Gyroscopic Investing

I never thought I would say this but: good for Tucker Carlson for finding that piece of insanity! Hopefully the only reason no other news organization has picked it up is that it has no chance of passing even the House. Hopefully it wasn't because the Democratic left wing is hoping to slip it through unnoticed, e.g. buried in a budget bill or something.

And the alternate view from one of the bill sponsors.

https://chuygarcia.house.gov/sites/chuy ... 202019.pdf

I have not read either in detail and will only state the bill seems to be able to be read in a "these are reasonable" moves and a "this is the end of the country" move

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:58 am And the alternate view from one of the bill sponsors.

https://chuygarcia.house.gov/sites/chuy ... 202019.pdf

I have not read either in detail and will only state the bill seems to be able to be read in a "these are reasonable" moves and a "this is the end of the country" move

The arguments Rep. Garcia is making are truly mind-boggling to me. One could sum up his whole defense with "don't deport illegal aliens or enforce laws they break, it's mean to them and impedes their ability to stay in our country." You thought it sounded reasonable? Or alternatively, you thought he was trying to make them sound reasonable?

My thinking is that this is a real-life opportunity for the hypothetical situation Christina Hoff Sommers advocated when she was being heckled by students at UMass,

And I would say to those of you who are screaming out and not letting us finish our sentences.. if we are such dangerous people; let us speak. The more we speak that should become apparent. The fear is that the more we speak, the more reasonable we'll sound and people will realize there has been censorship on this campus.

A winning strategy to get Trump re-elected is to replay what Leftists say in entirety.

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:12 pm A winning strategy to get Trump re-elected is to replay what Leftists say in entirety.

This is exactly what Tucker Carlson did during his report. He didn't have to explain or embellish anything to get his point across. If you notice, Garcia didn't actually spell out any of the individual measures within the bill. Instead, he laid out what we're supposed to think about it, while carefully not telling us anything that would give the game away. Like, the part about the US government inviting previously deported felons to come live in the US AND pay their travel expenses.

I remember what it used to be like to be a liberal college student. It was pretty innocent back in the day. We were mainly after personal freedoms and we wanted less ideologically-motivated war-making, while the Republicans at that time were attempting to dismantle the separation of church and state, impose a state religion which was narrowly defined along the lines of Southern Baptist, and spend every available coin building up the military so that they could invade poor communist countries like Nicaragua on ideological grounds and support murderous regimes in places like El Salvador. Basically, I don't think my political opinions have evolved all that much. It's the political landscape that's changed.

Tucker Carlson shining a spotlight on Democrat plans via the news organization with the highest ratings and largest viewership (ostensibly to people of the opposite political leaning) contrasts vividly with Leftist efforts to silence Project Veritas investigative reporting on Democrat presidential candidates (and other events, as mentioned above).

Or, to look at it another way, they find common ground disagreeing with the statement "any press is good press."

Has anyone truly read this and did all the text replacements as the document shows?

I suspect the reality lives somewhere between the end of the republic as Carlson paints it and the beautiful reasonableness Garcia paints.

All this does again is divide us. I picture my 87 year old dad watching Carlson on Fox, and he does, just getting more and more bitter about these radical democrats destroying the country while not getting anything from the opposite position ever.

He has turned from a blue collar democrat for 75+ years of his life to a scared bitter republican who thinks Trump can do no wrong and everyone is out to get him. He was an immigrant 70 years ago and has completely forgotten that.

Simonjester wrote: in my experience, it is fairly common and possibly a majority of immigrants, who came here legally, filled their paperwork, payed there fees, waited there turn and assimilated. to take a dim view of illegal immigration..

I think there's a difference between being an immigrant and coming here illegally.

Democrats have successfully blurred that line by insisting on calling illegal migrants "immigrants" when that term should properly apply only to people who went through the visa process. How can you equate the scientist I hired from the UK who is working his way toward permanent resident status, or a friend of mine who is a Canada and US-trained physician awaiting her green card renewal, with people with no job skills or assets who sneak across the border expecting free medical care, food stamps, and citizenship for the kids they'll have (also on the taxpayer dime) on US soil? In point of fact, under our current immigration policy the scientist from the UK and the Canadian doctor are at the bottom of the priority list. That is absurd.

I also think that if you ask in plain terms, most people would not be in favor of someone without permanent residency or citizenship status being allowed to stay here after committing a violent or serious crime. If you had a house guest who robbed you or set your house on fire, would you let them stay or would you kick them out?

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:21 am Has anyone truly read this and did all the text replacements as the document shows?

I suspect the reality lives somewhere between the end of the republic as Carlson paints it and the beautiful reasonableness Garcia paints.

All this does again is divide us. I picture my 87 year old dad watching Carlson on Fox, and he does, just getting more and more bitter about these radical democrats destroying the country while not getting anything from the opposite position ever.

He has turned from a blue collar democrat for 75+ years of his life to a scared bitter republican who thinks Trump can do no wrong and everyone is out to get him. He was an immigrant 70 years ago and has completely forgotten that.

Perhaps the people doing the dividing are the ones that propose this kind of stuff in the first place, and then purposely conflate legal and illegal immigration.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:21 am Has anyone truly read this and did all the text replacements as the document shows?

I suspect the reality lives somewhere between the end of the republic as Carlson paints it and the beautiful reasonableness Garcia paints.

As far as I can gather from all the gobbledygook, it says what Carlson and Garcia say it does.

All this does again is divide us.

Yes.

I picture my 87 year old dad watching Carlson on Fox, and he does, just getting more and more bitter about these radical democrats destroying the country while not getting anything from the opposite position ever.

He has turned from a blue collar democrat for 75+ years of his life to a scared bitter republican who thinks Trump can do no wrong and everyone is out to get him. He was an immigrant 70 years ago and has completely forgotten that.

