The Race For 2024

[TomC]

Even if you don't like a law, even you think the law in question is an absurdity, if someone breaks that law they are by definition law breakers.

Sometimes it is bad to break a law, sometimes it is good to break a law, but in either case it is breaking a law.

Wow! Stunning revelations!

There seems to be an intense debate over whether illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants or whatever the current term is are law breakers or not. Whatever your opinion of the law itself, they are by definition law breakers.

I'm familiar with the debate, which currently focuses on the Venezuelan immigrant accused of murder. The thing is, though, that he was in the US quite legally. His immigrant status is irrelevant except in the sense that anti-immigrant fearmongering is part of the Republican strategy for winning the general election. Nobody disputes that he is a law breaker, just that his presence in the US had anything to do with breaking the law. He wasn't an "illegal" in the normal pejorative sense of the word.

On another forum, a poster described this in a little more detail. Apparently, the asylum rules are different and laxer for Venezuela. And were made that way by the Trump administration.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Even if you don't like a law, even you think the law in question is an absurdity, if someone breaks that law they are by definition law breakers.

Sometimes it is bad to break a law, sometimes it is good to break a law, but in either case it is breaking a law.

Wow! Stunning revelations!

There seems to be an intense debate over whether illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants or whatever the current term is are law breakers or not. Whatever your opinion of the law itself, they are by definition law breakers.

I'm familiar with the debate, which currently focuses on the Venezuelan immigrant accused of murder. The thing is, though, that he was in the US quite legally. His immigrant status is irrelevant except in the sense that anti-immigrant fearmongering is part of the Republican strategy for winning the general election. Nobody disputes that he is a law breaker, just that his presence in the US had anything to do with breaking the law. He wasn't an "illegal" in the normal pejorative sense of the word.

On another forum, a poster described this in a little more detail. Apparently, the asylum rules are different and laxer for Venezuela. And were made that way by the Trump administration.
Tom

Yeah but that is still Biden's fault.

 

[Copernicus]

Even if you don't like a law, even you think the law in question is an absurdity, if someone breaks that law they are by definition law breakers.

Sometimes it is bad to break a law, sometimes it is good to break a law, but in either case it is breaking a law.

Wow! Stunning revelations!

There seems to be an intense debate over whether illegal aliens or undocumented immigrants or whatever the current term is are law breakers or not. Whatever your opinion of the law itself, they are by definition law breakers.

I'm familiar with the debate, which currently focuses on the Venezuelan immigrant accused of murder. The thing is, though, that he was in the US quite legally. His immigrant status is irrelevant except in the sense that anti-immigrant fearmongering is part of the Republican strategy for winning the general election. Nobody disputes that he is a law breaker, just that his presence in the US had anything to do with breaking the law. He wasn't an "illegal" in the normal pejorative sense of the word.

On another forum, a poster described this in a little more detail. Apparently, the asylum rules are different and laxer for Venezuela. And were made that way by the Trump administration.
Tom

You need to read more of my posts. I brought this fact out earlier and pointed out that this crime was only under discussion because of a tenuous connection between the Biden administration and the immigration status of the murderer. However, calling him an "illegal" is simply a racist lie. He wasn't even undocumented. This is the Willie Horton strategy all over again. It worked well for George W Bush in his run for the presidency, so it is a standard practice for Republicans. Back in 1988, it involved a murderer who happened to be useful in the presidential campaign because he was black. In this case, the murderer happens to be a Spanish-speaking immigrant, but that is the scary minority du jour. He is misleadingly called an "illegal", because that connects him to undocumented immigrants that have crossed the Mexican border and entered the country illegally.

 

[Toni]

Brandon really is clueless;

when asked by MSNBC about his use of the word 'illegal' in an interview on Saturday night, Biden said he regretted it.
'During your response to her heckling of you, you used the word ‘illegal’ when talking about the man who allegedly killed...' host Jonathan Capehart said. Biden interrupted to say 'undocumented', just as Capehart was pivoting to Laken Riley. 'An undocumented person. I shouldn't have used illegal, it’s undocumented,' the president continued.

