American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

One of the capitol stormers is claiming she met with the secret service before the attempted coup

I have my doubts about this one. Given the way Trump treated the USSS, I really don't expect any of them to have anything but disdain for the man. Can't see any of them helping Trump stay in power illegally.

[San Lumen]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/family-11-yea ... d=76030082

Texas power providers Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and Entergy Corporation have been hit with a $100 million lawsuit accusing them of gross negligence in the death of a child whose family suspects he suffered hypothermia when they lost electricity and heat in their mobile home during a historic cold snap.

The mother of 11-year-old Cristian Pineda filed the wrongful death lawsuit in Jefferson County District Court, alleging the utility giants "put profits over the welfare of people" by ignoring previous recommendations to winterize its power grid,

[Gravlen]

One of the capitol stormers is claiming she met with the secret service before the attempted coup

I have my doubts about this one. Given the way Trump treated the USSS, I really don't expect any of them to have anything but disdain for the man. Can't see any of them helping Trump stay in power illegally.

Remember the stories coming out after the election about how they needed to rotate certain Secret Service agents away from Biden's detail because they were concerned about his safety?

I'm not saying the story above is true, but your expectation is likely not hitting the target either.

Although staffing changes are typical, several incidents reportedly contributed to the heightened concerns from Biden’s allies that some agents and officers might be loyal to Trump.

Some members of the president’s detail reportedly urged their colleagues not to wear masks during trips, for example – despite the federal government’s official guidance on Covid-19 – as Trump himself disparaged mask-wearing and held out for months before being seen wearing one in public.

In what was described as an “unprecedented” move, the Secret Service had permitted former detail leader Anthony Ornato to temporarily leave his role and serve as White House deputy chief of staff.

Ornato was among the coordinators of the June photo op for which Trump marched through Washington DC’s Lafayette Square to stand with a Bible – after peaceful protesters were forced from the area by troops on federal order, sparking uproar in political circles as well as among the public.

Joe Biden to have new Secret Service team amid concern about Trump loyalty

[Neutraligon]

Think Assad regime will ever be held responsible for their crimes against humanity?

[Punished UMN]

Think Assad regime will ever be held responsible for their crimes against humanity?

No and there's little legal basis for them in-particular to be.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

So he broke a promise he shouldn't have made. Giving illegal entries a break from background checks that any legal immigrant would have to pass, is taking a big shit on legal immigrants.

No, his promise didn't go nearly far enough. No immigrant should be "illegal", and is someone who went through the state-pproved way is bothered by it that's their problem.

If you want much more immigration then fine. You do that by shortening the processing delay, and if you like, lowering the bar of self-sufficiency and of former criminal record.

Again, that doesn't go far enough. Fully open borders might not sit well with some capitalists, but the status quo is unsustainable and immoral.

You do not do it by lowering the bar for those who illegally immigrate. If you do, you'll ultimately make it harder for new immigrants, legal or not, by making Trump's claim that illegal immigrants are more criminal than American-born citizens ... come true. All new immigrants will be demonized, unless they show their papers to whatever thug on the street demands them. And they'll get particular attention from cops, who frankly can't help profiling suspects because it's what anyone without specific training does. If cops think illegal immigrants commit more crime, they will put extra effort into searching them or questioning them.

You'd be amazed what social programs can do. Besides, cops need to go anyways. That institution's already rotten to the core; it only exists to protect the status quo and serve the interests of the elite.

I'd thin the numbers in detention by offering every one of them deportation (by air if anywhere but Canada or Mexico) and no further investigation. Then case-by-case around a standard of felonies deserving more than 18 months in jail (btw, Australia does not use the felony/misdemeanor system, a "serious" crime is one with more than a certain sentence on the books) and diminished according to how long ago those were and/or contribution to some community. Then with the ones who are left, well you can't hold them indefinitely without trial because it's in violation of human rights treaties and the US constitution. You could maybe swap "prisoners" with peer countries far away: it would thin them out further since the offer of deportation to their home country would be more attractive than somewhere far distant where they have no family or friends. But you'll still be left with a few, including the worst criminals. If the country they committed crimes in doesn't want them, then tough, they don't even get notification that the former criminal is back on their streets. If they do accept their problem back, give their police all information gathered while in custody, and turn them over without their consent. If the country they're fleeing has terrible human rights, then their criminal record is suspect anyway, and they should be retried in the US.

