Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread

The type of immigrant I want to be allowed in the future I would absolutely open my door because I know they’d be safe and productive.
 
mqt said:
If he had not consented, is your position that the proper response would be to break his window, drag him out of his car and rough him up?
Click to expand...
Yes - you don’t get to choose when to comply with police enforcing the law. Only a fool thinks otherwise.
 
thethe said:
Yes - you don’t get to choose when to comply with police enforcing the law. Only a fool thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...
Admittedly the CDL/truck aspect probably changes things a bit, but if it’s just a matter of “show your ID and ICE will leave you alone” what law would this citizen have been violating by not showing ID that is within the jurisdiction of immigration officials?

Also, great defense of COVID policies here.
 
mqt said:
Admittedly the CDL/truck aspect probably changes things a bit, but if it’s just a matter of “show your ID and ICE will leave you alone” what law would this citizen have been violating by not showing ID that is within the jurisdiction of immigration officials?

Also, great defense of COVID policies here.
Click to expand...

Federal officers don't have a siloed power structure. They can be imbued with 'federal' authority as deemed necessary. When there are active policing operations citizens must comply.

But sure, go give us COVID which was a globalist coordinated plot to overthrow the 2020 election and stop Trump from fixing this mess for good the first time.

Your equivalencies mean nothing. You cannot decide when to listen to a police officer during a legal policing operating. Case closed
 
thethe said:
Federal officers don't have a siloed power structure. They can be imbued with 'federal' authority as deemed necessary. When there are active policing operations citizens must comply.

But sure, go give us COVID which was a globalist coordinated plot to overthrow the 2020 election and stop Trump from fixing this mess for good the first time.

Your equivalencies mean nothing. You cannot decide when to listen to a police officer during a legal policing operating. Case closed
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights begs to differ with interpretation of what you can and cannot decide in response to a request from law enforcement.
 
mqt said:
The Bill of Rights begs to differ with interpretation of what you can and cannot decide in response to a request from law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Sure if you take an idiot like our DEI SC justices.

But active policing operations you don't get a choice when to comply. You have rights after the fact to determine if it was unreasonable but we all know the courts won't say it was....
 
zitothebrave said:
This is largely provable.

Again, not saying it happened, I don't know. It's the era of social media and people often lie. But if it did, would you not agree that is egregious?
Click to expand...

I will say the same thing I said to the egregious rape that BL posted the other day.

In the .0000000001% this is true then give whatever penalty is deemed appropriate by law - no exceptions.
 
thethe said:
Sure if you take an idiot like our DEI SC justices.

But active policing operations you don't get a choice when to comply. You have rights after the fact to determine if it was unreasonable but we all know the courts won't say it was....
Click to expand...
What the fuck does this mean?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

There is no federal law requiring you to show your id to law enforcement. The one kind of exception is if you're driving a vehicle they can ask for your license to prove you're accessig roads legally. But even then I don't know if the FBI can do that to me. But I'd digress.
 
thethe said:
I will say the same thing I said to the egregious rape that BL posted the other day.

In the .0000000001% this is true then give whatever penalty is deemed appropriate by law - no exceptions.
Click to expand...
DHS is saying their officers have qualified immunity and can do what they want to execute their orders. So I'm sure that they'd deem no penalty by law as needed.
 
zitothebrave said:
DHS is saying their officers have qualified immunity and can do what they want to execute their orders. So I'm sure that they'd deem no penalty by law as needed.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling in the small chance this claim is actually real the officer will be punished and then you guys will say nothing.
 
zitothebrave said:
What the fuck does this mean?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

There is no federal law requiring you to show your id to law enforcement. The one kind of exception is if you're driving a vehicle they can ask for your license to prove you're accessig roads legally. But even then I don't know if the FBI can do that to me. But I'd digress.
Click to expand...

Correct - Or if in their determination you are a danger on the road.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/2011406203851833461

I'm sure not one of these people have voted in the past few elections - No chance at all right?

This is why the left fights inspection with existence testing. They'll let you recount the same illegal ballots over and over! Then you have idiots like Zito/Cjaun saying, "THEY DID THE RECOUNT AND NOTHING HAPPENED! STUPID MAGA!!!"
 
thethe said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2011406203851833461

I'm sure not one of these people have voted in the past few elections - No chance at all right?

This is why the left fights inspection with existence testing. They'll let you recount the same illegal ballots over and over! Then you have idiots like Zito/Cjaun saying, "THEY DID THE RECOUNT AND NOTHING HAPPENED! STUPID MAGA!!!"
Click to expand...
ALready dealt with this dumbo
 
thethe said:
Sure if you take an idiot like our DEI SC justices.

But active policing operations you don't get a choice when to comply. You have rights after the fact to determine if it was unreasonable but we all know the courts won't say it was....
Click to expand...
This feels like one to bookmark for the next time the Dems are in charge.
 
mqt said:
You’re hung up on what *we* get out of the deal, but I’m also okay with what the immigrants get out of it. Helping someone to escape from a war-torn or destitute nation and have an opportunity to succeed here is in itself a good thing to me. We have a societal interest in knowing who those people are, and it can’t be everybody, so my preference would be a more robust system where you do have laws governing immigration enforcement but you make it easier to do so for those that can contribute to our society in a positive way.

As for why that’s shifted, I don’t know. A lot of people have gotten dumb about things over the past 20 years.
Click to expand...
Yes, im hung up on what we get.

If an immigrant comes here and simply lives on welfare, are you good with that? Simply bc humanitarian reasons? And if so, is there any limit you would impose in order to not bankrupt us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top