Daily Mail

Yeah, wouldn’t want anyone to be offended by calling “Lincoln Riley” killer an illegal.

I hope Jose Ibarra finds it in his heart to forgive Brandon.

Using epithets is offensive regardless of who you apply them to.

Indeed, we should call a bank robbery an undocumented cash withdrawal.

Jose Iberra is in the USA illegally and he murdered a US citizen and he’s the victim in this?

No. It's just rude (and inaccurate) to call all undocumented residents "illegals", whether you're talking about a saint or a murderer.

Heaven forbid we be rude to a cold blooded killer. A cold blooded killer that entered the USA illegally. Is “cold blooded killer” an epithet to you? I expect so.

It’s not rude to Ibarra. No one cares if you are rude to Ibarra.

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate and comes across as racist.

 

[Elixir]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate.

You mean a Right Winger has made an innocent category error due to incomplete information regarding a person/event, which coincidentally casts baseless insult upon people who have nothing to do with it, but happen to be Republican Boogeymen of the Month?

 

[Toni]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate.

You mean a Right Winger has made an innocent category error due to incomplete information regarding a person/event, which coincidentally casts baseless insult upon people who have nothing to do with it, but happen to be Republican Boogeymen of the Month Decade?

FIFY but yeah. Exactly.

 

[TSwizzle]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate and comes across as racist.

If someone enters the USA by crossing the border in the way Ibarra did, they are in the USA illegally. Their status may change depending on what happens if the person comes into contact with the US government (ICE for example) but until then, they entered the USA illegally and are in the USA illegally. Even if you think it is rude, it is still a matter of fact. You can use what ever wording that doesn't grate your ears but the words you use will not change their status from being in the USA illegally. Only the US government can change that.

As you well know, I am a legal immigrant to the USA. Tswizzle entered the USA legally. Ibarra (and millions of others) did not.

 

[Toni]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate and comes across as racist.

If someone enters the USA by crossing the border in the way Ibarra did, they are in the USA illegally. Their status may change depending on what happens if the person comes into contact with the US government (ICE for example) but until then, they entered the USA illegally and are in the USA illegally. Even if you think it is rude, it is still a matter of fact. You can use what ever wording that doesn't grate your ears but the words you use will not change their status from being in the USA illegally. Only the US government can change that.

As you well know, I am a legal immigrant to the USA. Tswizzle entered the USA legally. Ibarra (and millions of others) did not.

Entering the US without proper documentation = undocumented.
Entering the US with proper documentation but remaining past terms of visa = undocumented.

People cannot be illegal. Their actions may be illegal but they cannot be illegal.

Congratulations on your legal status.

Moreover, unless I am wrong (and my sincere apologies if I am), no one will ever refer to you as an 'illegal,' because you immigrated from Great Britain/hold dual citizenship. You do not look Hispanic nor do you speak with a Spanish accent. Even if you were here without proper documentation, you would be considered one of the 'good' immigrants because of your accent and skin tone.

 

[Copernicus]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate and comes across as racist.

If someone enters the USA by crossing the border in the way Ibarra did, they are in the USA illegally. Their status may change depending on what happens if the person comes into contact with the US government (ICE for example) but until then, they entered the USA illegally and are in the USA illegally. Even if you think it is rude, it is still a matter of fact. You can use what ever wording that doesn't grate your ears but the words you use will not change their status from being in the USA illegally. Only the US government can change that.

As you well know, I am a legal immigrant to the USA. Tswizzle entered the USA legally. Ibarra (and millions of others) did not.