It probably irks you to hear all this from an Australian. Yes, we are rightly infamous for intercepting boats, arresting everyone, and holding the refugees in offshore detention (ie, where our prisoners cannot appeal to Australian courts). We even have an over-the-horizon radar system which could have tracked the final hours of MH370 but was too busy looking out for fishing boats with refugees on board.

However some of us have put thought into how to solve the refugee "problem" and one particular solution may never have occurred to Americans. It's the immigrant swap: immigrants who are second rate (or assumed so by wilful lack of ID) are given an alternative destination in the developed world, and if they won't take that then bugger them: beggars can't be choosers. Bear in mind that most refugees are still living in UN-supervised camps, where conditions can be so bad that some prefer to return to their old country. All the developed nations should be taking their share of these legal refugees, ahead of those with enough money or initiative to cross borders illegally.

The solutions Australia has found to "border crossers" are varied. Firstly attacking the people-smuggling business which charges risk money to transport refugees (ie no destitute refugees), mostly legally but the refugees don't know that, and where the main costs are bribes to coast guards and the Indonesian military, but all scaled up to account for the illegal crossing from East Timor to Australia. The smugglers used nearly worn-out longboats, which are plentiful in Indonesia, and sea crew who are just as cheap and plentiful. The poverty and desperation of these crews did not allow for effective prosecution, so the Australian Coast Guard towed the refugee boats back into international waters. For a while they towed them right into Indonesian waters, but Indonesia objected to refugees they had turned a blind eye to entering, passing through, and leaving their shores before (Indonesia is loathe to admit their beloved military isn't satisfied with bleeding government dry but regularly sets up roadblocks or conducts bogus raids to shake down the people too: they would be a moderately wealthy country today, on a par with Malaysia, but for the massive parasite which is their military, note that I am NOT considering Indonesia a "peer country" for refugee exchange). Cutting that sea link, with overwhelming force and the show of force which was giving refugees fibreglass life boats worth more on the international market than the smuggler boats which were sometimes deliberately sunk, broke the business of the smugglers. Even the poorest refugee could see on someone else's satellite TV that being smuggled as far as Indonesia and then turned back, was not a good way to spend their money. Indonesia is a beautiful and mostly peaceful place btw, but life is hard for most people and nobody from another country would consider trying to be an illegal immigrant there. Learning to fish would probably be your best chance to stay fed, and that's not saying much in an archipelago nation with enormous coastline and all of it nearly fished out.

(Secondly) Indonesia is our closest (major) neighbour. They're rather poor, but with a huge standing army (as mentioned, parasites), a quarter billion population (4th in the world), and most of their population is Muslim. Yet they're really good neighbours: they ask nothing more than to be treated as equals, and their population are not at all eager to migrate to a "better life" in Australia. I believe President Bambang did a deal with PM Rudd where Indonesia got something recurring (of money value) in exchange for stopping people smugglers in Indonesian waters and on land. We will never know what didn't happen, but it seems to me that getting refugees as far as the south coast or islands of Indonesia, would be worth money to the refugees. They could easily contract boat owners to transport them, and a new class of "shore admirals" could co-ordinate the boat launches so the limited number of very-capable Australian Coast Guard vessels couldn't possibly intercept them all ... let alone tow them out of Australian waters. Maybe it was PM Abbott who struck a deal to break the chain at a second place, it hardly matters. Both major parties are fully complicit in the Stop The Boats strategy. Very likely they wanted to terminate the example it was setting to Indonesians who have millions of boats ("sea-worthy" to the standard of any maritime refugee), in case something more terrible than a tsunami or a volcano happens to their nation. Or even without that, the high population and fantastic density of Indonesia is a redoubtable push factor for emigration if it ever gets started.

OK, thirdly, is the option of "refugee exchanges". New Zealand offered to take a hundred or so of Australia's offshore detainees. The offer was dismissed (rather rudely) but the Australian government was basically correct. There are almost no circumstances under which a New Zealand citizen will be denied a travel or work visa in Australia, or vice versa. I remember a New Zealand citizen being deported for building a dungeon on his out-of-town property in Australia. It's not intolerant, really: he'd been admitted despite a serious criminal record for child sexual abuse and we're OK with that. Until the former child sex offender builds a dungeon ... anyway, letting NZ take our prisoners and eventually granting them citizenship would have just kicked the can down the road, and they'd have got what they wanted (unlimited legal residency in Australia).

