2025 Looking like 2020 - Wonder What They Have In Common

[Gunnar]

Trump walks it back. Fail much?

Lawrence: Trump surrenders on the central lie of his deportation campaign promises

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhil91-uRRk

O'Donnell is not being the slightest bit hyperbolic when he characterizes Trump as the slowest and stupidest President we have ever had. I don't buy for a minute, though, that he changed his mind out of compassion for the hardworking undocumented migrants who are harvesting crops, landscaping our yards and working in the hospitality industry. As one commentator pointed out:

He's probably really feeling the pain in his own hotels. It is all about him, remember.

Yeah, him and his ultra wealthy friends and donors, who already have so much more than what they need or deserve.

[Chap]

But, as ever, he just can't make up his tiny little mind.

Like a cushion, he retains the impression made by the last person who sat on him.

Today's Washington Post has this (part of an article):

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that “changes are coming” to protect farmers from losing workers to his aggressive deportation campaign, but no such policy changes are underway, according to three people with knowledge of the administration’s immigration policies.

Trump’s comments in a social media post sought to soothe industry leaders in the agriculture and hospitality fields, said a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s thinking, as many business leaders remain unnerved by the president’s sweeping deportation campaigns.

The official said there will be “no change” in the current approach to deportations, adding that no carveout exists currently for farm, hotel or other migrant workers who are in the country illegally. The administration previously directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement workers to avoid raiding farms, the person said, noting that agents have swept food production facilities. Immigration enforcement activity appeared to take place at two farms in California this week, however, as the administration escalated deportation efforts.

Trump’s public comments and follow-up remarks Thursday reflected a president pulled in two directions, with some business owners pointing out that whole sectors of the economy depend on the labor of people Trump is deporting, while influential MAGA commentators press him to deliver on the aggressive campaign promises that helped lift him to office. As the day wore on, Trump appeared to swing between the competing factions, explaining farmers’ predicament to reporters and saying he thought the White House would “have an order on that soon,” but also posting on social media Thursday afternoon that undocumented immigrants “have stolen American Jobs.”

[Kishkumen]

Trump walks it back. Fail much?

Lawrence: Trump surrenders on the central lie of his deportation campaign promises

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhil91-uRRk

Yep! Weak loser! He was a weak loser when he decided to bully immigrants, and he is a weak loser when he flip-flops on deporting them all. I doubt anything he says really means much. Wait to see what he does. He is a lying coward.

[Markk]

Cakes: This isn’t helping your claim. This is only stating that the State agencies will no longer invite the Federal Government to do a federal agency’s job. Immigration enforcement is Federal jurisdiction. Nothing in this provision keeps ICE from talking to someone apprehended by the State. The State just isn’t going to do the status verification work for ICE. And the State isn’t ‘letting anyone go’ if valid State charges exist or are applied.

We already know that ICE is approaching folks with protected status walking out of their scheduled immigration hearings and immediately detaining them for ‘being illegal’. The exact same thing can happen under this law above, to anyone ‘walking out of State and local facilities every day’. You know that this is happening now, and can happen regardless of what SB 54 proclaims.

This is what I wrote...word for word.

Markk: Lol....then why is it called a sanctuary city, and why are laws passed to let illegal immigrants walk free from their breaking federal immigrations laws?

As an example, it is a felony if a person is deported, and then comes back illegally.....but sanctuary cites do not and will not contact ICE for federal charges....why, because they offer sanctuary.

AB54 allows local law enforcement, at their discretion, to work with and help federal agencies. In my example, they no longer (rarely) in LA and other sanctuary cities allow their agencies or officers to enforce holds on illegal alien criminals, letting them walk free. It happens everyday because of AB54 in these cites.

There are cities and/or counties that still enforce the pre AB54 policies, and respect and enforce holds.....San Bernardino, Riverside, and parts of Orange County still do, at least in serious cases and higher felony holds.

The bill, this law, basically gives aid and comfort to people who are here illegally and committing crimes beyond being here illegally and failing to protect citizens.

There are countless examples of this. Examples where an illegal immigrant might have a hold for a serious felony, even murder, in their native country, and a ERO/ICE hold, and arrested in a city like LA for a local crime, and even after running a check on this person, and finding the hold.... because of the policies allowed by AB54, the person will be released back into the public.

This is just fact, and you can try to twist and spin it all you like, it won't change the facts.

[canpakes]

Cakes: This isn’t helping your claim. This is only stating that the State agencies will no longer invite the Federal Government to do a federal agency’s job. Immigration enforcement is Federal jurisdiction. Nothing in this provision keeps ICE from talking to someone apprehended by the State. The State just isn’t going to do the status verification work for ICE. And the State isn’t ‘letting anyone go’ if valid State charges exist or are applied.

We already know that ICE is approaching folks with protected status walking out of their scheduled immigration hearings and immediately detaining them for ‘being illegal’. The exact same thing can happen under this law above, to anyone ‘walking out of State and local facilities every day’. You know that this is happening now, and can happen regardless of what SB 54 proclaims.

This is what I wrote...word for word.

Markk: Lol....then why is it called a sanctuary city, and why are laws passed to let illegal immigrants walk free from their breaking federal immigrations laws?