I didn't think it needed to be emphasized, but this bill doesn't deal with immigration, it relates to illegal aliens and hamstringing our ability to deal with them.

Here are a few clips. Again, I am not for or against this...it seems it will never gain enough support anyway. Tell me what will destroy America? I am not seeing anything that will hamper capturing illegals, only that when it happens, the resolution of the cases has to happen faster?
------------
‘‘(a) ARREST, DETENTION, AND RELEASE.—
20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—On a warrant issued by an
21 immigration judge, or pursuant to section 287(a)(2),
22 the Secretary of Homeland Security may arrest an
23 alien and, in accordance with this section, may,
24 pending a decision on whether the alien is to be re25 moved from the United States—
1 ‘‘(A) detain the alien; or
2 ‘‘(B) release the alien—
3 ‘‘(i) on bond;
4 ‘‘(ii) subject to conditions; or
5 ‘‘(iii) on the alien’s own recognizance.
----------
‘‘(4) LEAST RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS REQUIRED.—If an immigration judge determines pursuant to a hearing under this section that the release without conditions of an alien will not reasonably assure the appearance of the alien as required
6 or will endanger the safety of any other person or
7 the community, the immigration judge shall order
8 the least restrictive conditions, or combination of
9 conditions, that the judge determines will reasonably
10 assure the appearance of the alien as required and
11 the safety of any other person and the community,
12 which may include secured or unsecured release on
13 bond, or participation in a program described in
14 subsection (i).
------------
‘‘(a) Any officer or employee of the Department of
11 Homeland Security authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have
13 power without warrant—
14 ‘‘(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed
15 to be an alien as to the person’s right to be or to
16 remain in the United States, provided that such interrogation is not based on the person’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
19 color, spoken language, or English language proficiency; and
21 ‘‘(2) to arrest any alien who in the officer or
22 employee’s presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law
24 or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating
25 the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of
1 aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States,
------------
‘‘(2) INITIAL CUSTODY REDETERMINATION
11 HEARING.—
12 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 72
13 hours after the entry of a final administrative
14 order of removal, the alien ordered removed
15 shall be provided with a custody redetermina16 tion hearing before an immigration judge.
17 ‘‘(B) PRESUMPTION OF DETENTION.—For
18 purposes of the hearing under subparagraph
19 (A), the alien shall be detained during the re20 moval period unless the alien can show, by a
21 preponderance of the evidence, that the alien’s
22 removal is not reasonably foreseeable and that
23 the alien does not pose a risk to the safety of
24 any individual or to the community.’’
-------------I assume this next one could be problematic if I read it right, if you've been here 5 years without being apprehended, you are good to stay?---------------
any removal
2 proceeding against an alien previously admitted to the
3 United States for being within a class of deportable aliens
4 described in section 237(a)(2), or within a class of inadmissible aliens described in section 212(a)(2), shall not be
6 entertained unless commenced not later than the date that
7 is five years after the date on which the alien became deportable or inadmissible.

----And the rest is filled with too many cuts/changes that I couldn't follow

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr53 ... 5383ih.pdf

For what it's worth, I know plenty of legal immigrants who are still young and who are fervently against illegal immigration. (I will admit there is one friend who is still pro, predicated on his assertion that "it's too hard, even impossible" for some people to come via legal channels. My response to that is, "too bad." If I were them, I might still try to come here illegally, depending on my level of desperation. If I were Trump, or Obama, I would deport them.

I remember seeing an interview of a middle eastern immigrant in Germany who protested that there was too much immigration going on, even the legal kind, in his newly adopted hometown. The reason? There was no one left to speak German in the kindergarten.

The last time I flew to the UK and got on the line at border control, there was a big sign to the effect that if you come here and are not a UK/EU citizen and don't have a work permit, you can't get a job. It was phrased very emphatically as I recall. I remember thinking, so *I* can't get a job in the UK - and I am not the least bit upset about it, nor am I tempted to call the UK racist, divisive, white supremacist etc.

It's so odd that virtually every country except the US can have and enforce these types of controls without all the name calling. And btw if I were a legal immigrant here I'd feel the same way. No one likes people who cut in line.

Cortopassi, here are a few of the problematic statements:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an immigration judge may grant any relief or deferral from removal, including withholding of removal, to any individual who is otherwise eligible for such relief but for a prior criminal conviction...

Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials are prohibited from entering into the National Crime Information Center database or its incorporated criminal history databases information that relates to an alien’s immigration status, the existence of a prior removal, deportation, or voluntary departure order entered against an alien, or any allegations of civil violations of the immigration laws.

And also the whole section entitled "TITLE VII—RIGHT TO COME HOME". Referring to illegal immigrants previously deported for any reason and who would now like to re-enter the US. Most particularly see this:

Transportation.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide transportation for aliens eligible for reopening or reconsideration of their proceedings under this section, at Government expense, to return to the United States for further immigration proceedings and shall admit or parole the alien into the United States.

Emphasis mine.

OK so I was having a bit of a bad day with the whole illegal immigration thing. How about a funny take on it instead? Here is a jewel of a blog post from the libertarian maker of Fathead:

http://www.tomnaughton.com/index.php/th ... /#comments

Advice: read the whole thing. You have to get to the punch line at the end in order to understand the point of the post.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:11 am OK so I was having a bit of a bad day with the whole illegal immigration thing. How about a funny take on it instead? Here is a jewel of a blog post from the libertarian maker of Fathead:

http://www.tomnaughton.com/index.php/th ... /#comments

Advice: read the whole thing. You have to get to the punch line at the end in order to understand the point of the post.

awesome. I half-guessed it in advance.