I sold my party (Australian Labor Party) short before. They did briefly have control (with one Green) of the House, and passed a bill to allow offshore detainees to be flown to territorial Australia when they needed medical treatment. The Coalition opposed this, despite the lack of any hospital facilities on Nauru etc, because they feared doctors would declare the refugee in need of ongoing high level care ... and they would somehow gain the rights of a resident of Australia to legal representation and to be heard in a court.

This is basically what immigrant detention in the US is about. It is why the US is still holding foreign prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay base. The US constitution guarantees certain rights to anyone within its jurisdiction. Guantanamo is not US jurisdiction, it's military jurisdiction. You should be equally worried about that, as Federal excisions within the territorial US.

I do think it's remarkable that the US feels as threatened by Mexico as Australia feels threatened by Indonesia. It says something about all our abilities to discern immediate threats and blow them out of proportion ... like we have nothing better to do than practice fighting skills on the nearest punching bag.

Again, none of this goes far enough.

First of all, the fundamentals behind your ideas revolve around making changes to the status quo, whereas I would like to uproot the whole system. A driving factor behind illegal immigration is desperation, which leads a portion of people to take dangerous risks (though a significant amount of it also comes through legal ports of entry). Much of this is driven by a desire for a better life, due to lack of opportunity and/or fear of instability in the place that the immigrant came from. The answer is not to pursue them and turn them away, but to help them.

Second, crime. Fear of crimes committed by immigrants of other races can be traced back to a few things.
A) fearmongering
B) inequality
C) disproportionate policing of immigrant communities
D) judiciary bias
E) nationalism
F) When people are told they will turn out a certain way, it's more likely that they will.
Many of the arguments by racists in general can be traced back to these factors as well. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are disadvantaged by the color of their skin. The perpetuation of the status quo is the driving factor behind the very problems people thinks it helps solve. Change may be costly, but it's absolutely obtainable and the world would be a better place for it.

I disagree with completely open borders, because I see them as incompatible with the social equality, low wealth-gap heavily-regulated-Capitalism strong State. Without that State there is zero chance of preventing the re-emergence of highly disparate wages, poverty, and crime motivated by poverty.

Well I'm pretty dubious that a society of social equality based on equal respect for all kinds of work, even reinforced by nearly equal incomes, would be entirely free of crime. Disrespect of others, denied a motive to rob or steal, might channel into an increase of crimes against the person: assault, sexual assault, kidnap, slavery, murder. Granting for the sake of argument that all those crimes could be prevented by more social services and mental health care, at least admit it wouldn't be cheap.

Why you would make such a society EVEN HARDER to achieve by bearing the burden of whoever wants to cross the border, in some cases spending years of government effort making them a good socialist citizen, is quite baffling to me. The only limit to aspirational immigration would be the economy and the tax base failing so badly it can't help them (or anyone else).

Open borders between similar countries (eg Western European ones) is not so ridiculous, but note that even that only came after decades of the countries aligning their taxes etc for economic union. An open border between the US and Canada wouldn't be too bad, for the US at least. But Mexico has land borders with ... basically ... all of South America. As if that's not bad enough, true open borders means people flying in from any country on Earth, and walking out of the terminal without even having to show ID.

Open borders is a fundamental of Internationalism, and encapsulates the impracticality of that philosophy as long as nations still differ widely in carrying capacity, population and wealth. Before open borders generally are practical, decades of continued conventional economic development are necessary, and in the meantime developed nations are supposed to go into stasis instead of progressing any further. The US is a huge country, in every way, but it cannot bear the burden of fixing all of South America's problems (let alone the world's) while also fixing its own.

[Rusozak]

Think Assad regime will ever be held responsible for their crimes against humanity?

If a revolution succeeds in toppling the regime there might be some Gaddafi-style mob justice but I don't think there's ever going to be any kind of trial if that's what you mean.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Think Assad regime will ever be held responsible for their crimes against humanity?

No cause Russia backs them.

[San Lumen]

Think Assad regime will ever be held responsible for their crimes against humanity?

No as the regime isn't going to fall.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Think Assad regime will ever be held responsible for their crimes against humanity?

It's none of the US's business any more. The time to intervene decisively, if the US was going to, began during Obama and ended during Trump. US disengagement in the Middle East and the Levant (except I guess Yemen, poor Yemen) is the one good legacy of Trump, and it should be honored right up to the point a non-state actor obtains real WMD. A near unanimous decision of Congress drew the line there, nearly 20 years ago, and events since show no good reason to make the standard any more permissive of US military adventures. Less if anything: state actors with a capital you can bomb, I think can be trusted with WMD "for self defense" but the non-state actors cannot.