As an example, it is a felony if a person is deported, and then comes back illegally.....but sanctuary cites do not and will not contact ICE for federal charges....why, because they offer sanctuary.

AB54 allows local law enforcement, at their discretion, to work with and help federal agencies. In my example, they no longer (rarely) in LA and other sanctuary cities allow their agencies or officers to enforce holds on illegal alien criminals, letting them walk free. It happens everyday because of AB54 in these cites.

There are cities and/or counties that still enforce the pre AB54 policies, and respect and enforce holds.....San Bernardino, Riverside, and parts of Orange County still do, at least in serious cases and higher felony holds.

The bill, this law, basically gives aid and comfort to people who are here illegally and committing crimes beyond being here illegally and failing to protect citizens.

Aid and comfort?

Can you show the parts of the bill that mandate and define aid and comfort aside from holding them in a cell? Does this aid and comfort include, say, a large pizza and a full body massage?

There are countless examples of this. Examples where an illegal immigrant might have a hold for a serious felony, even murder, in their native country, and a ERO/ICE hold, and arrested in a city like LA for a local crime, and even after running a check on this person, and finding the hold.... because of the policies allowed by AB54, the person will be released back into the public.

The bill says that the state need not enforce something that falls under federal jurisdiction. That doesn’t stop ICE from taking that person into their own custody, once released by the State, for whatever reason.

As noted upstream, ICE routinely detains folks walking out of immigration hearings. They can do the same to anyone walking out of a courthouse for any reason, or any crime they believe that the person is guilty of committing. You can’t tell me that this doesn’t happen, because we have news reports and videos of it, sometimes from ICE itself.

This is just fact, and you can try to twist and spin it all you like, it won't change the facts.

‘Twist’, in this case, seems to mean ‘understanding plain English’.

If you can tell me what I’ve said above that’s not true, then do so.

[Markk]

Cakes: Aid and comfort?

Can you show the parts of the bill that mandate and define aid and comfort aside from holding them in a cell? Does this aid and comfort include, say, a large pizza and a full body massage?

Can you show me were I said that the bill mandates and define that, and said it basically allows it. It allows by discretion as to whether or not people wanted for federal crimes, will be notified, and hold these folks so the feds can pick them up to for the charges.

When a local law enforcement agency knows they have a federal hold on a suspected or even proven criminal, and they chose to release that person back into society....I believe that they are aiding and comforting that person in that context. I will accept you do not. I understand you are perfectly okay with this.

The bill says that the state need not enforce something that falls under federal jurisdiction. That doesn’t stop ICE from taking that person into their own custody, once released by the State, for whatever reason.

Sure it does if the agency does not inform them they were arrested or when they are to be released. You are proving my point here by saying "once released by the State [or local] for what ever reason."

As noted upstream, ICE routinely detains folks walking out of immigration hearings. They can do the same to anyone walking out of a courthouse for any reason, or any crime they believe that the person is guilty of committing. You can’t tell me that this doesn’t happen, because we have news reports and videos of it, sometimes from ICE itself.

Lol, do you think ICE interviews and checks out everybody walking out of a local, county, or state court or facility? There is a system , where when a persons record is ran, that all agencies can know who this person is and what kind of criminal record they might have, so these persons can be detained and face these charges elsewhere so they don't hurt people. Why do you have a issue with that in beyond me, but as I wrote I accept that is your position.

CFR that ICE can detain anyone walking out of a courthouse? I always thought they had to have a valid reason or probable cause. Any ways CFR that ICE can detain anyone.

‘Twist’, in this case, seems to mean ‘understanding plain English’.

If you can tell me what I’ve said above that’s not true, then do so.

1. ICE can't detain anyone walking out of a court house.
2. I concede it true that you are okay with local and state agencies letting suspected criminal go that are wanted by federal agencies, knowing such, so that these federal agencies can hopefully get lucky and bump into them as the leave a jail or courthouse.

[Some Schmo]

If this board has reinforced any lesson over the years, canpakes, it's that even the best writing in the world can't cure stupid.

[canpakes]

Cakes: Aid and comfort?

Can you show the parts of the bill that mandate and define aid and comfort aside from holding them in a cell? Does this aid and comfort include, say, a large pizza and a full body massage?

Can you show me were I said that the bill mandates and define that, and said it basically allows it.

You said:

The bill, this law, basically gives aid and comfort to people who are here illegally and committing crimes beyond being here illegally and failing to protect citizens.

‘Basically allows’, as you’re now asserting, is not the same as your first claim of ‘basically gives’. Your backpedaling is denied. Minus 10 points for you. : )

As noted earlier, this is basic English language usage. Don’t assert something and then deny it 10 minutes later and pretend that your misuse of the language is someone else’s fault.

The bill says that the state need not enforce something that falls under federal jurisdiction. That doesn’t stop ICE from taking that person into their own custody, once released by the State, for whatever reason.

Sure it does if the agency does not inform them they were arrested or when they are to be released. You are proving my point here by saying "once released by the State [or local] for what ever reason."

Nope. Subtract another 10 points. Nothing in the bill prevents ICE from doing the work that it always does and can do whenever it wants.

