ChiGoose

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.

From Military Times: "The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act — better known as the PACT Act — had been up for a procedural vote in the chamber with an expectation of final passage before the end of the week. The measure is the culmination of years of work by advocates to improve health care and benefits for veterans suffering injuries from burn pit smoke, Agent Orange spraying and other military contaminant exposure. It has been widely celebrated as a potential landmark legislative victory in veterans policy. The measure passed the Senate by a comfortable 84-14 vote in early June, and by a 342-88 vote in the House two weeks ago with significant Republican support. But on Wednesday, after technical corrections sent the measure back to the Senate for another procedural vote, 41 Senate Republicans blocked the measure, leaving its future uncertain." The bill was good enough for the GOP last month, but suddenly providing benefits to our veteran's is no longer acceptable.

Post-Roe, many autoimmune patients lose access to ‘gold standard’ drug 25. Pharmacist denied medication to 8 year old with juvenile arthritis because she was of "child bearing potential" As abortion ban is reinstated, doctors describe 'chilling effect' on women's care 26. Pharmacy denied prescription to assist with IUD insertion Because of Texas abortion law, her wanted pregnancy became a medical nightmare 27. Patient's water broke at 18 weeks and they began experiencing cramps, vomiting, and passing clots of blood and discharge. The pregnancy was given a 0% chance of viability but she was denied an abortion. The patient had to wait until the symptoms got worse before the hospital would induce her so she could deliver stillborn College-shopping students have a new query: Is abortion legal there? 28. High school students are changing where they apply to college to ensure access to abortion while in college Women with chronic conditions struggle to find medications after abortion laws limit access 29. Insurance company told patient they would no longer cover her medicine for Crohn's disease because it might be used for an abortion 30. Pharmacy stops prescription for patient with rheumatoid arthritis because it could be used for abortion 31. Pennsylvania doctor has had multiple patients who were unable to get refills of their rheumatoid arthritis medication Texan has out-of-state abortion to end heartbreaking and dangerous pregnancy, she says 32. Patient whose pregnancy was nonviable and could put her at serious risk had to travel out of state for an abortion ‘A scary time’: Fear of prosecution forces doctors to choose between protecting themselves or their patients 33. Doctor had to delay care and go to an ethics board for approval to treat an ectopic pregnancy 34. Doctors have been told to wait until patients with ectopic pregnancies are unstable before treating them

Mike Pence's counsel testified under oath that Eastman told Trump that the plan was illegal at a meeting. Additionally, there is an email from Eastman stating that there is no legal support for the plan to have Pence reject certification. https://time.com/6188491/john-eastman-jan-6-testimony-trump/ However, the decision to actually do anything about this lies with the DoJ, not the Jan 6 committee.