And let's not hear any proposals to kidnap Assad and turn him over to the ICC. The US does not recognize international law and it would be gross hypocrisy to now pretend that it does.

[The Marlborough]

Also why is there so much focus on holding Assad accountable but not the other factions in the Syrian Civil War? The Syrian opposition has done just as many horrific things, if not worse. Even the Kurds aren't clean, they've committed their own atrocities and have their own dark secrets (it's kind of an open secret that a lot of Kurdish commanders make sure only the ugly women are sent to fight, keeping the babes behind for themselves).

[Gravlen]

The poverty and desperation of these crews did not allow for effective prosecution, so the Australian Coast Guard towed the refugee boats back into international waters.

Breaking Australian and international law in the process.

The cowards should have just withdrawn from the Refugee Convention if they were going to not honor the obligations they signed up for.

For a while they towed them right into Indonesian waters, but Indonesia objected to refugees they had turned a blind eye to entering, passing through, and leaving their shores before.

Also, since they're not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

Even the poorest refugee could see on someone else's satellite TV that being smuggled as far as Indonesia and then turned back, was not a good way to spend their money.

Not an effective deterrent for someone fleeing genocide, for example.

Indonesia is a beautiful and mostly peaceful place btw, but life is hard for most people and nobody from another country would consider trying to be an illegal immigrant there.

Also, they wouldn't have any legal protection there since, you know, Indonesia isn't a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Australia claims it will protect refugees, so it's natural that refugees try to get there.

I sold my party (Australian Labor Party) short before. They did briefly have control (with one Green) of the House, and passed a bill to allow offshore detainees to be flown to territorial Australia when they needed medical treatment. The Coalition opposed this, despite the lack of any hospital facilities on Nauru etc, because they feared doctors would declare the refugee in need of ongoing high level care ... and they would somehow gain the rights of a resident of Australia to legal representation and to be heard in a court.

It's quite telling, isn't it, that they fear refugees would get their day in court.

This is basically what immigrant detention in the US is about. It is why the US is still holding foreign prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay base. The US constitution guarantees certain rights to anyone within its jurisdiction. Guantanamo is not US jurisdiction, it's military jurisdiction. You should be equally worried about that, as Federal excisions within the territorial US.

Well, SCOTUS has decided that it is US jurisdiction, hence when the US constitution guarantees rights to the detainees held there.

[...] we take notice of the obvious and uncontested fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control over the base, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory.

Boumediene v. Bush

[Washington Resistance Army]

The opposition is arguably much worse than Assad tbqh. We like to tell ourselves it was only good people fighting for freedom and equality but then we leave out the part where the people massacring ethnic and religious minorities are the very same people opposing Assad, whose family has a history of protecting the minority in Syria.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Think Assad regime will ever be held responsible for their crimes against humanity?

No cause Russia backs them.

Back when Obama had the helm, Russian forces kept their distance from Assad's forces, easily well enough that US weapons could target one without hitting the other. Russian AA systems can be set to auto (with at least 1 disastrous effect for civilian aircraft) which would give both sides a diplomatic way out if Russian gear did shoot down a US plane. Shooting down drones or missiles would barely be an issue.

It was possible to fatally damage Assad's forces without sparking war with Russia. Now it probably isn't. The US has diplomatically handed Syria to the Russian sphere, and Putin would not take kindly to a new US President changing his mind about it.

And anyway, the defeat of Assad with Russian forces heavily invested would likely lead to a puppet government led by whoever survives from Assad's line of succession. That would be worse.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

The poverty and desperation of these crews did not allow for effective prosecution, so the Australian Coast Guard towed the refugee boats back into international waters.

Breaking Australian and international law in the process.

The cowards should have just withdrawn from the Refugee Convention if they were going to not honor the obligations they signed up for.

For a while they towed them right into Indonesian waters, but Indonesia objected to refugees they had turned a blind eye to entering, passing through, and leaving their shores before.

Also, since they're not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

Even the poorest refugee could see on someone else's satellite TV that being smuggled as far as Indonesia and then turned back, was not a good way to spend their money.

Not an effective deterrent for someone fleeing genocide, for example.

For example, from Myanmar. Why would they spend thousands of dollars each, to be transported to Indonesia, when they can literally walk to Thailand?

My point is that paying the price to get to Australia (including a disposable boat which have been impounded and usually destroyed since before the tow-back policy) but only getting as far as Indonesia, is a really bad deal which refugees stopped taking within months.