Additionally, being released implies that the State is not charging someone for violating a State law, or has charged them but released them on their own recognizance. This doesn’t clear any Federal violations. You seem to be trying to imply that it does, when you know as well as I do that it does not.

If ICE can be waiting for someone outside of a court hearing that allowed an immigrant to stay, but then seize and deport them anyway, then they can be waiting outside of a jail to seize and deport someone released by that facility.

As noted upstream, ICE routinely detains folks walking out of immigration hearings. They can do the same to anyone walking out of a courthouse for any reason, or any crime they believe that the person is guilty of committing. You can’t tell me that this doesn’t happen, because we have news reports and videos of it, sometimes from ICE itself.

Lol, do you think ICE interviews and checks out everybody walking out of a local, county, or state court or facility? There is a system , where when a persons record is ran, that all agencies can know who this person is and what kind of criminal record they might have, so these persons can be detained and face these charges elsewhere so they don't hurt people. Why do you have an issue with that in beyond me, but as I wrote I accept that is your position.

Weird. They seem to be able to do it with random folks attending court hearings. What’s the problem with Kristi and Donald’s revamped MAGA version of ICE? Why can’t they do their jobs?

[Markk]

Can you show me were I said that the bill mandates and define that, and said it basically allows it.

You said:

The bill, this law, basically gives aid and comfort to people who are here illegally and committing crimes beyond being here illegally and failing to protect citizens.

‘Basically gives’ is not the same as ‘basically allows’. Your backpedaling is denied. Minus 10 points for you. : )

As noted earlier, this is basic English language usage. Don’t assert something and then deny it 10 minutes later and pretend that your misuse of the language is someone else’s fault.

Sure it does if the agency does not inform them they were arrested or when they are to be released. You are proving my point here by saying "once released by the State [or local] for what ever reason."

Nope. Subtract another 10 points. Nothing in the bill prevents ICE from doing the work that it always does and can do whenever it wants.

If ICE can be waiting for someone outside of a court hearing that allowed an immigrant to stay, but then seize and deport them anyway, then they can be waiting outside of a jail to seize and deport someone released by that facility.

Lol, do you think ICE interviews and checks out everybody walking out of a local, county, or state court or facility? There is a system , where when a persons record is ran, that all agencies can know who this person is and what kind of criminal record they might have, so these persons can be detained and face these charges elsewhere so they don't hurt people. Why do you have an issue with that in beyond me, but as I wrote I accept that is your position.

Weird. They seem to be able to do it with random folks attending court hearings. What’s the problem with Kristi and Donald’s revamped MAGA version of ICE? Why can’t they do their jobs?

Nonsense. The bill allows desecration to local and state authorities to help illegal alien criminals and accused criminals to walk free. Making up these lame excuses and attempted rabbit trails won't change that. It restricts cooperation, and allows criminals to walk free who otherwise would and should be in custody for their crimes and alleged crimes. I concede you believe this is okay, I do not, I believe that all law enforcement should work together to keep criminals off the streets and behind bars, and again you do not.

Back to the topic, in context, this is a law that when enforced, helps cities in their efforts to become sanctuary cities, which was in regard to Gunnar's question that you jumped in on.

[canpakes]

You said:


‘Basically gives’ is not the same as ‘basically allows’. Your backpedaling is denied. Minus 10 points for you. : )

As noted earlier, this is basic English language usage. Don’t assert something and then deny it 10 minutes later and pretend that your misuse of the language is someone else’s fault.


Nope. Subtract another 10 points. Nothing in the bill prevents ICE from doing the work that it always does and can do whenever it wants.

If ICE can be waiting for someone outside of a court hearing that allowed an immigrant to stay, but then seize and deport them anyway, then they can be waiting outside of a jail to seize and deport someone released by that facility.


Weird. They seem to be able to do it with random folks attending court hearings. What’s the problem with Kristi and Donald’s revamped MAGA version of ICE? Why can’t they do their jobs?

Nonsense. The bill allows desecration to local and state authorities to help illegal alien criminals and accused criminals to walk free. Making up these lame excuses and attempted rabbit trails won't change that. It restricts cooperation, and allows criminals to walk free who otherwise would and should be in custody for their crimes and alleged crimes. I concede you believe this is okay, I do not, I believe that all law enforcement should work together to keep criminals off the streets and behind bars, and again you do not.

Back to the topic, in context, this is a law that when enforced, helps cites in their efforts to become sanctuary cities, which was in regard to Gunnar's question that you jumped in on.

If the State sees no need to charge someone for something, they will release that person.

If the State charges someone but determines that they can be released on their own recognizance, they will release that person.

The State is under no requirement to verify citizenship, given that this is Federal jurisdiction.

Nothing about this bill removes State charges for any reason, nor removes Federal charges or claims against the individual, nor prevents the Federal government from exercising their duties.

You can take issue with the law on ideological grounds, but as I asked previously: if anything above is incorrect, please show which item and how it is not correct. Merely stamping your feet, making erroneous claims and then building straw men about what others ‘must be thinking’ - simply because they don’t agree with your misuse of the English language - isn’t cutting it.