ChiGoose

Imagine reality? Sure, easy enough.

Sanctuary cities are not breaking the law. Local police are not responsible for immigration enforcement. However, if they suspect that someone in their custody may be here illegally, they often contact immigration enforcement and keep the individual detained until the feds arrive. Generally, sanctuary cities simply do not do that. Law enforcement processes people based on what they are charged with and leaves immigration enforcement to those charged with responsibility for it.

My brain was melting out of my ears with the lunacy of this article, but it all made sense when I saw the author, whom I've never seen post anything requiring brain cells. The botched FBI operation around Whitmer was somehow a plot against Trump This is stupid. The FBI has been walking the very thin line between informants and entrapment for a long time and they really need to dial it back. But to claim that they do it just for political reasons requires a tremendous amount of ignorance on what they've been doing for years. Military style round up of Jan 6 rioters This is also stupid. Thousands of people were at the Capitol on Jan 6 but fewer than 1,000 have been arrested and 90% of those have been released while awaiting their trials. This is exactly how you would expect law enforcement to react to these events Claims of collusion with Russia in 2016 were phony Apparently this author did not read (or, given their grasp of facts and reality, is incapable of reading) the Mueller report. The 2016 Trump campaign was crawling with Russians, including Russian agents. Mueller documented dozens of interactions between the campaign and Russian operatives, but he made the decision not to evaluate based on "collusion" since that is not a legal term. Also, the idea that law enforcement agencies such as the FBI skew liberal is really hard to believe given the people who generally sign up to work in law enforcement. It also requires completely ignoring James Comey's actions that may have tipped the election to Trump in 2016 when he broke with long-standing agency precedent by sending the Comey Letter.

Has anyone been able to find the actual changes in the text between the two versions of the bill? I pulled the text from HR 3967 from June and S. 3373 with amendments and I only found one material change, which was removing the following language: "(e) Not A Taxable Benefit.—A contract buy out for a covered health care professional under subsection (a) shall not be considered a taxable benefit or event for the covered health care professional." I can't believe that is the only change, and with different versions of the the same bill out there, I may have pulled the wrong versions. Does anyone have the specific text that was changed / challenged?

If you are a mayor of a large city, there are likely already many undocumented people in the city to begin with. Regardless of whether or not you "invite" them, they are already present in your city. You can lobby Congress and make as much noise as you want, but you have no authority to change enforcement of immigration laws. So the question is, what do you do about that? Do you want the people who are already in your city to feel safe to work with law enforcement to report crimes? Or do you want them to be too scared that they might get deported, allowing criminals to go free (or worse: leverage someone's immigration status to abuse or otherwise harm them, knowing they won't go to the police)? We need to fix our immigration system, but a mayor has little to no influence over that. Also, things that could help are generally not popular (increasing caps and quotas, better funding for immigration courts, a more accessible legal immigration policy, etc.) and the things that are popular generally don't help (a big dumb wall in the middle of a desert when most undocumented people come into the US legally or snuck in through ports of entry). There's no incentive to fix this because our politics are broken and our politicians would prefer to have a broken system to rail against in ads and speeches then actually do anything to help.

Immigration policy is set at the national level. Cities don’t really have much influence in granting citizenship. Immigration policy is also hopelessly broken because there is no real reason to fix it. Therefore, if you are the mayor of a city, you may have a large undocumented population but you have no policy levers in which to fix it. So your options are to either allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes or be witnesses in cases against criminals, or you can make them too scared to help with crime because they are worried you will deport them. If your goal is to actually solve crimes, this is an exceedingly easy decision to make.

Well, he’s right. Unless you think allowing criminals to do whatever they want to undocumented immigrants with no repercussions is a good thing.

The DoJ might actually be going after Trump himself. I was skeptical that they would but the news of the last week is making me change my mind.

I doubt it enters their equation.

The importance of good speech writers… https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1554294718254780418?s=21&t=xiwAjMNSATTIfxx9fBufJg

If the people advocating these laws *actually* cared about the baby, they would enact laws that supported pregnant women, made it easier to make the decision to keep the baby, and support mothers and babies after the birth. But instead, states with restrictive abortion laws also have worse maternal and child health outcomes than those with looser abortion laws. They have higher rates of child poverty, uninsured women and children, low-birthweight babies, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. So clearly, they don't actually care about the babies.

And despite the fact that the idea of life beginning at conception is a relatively new concept (especially in the US), these people get to impose their beliefs and will upon everyone else?

The traditional reading of the First Amendment on religion is that it is both freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. We have both the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause for this. Essentially, you are free to practice the religion of your choice and that government can not establish a national religion, enact laws to preference one religion over another, or preference religion over non-religion or vice versa. Of course, it has been a recent trend in SCOTUS to weaken or even do away with the Establishment Clause, so I think we can expect more cases and rulings allowing for government endorsement or religion despite the text and original meaning of the Constitution.

(Citation needed)

Just wait. It's coming. INB4: The small technical amendments that required the re-vote created a slush fund for reverse vampire pedophiles

Bingo. GOP Senators were ok with the marriage bill and the PACT Act only on the condition that the Dems didn't do a reconciliation bill. The Dems managed to get a proposal for a reconciliation bill, so now the GOP senators are going to tank two unrelated bills.

In 2019, the pretrial release rate was 42% Turns out you're right. They aren't treated like average defendants. They're being treated much better, with 90% being given pre-trial release instead of just 42%.

I quoted multiple sources that show that only 10% of the Jan 6th defendants remain in pre-trial detention. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Just in case anybody is wondering, this is almost entirely false, and the Jan 6 rioters are being treated about the same as most criminals. Hundreds of Jan 6th defendants were released while awaiting trial and Dem Senators opposed any defendants being placed into solitary confinement. As of September of 2021, only 40 of the 600 people arrested remained in jail awaiting trial As of March 2022, only about 10% of the 775 people arrested for Jan 6 remain in pretrial detention Of the ~850 people arrested, 325 have already plead guilty. Delays in Jan 6 prosecutions due to volume of evidence, numbers of defendants, and fallout from COIVD Far from the "DC Gulag" of political prisoners, what we have here is 90% of the Jan 6 rioters being released pre-trial while only 10% remain in detention. The delays in trials are from the obvious fallout from arresting so many people in such a short period of time, in conjunction with the already existing problems with our court system.

There is no DC gulag. They are getting the same treatment as the average criminal. If you don’t like it, I’d be happy to agree on reforms to the judicial system.

So what are your thoughts on IVF? It involves the freezing and destruction of fertilized embryos.

Do you believe that life begins at conception?

No idea on whether this can pass, but I'm glad they're at least trying. In my old job, I was restricted from trading individual stocks. It's insane that members of Congress can do it.

It was essentially the same bill they already approved. It was only up for another vote for technical corrections. They most likely changed their mind because the Dems are pursuing an unrelated reconciliation bill.