Indonesia is a beautiful and mostly peaceful place btw, but life is hard for most people and nobody from another country would consider trying to be an illegal immigrant there.

Also, they wouldn't have any legal protection there since, you know, Indonesia isn't a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Australia claims it will protect refugees, so it's natural that refugees try to get there.

And some islands that are technically Australian were way too easy to get to, so the government excised them from the "immigration zone" so refugees couldn't claim asylum, and went straight to detention instead.

I'm not proud of any of this. I have to admit that it worked though.

I sold my party (Australian Labor Party) short before. They did briefly have control (with one Green) of the House, and passed a bill to allow offshore detainees to be flown to territorial Australia when they needed medical treatment. The Coalition opposed this, despite the lack of any hospital facilities on Nauru etc, because they feared doctors would declare the refugee in need of ongoing high level care ... and they would somehow gain the rights of a resident of Australia to legal representation and to be heard in a court.

It's quite telling, isn't it, that they fear refugees would get their day in court.

Yes. It would probably just take one straightforward case (no medical factors for instance) for the High Court to order all the offshore detainees be detained onshore instead.

There have been medical-need cases I think, but they don't generalize well. "Mr Ahmed, I think there's a chance here. If we can prove that you need dialysis to save your life ... mr. Ahmed? Are you OK?"

Bad joke. Prisoners have died of treatable conditions, and suicide, in offshore detention.

This is basically what immigrant detention in the US is about. It is why the US is still holding foreign prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay base. The US constitution guarantees certain rights to anyone within its jurisdiction. Guantanamo is not US jurisdiction, it's military jurisdiction. You should be equally worried about that, as Federal excisions within the territorial US.

Well, SCOTUS has decided that it is US jurisdiction, hence when the US constitution guarantees rights to the detainees held there.

Then why hasn't the Federal government been prosecuted, I wonder. The prisoners don't have standing perhaps?

[...] we take notice of the obvious and uncontested fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control over the base, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory.

Boumediene v. Bush

I think 5 other Algerians were released following that decision. Maybe tainted evidence?

[Odreria]

Also why is there so much focus on holding Assad accountable but not the other factions in the Syrian Civil War? The Syrian opposition has done just as many horrific things, if not worse. Even the Kurds aren't clean, they've committed their own atrocities and have their own dark secrets (it's kind of an open secret that a lot of Kurdish commanders make sure only the ugly women are sent to fight, keeping the babes behind for themselves).

The YPG has committed maybe the fewest war crimes of any faction in a civil war ever.

[Kowani]

The UN has reached a temporary agreement with Iran on nuclear inspections

[Gravlen]

Breaking Australian and international law in the process.

The cowards should have just withdrawn from the Refugee Convention if they were going to not honor the obligations they signed up for.


Also, since they're not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.


Not an effective deterrent for someone fleeing genocide, for example.

For example, from Myanmar. Why would they spend thousands of dollars each, to be transported to Indonesia, when they can literally walk to Thailand?

Because they have better rights and better protection in a country which abides by the Refugee Convention - which Thailand doesn't. Also, potentially familial or other connections, familiarity with language / culture, higher level of trust in government and confidence they'll be treated fairly.

My point is that paying the price to get to Australia (including a disposable boat which have been impounded and usually destroyed since before the tow-back policy) but only getting as far as Indonesia, is a really bad deal which refugees stopped taking within months.

And it's likely that thousands have died because of it.

And some islands that are technically Australian were way too easy to get to, so the government excised them from the "immigration zone" so refugees couldn't claim asylum, and went straight to detention instead.

I'm not proud of any of this. I have to admit that it worked though.

Sure, in the same way robbing a bank works, if the goal is to get money.

Again, cowardly countries such as Australia should pull out of the Convention rather than violate it, and not delude themselves by pretending to be a country which respects the rule of law.

It's quite telling, isn't it, that they fear refugees would get their day in court.

Yes. It would probably just take one straightforward case (no medical factors for instance) for the High Court to order all the offshore detainees be detained onshore instead.

There have been medical-need cases I think, but they don't generalize well. "Mr Ahmed, I think there's a chance here. If we can prove that you need dialysis to save your life ... mr. Ahmed? Are you OK?"

Bad joke. Prisoners have died of treatable conditions, and suicide, in offshore detention.

It is unacceptable.

Well, SCOTUS has decided that it is US jurisdiction, hence when the US constitution guarantees rights to the detainees held there.

Then why hasn't the Federal government been prosecuted, I wonder. The prisoners don't have standing perhaps?

