Funny Events of the "Woke" world

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,558
978
118
Country
USA
How would you know who bypassed the law to get into the US and who didn't without proof obtained through due process?

Logic.
The one person who was deported without meeting the standards of due process was twice legally established as not in the country legally.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,558
978
118
Country
USA
"The one person"? You think all those other people who were jammed onto planes got due process first?
If we knew nothing about anyone, it might be suspicious. If we were finding dozens, I'd expect more. That the news has reported the life story of a bunch of people and the courts stepped in for exactly one exception comes pretty darn close to proving the rule.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,889
6,694
118
Country
United Kingdom
So this is essentially the "outlaw" argument: that if one breaks the law in any way, they cannot rely on the protection of the law. We can put aside for a moment the fact this would leave us in a wild-west lethal hellscape. The argument doesn't hold water here for several reasons;

Firstly and most obviously: these people have not been found guilty of any crime. The most we have for some of them is innocuous tattoos, clothes, or rock-music gestures.

A reminder: it's not illegal to seek asylum, so long as one presents oneself through the right channels. At least 2 dozen of these people did exactly that. So they did not "bypass legal process" when migrating.

Secondly: "due process" is the application of proper judicial procedure by the state towards accused individuals. There is no judicial "due process" code of conduct required of random civilians. So the idea we're only applying it at the "tail end" if we want the state to follow it...is completely idiotic. We want to apply it exactly where it is meant to apply.

The relevant codes of conduct for ordinary people are civil and criminal law. Which 1) have their own legal restitutions set out, which don't include the suspension of due process; and 2) were not shown to be broken by these people anyway.

Thirdly: Due process is specifically about how to ascertain guilt or innocence for those accused of crime; what rights still apply; appeals and notice in that circumstance etc. So if you're arguing that due process shouldn't apply of someone is accused of failing to follow procedure... well, that's the whole goddamn point of it, so you're essentially saying you just don't believe in due process full stop.

Fourthly: let's follow the train of logic anyway. Donald Trump is a felon. A sex abuser and fraudster. Can I assume that if you want due process suspended if someone is guilty of a crime (or even merely accused), then you'll be fine with Trump thrown in prison for these things, courts-be-damned?

In short, it's a dogshit argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,889
6,694
118
Country
United Kingdom
If we knew nothing about anyone, it might be suspicious. If we were finding dozens, I'd expect more. That the news has reported the life story of a bunch of people and the courts stepped in for exactly one exception comes pretty darn close to proving the rule.
We know for a fact most of these people had no criminal charge. Received no notice of a change in status. Had no opportunity to challenge. These have been established in federal courts as rights under due process.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,558
978
118
Country
USA
We know for a fact most of these people had no criminal charge. Received no notice of a change in status. Had no opportunity to challenge. These have been established in federal courts as rights under due process.
If you were never allowed in, you've never had a legal status to change, never had an opportunity to commit a crime, and yet you are due none of those processes because you're not allowed here in the first place. Telling me people detained at the border by CBP had no criminal charges is utterly meaningless.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,889
6,694
118
Country
United Kingdom
If you were never allowed in, you've never had a legal status to change, never had an opportunity to commit a crime, and yet you are due none of those processes because you're not allowed here in the first place. Telling me people detained at the border by CBP had no criminal charges is utterly meaningless.
You already know that at least some of these people were legally residing in the US. Multiple federal courts have established they are entitled to several processes that were not followed.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,558
978
118
Country
USA
You already know that at least some of these people were legally residing in the US. Multiple federal courts have established they are entitled to several processes that were not followed.
You're conflating different things...
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,889
6,694
118
Country
United Kingdom
You're conflating different things...
No. The Supreme Court was explicit that the Venezuelan detainees were entitled to several rights: judicial review, including as to whether they're actually gang members; notice and the opportunity to seek habeas relief before removal occurs. 238 people were denied these.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,289
919
118
Country
United States
Thank your local Green Party activist, and Greenpeace hippie, this happened in China vs the US.