Again, that's simply false. Ibarra had entered the US illegally in 2022, but he was granted legal residency on a claim of asylum. So he wasn't technically illegal at the time of his arrest, but he was apparently using a fake green card as a way to get work. Venezuelans were put into a special category by the Biden administration, so that may or may not have helped him to prevent deportation. He was arrested two years later for suspicion of murder, not being in the country illegally.

The point here is that Ibarra had as much right to be in the country as TSwizzle. A murder committed by either man would be the same crime, and it would be committed by an immigrant. Republicans are using this particular murder to bash immigrants in general, and the term "illegal" is being applied to Ibarra for that reason alone. Those who enter the country illegally but are granted legal residency status are no more likely to commit murder than TSwizzle is, and both are technically legal immigrants, albeit with perhaps different categories of immigrant status.

Immigration status of suspected nursing student killer roils border security debate​

 

[Toni]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate and comes across as racist.

If someone enters the USA by crossing the border in the way Ibarra did, they are in the USA illegally. Their status may change depending on what happens if the person comes into contact with the US government (ICE for example) but until then, they entered the USA illegally and are in the USA illegally. Even if you think it is rude, it is still a matter of fact. You can use what ever wording that doesn't grate your ears but the words you use will not change their status from being in the USA illegally. Only the US government can change that.

As you well know, I am a legal immigrant to the USA. Tswizzle entered the USA legally. Ibarra (and millions of others) did not.

Again, that's simply false. Ibarra had entered the US illegally in 2022, but he was granted legal residency on a claim of asylum. So he wasn't technically illegal at the time of his arrest, but he was apparently using a fake green card as a way to get work. Venezuelans were put into a special category by the Biden administration, so that may or may not have helped him to prevent deportation. He was arrested for suspicion of murder, not being in the country illegally.

The point here is that Ibarra had as much right to be in the country as TSwizzle. A murder committed by either man would be the same crime, and it would be committed by an immigrant. Republicans are using this particular murder to bash immigrants in general, and the term "illegal" is being applied to Ibarra for that reason alone. Those who enter the country illegally but are granted legal residency status are no more likely to commit murder than TSwizzle is, and both are technically legal immigrants, albeit with perhaps different categories of immigrant status.

As someone whose ancestors arrived in what is now the USA in the early 1700's, if I murdered someone it would be just as serious a crime as the one that Ibarra committed.

Ya know what would be great?
Biden and Trump become "incapacitated".

Newsom and DeSantis become the choices.
I'd really like that to happen.
Tom

Not me.

Prolly because I am smarter than you.
Tom

Probably not.

 

[TSwizzle]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate and comes across as racist.

If someone enters the USA by crossing the border in the way Ibarra did, they are in the USA illegally. Their status may change depending on what happens if the person comes into contact with the US government (ICE for example) but until then, they entered the USA illegally and are in the USA illegally. Even if you think it is rude, it is still a matter of fact. You can use what ever wording that doesn't grate your ears but the words you use will not change their status from being in the USA illegally. Only the US government can change that.

As you well know, I am a legal immigrant to the USA. Tswizzle entered the USA legally. Ibarra (and millions of others) did not.

Entering the US without proper documentation = undocumented.
Entering the US with proper documentation but remaining past terms of visa = undocumented.

People cannot be illegal. Their actions may be illegal but they cannot be illegal.

As I said, whatever wording you choose changes nothing. Unhoused/homeless legal/undocumented. Knock yourself out.

{snip}You do not look Hispanic nor do you speak with a Spanish accent. Even if you were here without proper documentation, you would be considered one of the 'good' immigrants because of your accent and skin tone.

This is beyond tedious.

Anyway, it's not about me.

 

[Toni]

It’s rude towards immigrants whatever their legal status because it’s pejorative and not accurate and comes across as racist.

If someone enters the USA by crossing the border in the way Ibarra did, they are in the USA illegally. Their status may change depending on what happens if the person comes into contact with the US government (ICE for example) but until then, they entered the USA illegally and are in the USA illegally. Even if you think it is rude, it is still a matter of fact. You can use what ever wording that doesn't grate your ears but the words you use will not change their status from being in the USA illegally. Only the US government can change that.

