not permitted to do without a warrant, then please point that out. Because it plainly does not.

I agree with Amash's position, and I agree with him about the seriousness of this. However, his claim that the Constitution requires a warrant, is simply factually false. The Constitution nowhere says that.

I won't deny that it I would get a kick out of the irony if AF got deported.

The same thing you would do if they were Americans.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again."

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Madison320 again."

That doesn't really answer the question. In fact, the way it sounds from your answer is that you would support merit based systems of awarding grants, contracts, jobs, etc., that don't consider other factors. Yes, I can see some ways to pursue diversity that would be consistent with that. I can also see some that would not be.

If race, sex, and whatever other DEI factors are being pursued, are not made into a basis for giving out grants, contracts, or jobs, to people who would otherwise not have gotten those same grants, contracts, and jobs, in a merit-based system of awarding them, then how do these factors (race, sex, etc.) factor in to this at all?

Sounds familiar.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."

It sounds like the LE agents are going up to unidentified people and treating them with the presumption that they are guilty of violating immigration laws unless they can provide paperwork proving they aren't. Leaving aside the point that a CA drivers license doesn't actually prove that, hopefully we all agree that this is not due process. For anyone of these people the LE agents go up to, it should suffice simply to refuse to answer any questions or provide their names or any papers, and let the LE agents come up with proof of their guilt if they have that, or at least probable cause, with the understanding that refusing to answer questions is not in itself probable cause.

I understand. It doesn't work 100% of the time. But there's a big difference between saying that and saying it doesn't work at all.

So let's say you have a child born some time after this EO takes effect. Eighteen years from now, that child registers to vote. Supposing this EO remains in effect until then, what should be required of your child to prove their citizenship? In addition to their own birth certificate showing they were born in the USA, should they be required to produce paperwork showing that you or their other birth parent were either a US citizen or permanent resident? And if they don't have all of that proof, or don't want to give it to the government, should they not be regarded legally as a citizen? Or is there some other process this is all supposed to follow that I'm not seeing here?

Are you saying that it is not true that some sperm cells carry only a Y chromosome and other sperm cells carry only an X chromosome, such that at conception, a zygote is typically either XX or XY?

And what that process is matters. The devil is in the details. But based on what others have told me in this thread, the details of the process are utterly obvious to everyone but me.

The owners of Costco have the same right to welcome them onto their property that I do.

Yes. And I have no right to interfere. And for the same reason, you also can invite anyone into your home any time you wish, whether as your guest, employee, renter, or whatever else, or to sell your home to anyone you want, at which time it becomes their home. And in all those instances, I again have no right to interfere, or to demand that they meet some criteria I set for who should be allowed on property that isn't mine.

I'm not sure why you bothered injecting yourself into this conversation then. Maybe somebody else knows the answer.