 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,764
3,341
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
The one person who was deported without meeting the standards of due process was twice legally established as not in the country legally.
Over 200 people were deported without meeting the standards of due process. Only 1 was specifically confirmed by the government to have been deported in error.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,558
978
118
Country
USA
No. The Supreme Court was explicit that the Venezuelan detainees were entitled to several rights: judicial review, including as to whether they're actually gang members; notice and the opportunity to seek habeas relief before removal occurs. 238 people were denied these.
No, they weren't. 238 total Venezuelans were sent to El Salvador:
Some fraction of those 238 were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, did get their chance at habeas relief, and were rejected. The Supreme Court statement you are referencing explicitly says that happened, and also says the government did not contest their right to judicial review.
Some fraction were deported under normal immigration procedures.
Some never actually made it into the US to have these rights at all.

You are smooshing the stories of three separate groups into one.

Feel free to read: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,300
3,132
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
If we knew nothing about anyone, it might be suspicious. If we were finding dozens, I'd expect more. That the news has reported the life story of a bunch of people and the courts stepped in for exactly one exception comes pretty darn close to proving the rule.
Garcia is a totally different kettle of fish. It's not just due process; its deliberately countermanding the direction that a court has created. Due process is only half the issue here

No, they weren't. 238 total Venezuelans were sent to El Salvador:
Some fraction of those 238 were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, did get their chance at habeas relief, and were rejected. The Supreme Court statement you are referencing explicitly says that happened, and also says the government did not contest their right to judicial review.
Some fraction were deported under normal immigration procedures.
Some never actually made it into the US to have these rights at all.

You are smooshing the stories of three separate groups into one.

Feel free to read: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
What we do know is that a bunch of people were rolled up due to claims of being in a gang. Very little evidence was provided for the majority. Trump pretended they were terrorist which means he think he doesn't need to provide evidence. We will see if this holds up. I actually doubt it because the Supreme Court couldn't find the rule of law even if one of the aides wrote it in front of them

Normal deportation procedures would have sent them to Venezuela. Trump was just making money for himself
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,889
6,694
118
Country
United Kingdom
No, they weren't. 238 total Venezuelans were sent to El Salvador:
Some fraction of those 238 were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, did get their chance at habeas relief, and were rejected. The Supreme Court statement you are referencing explicitly says that happened, and also says the government did not contest their right to judicial review.
The government didn't legally contest their right to it. The government also didn't actually accommodate it. We know their statuses changed without notice. We know they were deported before the chance to challenge.

You seem here to be implying that the Supreme Court states that all those deported under the AEA made (or had the chance to make) habeas petitions and those petitions were rejected. That's not what it says and that's not what happened. 5 detainees made a habeas petition alongside a class-action on 14th March. It was drawn up by lawyers in anticipation, as the AEA invocation hadn't even been made public at the time. They were not rejected; the Plaintiffs dismissed them to allow the D.C. court to deal exclusively with the class-action. They were then taken to airports on the morning of 15th March.

That's not notice. That's not an opportunity to pursue habeas-- had lawyers not anticipated that the administration would be issuing a declaration and then stuffing them onto planes that same morning, there couldn't have been a petition under habeas or anything else until after they were gone.

Some fraction were deported under normal immigration procedures.
Some never actually made it into the US to have these rights at all.
K, 137 then.
 
Jun 11, 2023
3,376
2,450
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Crossing a border can take minutes if not hours. Due process can take months if not years. It’s what contributes to a broken system. How does it get fixed? If the answer were easy, it would’ve happened by now.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/15/what-would-improve-the-u-s-immigration-system/

Realistically it shouldn’t be that complicated. If someone cannot provide appropriate documentation within a month’s time proving their current legal status/path to citizenship/etc., then it’s a pretty good indicator that something’s awry. It’s a slippery slope when we have to start enabling every single unique condition, exception, etc. RE: broken system.
 
Last edited:

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,289
919
118
Country
United States

1745473870353.png

Fucking what?!?!

Fuck historical and modern day Germany, and fuck their stupid green party. What sort of sick bastard keeps the global south, which has the low cost but possibly rising labor, but needs high capital investment to turn on their lights from getting nuclear power? In a slightly better world, Russia should have invaded Germany, not Ukraine.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
2,087
871
118
Fucking what?!?!

Fuck historical and modern day Germany, and fuck their stupid green party. What sort of sick bastard keeps the global south, which has the low cost but possibly rising labor, but needs high capital investment to turn on their lights from getting nuclear power? In a slightly better world, Russia should have invaded Germany, not Ukraine.
Mostly nonsense.

Germany has had an extremely strong anti-nuclear political movement. And those do a lot of lobbying. And they traditionally were in the Green party.