As you well know, I am a legal immigrant to the USA. Tswizzle entered the USA legally. Ibarra (and millions of others) did not.

Entering the US without proper documentation = undocumented.
Entering the US with proper documentation but remaining past terms of visa = undocumented.

People cannot be illegal. Their actions may be illegal but they cannot be illegal.

As I said, whatever wording you choose changes nothing. Unhoused/homeless legal/undocumented. Knock yourself out.

{snip}You do not look Hispanic nor do you speak with a Spanish accent. Even if you were here without proper documentation, you would be considered one of the 'good' immigrants because of your accent and skin tone.

This is beyond tedious.

Anyway, it's not about me.

Words do matter. The words we use to describe something tells us as much about us than it does what or who we are describing.

 

[Elixir]

Words matter. So let’s let this be about categorizing people so we can make a categorical decision about what we should do or not? At least it’s not about attributing causes.

I agree that this is beyond tedious.

 

[Copernicus]

Why are there heated debates like this one going on all over social media? Jon Stewart says it best:

 

[lpetrich]

Three Theories for Why Trump’s Primary Results Are Not Matching Expectations - The New York Times - Feb. 26, 2024

Noting that Donald Trump had underperformed his poll results in the first three primaries.

IA: p 34, r 32 -- NH p 18, r 11 -- SC p 28, r 20

How many percentage points he was ahead -- p = polls, r = election results

Theory No. 1: Undecided voters

One simple explanation is that undecided voters ultimately backed Ms. Haley, the former South Carolina governor.

...
Theory No. 2: The electorate

Another possibility is that the polls simply got the makeup of the electorate wrong.

...
Theory No. 3: A hidden Biden vote?

If you’re a Democrat hoping that the polls are underestimating Mr. Biden in the general election, your best-case scenario is the polls are wrong because there’s a Hidden Biden vote, or at least a Hidden Anti-Trump vote.

Nikki Haley has done surprisingly well in the primaries since then, even if not enough to make her want to continue her campaign.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And, importantly, right before she said that she said this: {snip}

The most important part and what actually counts is “All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case”

Not five to four.

Not six to three.

Not even eight to one.

NINE to zero fella, nine to zero.

I've moved on. Maybe you will too one day.

I'll let the adults continue with their whining, I'm tapping out.

Note that this doesn't mean he's not guilty of insurrection.

The court said it wasn't the right place to make the decision--and I agree with them. Permitting Colorado's actions opens a major can of worms.

 

[Elixir]

Note that this doesn't mean he's not guilty of insurrection.

No, Swiz will absolutely NOT note that.
Because the salient FACT of the ruling is that it dies not touch the ADJUDICATED FACT that TRUMP IS AN INSURRECTIONIST.

Swiz ain’t gonna see that what all nine justices are simply saying in unison is specifically
TRUMP IS AN INSURRECTIONIST BUT HE CAN BE NOMINATED.
It doesn’t delve into whether an insurrectionist can serve in government.

 

[blastula]

This guy.

Indicted Sen. Bob Menendez is considering running for re-election as an independent, sources say

The New Jersey Democrat has been indicted on 18 federal counts, including accepting bribes from a foreign government. He and his wife have pleaded not guilty.

www.nbcnews.com

Indicted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., is considering running for re-election in November as an independent, two sources who spoke with him directly tell NBC News.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I mean when you lie to yourself enough about what you've done being legit and misunderstood, maybe you do lose the ability to actually remember you were covering your butt and start actually believing you are innocent.

Imagine the Dems having a remarkable 2024 but lost the Senate 49-51, because, of all things, Menendez split the vote and Republican won the Senate seat.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Indicted Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., is considering running for re-election in November as an independent, two sources who spoke with him directly tell NBC News.

If he needs a VP I think Santos is available.