The Federal government cannot be prosecuted. You cannot throw the Federal Government in jail.

[...] we take notice of the obvious and uncontested fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control over the base, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory.

Boumediene v. Bush

I think 5 other Algerians were released following that decision. Maybe tainted evidence?

The whole thing was a shitshow from the beginning. They weren't even collecting evidence to begin with, because nobody thought it through beyond the good idea of getting suspects off the battlefield.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Also why is there so much focus on holding Assad accountable but not the other factions in the Syrian Civil War? The Syrian opposition has done just as many horrific things, if not worse. Even the Kurds aren't clean, they've committed their own atrocities and have their own dark secrets (it's kind of an open secret that a lot of Kurdish commanders make sure only the ugly women are sent to fight, keeping the babes behind for themselves).

Meg Griffin: Field commander Kerzawa I would so like to get to know you better. Maybe we could have a candlelight dinner, just the two of us?

Kerzawa: Eeeeeh nah, why don't you go be a hero with the other foreign fighters? I'm uh, busy.

Meg Griffin: But you have alot of free time. I saw you with some girls last night.

Kerzawa: oh, uh no, we were drafting battleplans. That's what I will be doing tonight.

Meg Griffin: Oh well let me join you.

Kerzawa: N-no.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

This is basically what immigrant detention in the US is about. It is why the US is still holding foreign prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay base. The US constitution guarantees certain rights to anyone within its jurisdiction. Guantanamo is not US jurisdiction, it's military jurisdiction. You should be equally worried about that, as Federal excisions within the territorial US.
Well, SCOTUS has decided that it is US jurisdiction, hence when the US constitution guarantees rights to the detainees held there.

Then why hasn't the Federal government been prosecuted, I wonder. The prisoners don't have standing perhaps?

The principle of sovereign immunity is such that the US government can only be sued if it consents to be sued.

[The Marlborough]

A lot of America's problems would be solved if it had its own Vlad Dracula.

[Diarcesia]

A lot of America's problems would be solved if it had its own Vlad Dracula.

Vladislav, baby don't hurt me.

[New haven america]

The family of Malcolm X have released a letter from a deceased police officer implicating the NYPD and FBI in his assassination.

[Former undercover officer] Raymond Wood’s letter stated that he had been pressured by his NYPD supervisors to lure two members of Malcolm X’s security detail into committing crimes that resulted in their arrest just days before the fatal shooting. Those arrests kept the two men from managing door security at the ballroom and was part of conspiracy between the NYPD and FBI to have Malcolm killed, according to the letter.

---

When you become a citizen you get a different set of rules.

I'm aware that this is generally the case, but again, it doesn't really make sense.

Does the UK allow known criminals or people trying to become citizens to stay if they commit crimes? I am guessing no as its a little harder to simply cross the border.

Who cares? This is the American politics thread. And I'm not British.

Oh wow, when did you become one to avoid questions?

[The Marlborough]

Since citizens getting different rules is supposedly strange, hypothetically that means there shouldn't really be an issue with having Her Majesty the Queen being the head of state of Ireland.

[New haven america]

1. Uh, a non-naturalized immigrant committing a felony in any developed country is a great way to earn a deportation. This isn't solely an American thing; Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, The EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, The UK, etc... all do it. This is standard procedure, Cordel. (If you don't believe me you're welcome to immigrate to those areas and commit a felony. See where that gets you)

1. That doesn't mean there aren't better ways to go about it.

2. No actually, he wasn't. Illegal immigration deportation has been falling since Clinton. (Clinton had lower rates than HW, Dubya had lower rates than Clinton, Obama had lower rates than Dubya, etc...)

2. And yey he still had extremely aggressive immigration policies.

3. Oh, ok. So did you actually comprehend what you read?

3. I did.

1. Then get elected into Congress and work with lobby groups and fellow Congress-People to change US immigration policy (And have that legislature pass both The House and Senate), then become part of the UN council and try to get the developed nations (Which since the 1900's have had historically draconian immigration laws) to ease up on their legal process towards felony committing non-naturalized immigrants. (This includes trying to sway countries like Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The UK, Denmark, Poland, and Hungary to accept this. You know, countries that are famous for not wanting immigrants and having an authoritarian bent on the subject)

I'll be waiting for your results.

2. All developed nations have draconian (And hard right wing) immigration policies. What's your point? (The US is actually one of the easier countries to get into...)
3. What you say and what you do are 2 entirely different things.