However the Green party has only been part of the Gouvernment around 4 of the last 20 years while the most pro-nuclear party was in power over 16 of them.

After the Fukushima incident the anti-nuclear sentiment had a surge which lead to the plans of shutting down Germany nuclear plants for good. However those were all older plants that that the pro-nuclear Party just had decided to keep on running longer than planned. Germany hadn't built any new plants for decades so when it eventuelly exited nuclear, any existing plant had run its full planned lifetime anyway.

The influence of Germany on world bank decisions is overstated and particularly the Greens were not in power anyway. It is also not true that outside preasure is softening the anti-nuclear stance of the new German gouvernment : The new (soon to be) chancellor campaigned on a pro-nuclear platform anyway, the anti-nuclear sentiment of the population has dropped in recent years and nowadays you can find politicians even in the Green party who openly support nuclear energy.

So yes, while, as said there was strong anti-nuclear lobbying in and from Germany, pretty much everything else is wrong.


The world bank is careful with supporting nuclear plants. There is always the political issue with building nuclear infrastructure in countries who might aim for nuclear weapons. But more important : Currently nuclear is just more extpensive than renewables which makes it harder to make a business case for them.
They are also long time investments that require political stability : many years to build, decades to run to be worth the cost.


But sure, blaming Germany is just easier.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,718
6,930
118
Fuck historical and modern day Germany, and fuck their stupid green party. What sort of sick bastard keeps the global south, which has the low cost but possibly rising labor, but needs high capital investment to turn on their lights from getting nuclear power? In a slightly better world, Russia should have invaded Germany, not Ukraine.
I'm not necessarily sure I want open season on nuclear power.

It is, after all, pretty dangerous. Do many developing countries have the stability and infrastructure (political, social, skills) to run them properly and securely, including safe disposal? Does nuclear power make it easier for volatile countries to weaponise nuclear?

Is it even economically beneficial for developing countries, given that renewables might be both cheaper and quicker to set up?
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,289
919
118
Country
United States
I'm not necessarily sure I want open season on nuclear power.

It is, after all, pretty dangerous. Do many developing countries have the stability and infrastructure (political, social, skills) to run them properly and securely, including safe disposal? Does nuclear power make it easier for volatile countries to weaponise nuclear?

Is it even economically beneficial for developing countries, given that renewables might be both cheaper and quicker to set up?
If Pakistan and Iran can do it, so can Argentina, Nigeria, Kenya, and Malaysia.

Also, here's a rare earth mine that renewables are built from...

1745536617947.jpeg

Plus, we have thorium reactors now. Which are much less dangerous and expensive.

Mostly nonsense.

Germany has had an extremely strong anti-nuclear political movement. And those do a lot of lobbying. And they traditionally were in the Green party.

However the Green party has only been part of the Gouvernment around 4 of the last 20 years while the most pro-nuclear party was in power over 16 of them.

After the Fukushima incident the anti-nuclear sentiment had a surge which lead to the plans of shutting down Germany nuclear plants for good. However those were all older plants that that the pro-nuclear Party just had decided to keep on running longer than planned. Germany hadn't built any new plants for decades so when it eventuelly exited nuclear, any existing plant had run its full planned lifetime anyway.

The influence of Germany on world bank decisions is overstated and particularly the Greens were not in power anyway. It is also not true that outside preasure is softening the anti-nuclear stance of the new German gouvernment : The new (soon to be) chancellor campaigned on a pro-nuclear platform anyway, the anti-nuclear sentiment of the population has dropped in recent years and nowadays you can find politicians even in the Green party who openly support nuclear energy.

So yes, while, as said there was strong anti-nuclear lobbying in and from Germany, pretty much everything else is wrong.


The world bank is careful with supporting nuclear plants. There is always the political issue with building nuclear infrastructure in countries who might aim for nuclear weapons. But more important : Currently nuclear is just more extpensive than renewables which makes it harder to make a business case for them.
They are also long time investments that require political stability : many years to build, decades to run to be worth the cost.


But sure, blaming Germany is just easier.
The IAEA is right there; if you're afraid of X country getting nuclear weapons, go to the IAEA, and they will send inspectors. Also, the IMF until recently was generally EU-based, and the World Bank was American, but they co-mingle, and one country/actor can derail policy pushes.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,289
919
118
Country
United States

Liberal fearmongering. Out of touch with reality. It's 04/24/2025, where's martial law at?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tstorm823