anti_dan
2d ago
There's nothing "classically liberal" about the notion that an institution is entitled to receive money from the taxpayer while not being accountable to said taxpayers' elected representatives. But that's the "classical liberal" brain-worm.
I 100% agree with this. There is no constitutional right for progressives to have their ideology subsidized by taxpayers, which is what has been happening to the tune of trillions of dollars over the last 3+ decades. This is one of those "sniff tests" so called centrists need to pass. If you can't comprehend that there is no free speech at modern universities, there hasn't been, and we need to force them 10 steps right before there will be a chance for free speech at universities, you just have missed the mark.
Another (right now) is if someone uses "woke right" unironically. If you are talking about the "woke right" you have fundamentally misunderstood the world. The actual woke was Google and Harvard discriminating against white men openly. They still are doing it, just a little less openly. The "woke right" is frogs on twitter, they have no hope of doing anything. If the right won for 20 years in the institutions then, perhaps, there would be reasonable reasons to worry about overreach by right wing extremists. As of now it is frankly laughable.
anti_dan
4d ago
I like this reply since it has a little edge to it, but I am left wondering, to what extent does empathizing with young men just translate to validating their crippling anxiety and fear over interacting with the opposite sex? Does that do them any good? To me a lot of the replies about fear of getting 'cancelled' just seem like an overblown and hyperbolic expression of that anxiety and fear. The real question should be why that anxiety and fear exist in the first place. And to what extent the responsibility to overcome it rests on young men rather than someone else.
While its been a while since I was in high school, I do recall quite vividly that the anxiety to asking out a girl was very strong even back then. Overcoming this and asking girls to prom/homecoming/etc has always been a thing many boys struggle with. What has changed isn't that situation, it is the girls. Frankly, the options out there seem middling. The stats are in. The girls are fat now. The ones that aren't are getting 10000 swipes on Tinder, yes even the high school girls. They lie to the app and purloin booze from some 21 year old "loser" instead of going to prom at all. Its not just the stats, I believe my lying eyes. I used to live next to a high school. The hotness recession is real. I had little to no lecherousness that needed suppressing.
By the way, the guys are fat and ugly too. They know this, thats additional points for their anxiety about being rejected being justified.
How to fix? Take PE seriously. Make BMI and 5k times into strict graduation requirements for women, and pullups and 400M times for men. And then stick to them. The law is a teacher after all. Currently it teaches bad things. We should have it teach good things.
anti_dan
6d ago
Isn't Baltimore also much more black than Maryland as a whole? Demographically they have many more traffic fatalities, so that might be the cause of all or most of your stat.
anti_dan
6d ago
I am pro car, and think the anti-car people are generally correct about the safety issue not being as big a deal. But I think they are utterly stupid about the convenience part. Most of my car rides to see friends/family are 20-60 minutes. With public transit, assuming 0 minutes wasted at transfers, those balloon to 60-200 minutes, often with a required taxi at at least one end of the trip. This is not merely about underfunding or city design, its about the fact that people don't live in segregated ethnic communities in America. As much as you might love it, your mom doesn't live 3 blocks away, and even if magically she did, your wife's mom almost certainly does not. Mass transit is exactly that, MASS. It can't operate niche routes such as "MaiqTheTrue's house to his sister's house", but you need to make that trip 10, 15, 20 times a year. And that is just one of many.
anti_dan
7d ago
That doesn't solve the problem. For transit to work the way the anti car people want, it has to replace, not supplement. You not only need to get to work on time, without being stabbed, you need to be able to get your groceries home AFTER you got your kids home from school and put them to bed. You need to be able to visit grandma at noon on a Saturday. In practice, this only works not only if transport is safe, reliable, and frequent, it also needs to be cheap and ubiquitous. It is never cheap now, and it isn't sufficiently automated to be ubiquitous. I mean, you could get around the last part by making laws so only people with kin in a neighborhood can move to that neighborhood, whence removing most people's need to go from place to place in cars, but that will not be very popular with anyone, even the anti car people.
anti_dan
9d ago
Is that what Amazon does with all of its government-imposed costs? Do the give you an OSHA tax number? An income tax number? Seems like a perfect example of a special pleading.
anti_dan
10d ago
Complaining about burdens is just asking for money, which is right in the Democrat wheelhouse. No deviation from party line really needed. If they demanded a tax cut or repeal of gun control because illegals...then we have something.
anti_dan
10d ago
In any case, I suspect the de facto equilibrium is 'when there's a democrat in the white house the borders are open, even to serial killers claiming asylum from bigfoot, but the Texas governor shuts it down and the border patrol just lets him, regardless of actual orders'.
Is that what happened under Biden? Because I don't remember anything close to that happening under Biden. I remember Texas getting sued a lot and ICE agents removing barriers put up by Texans.
anti_dan
10d ago
Better immigration laws are needed because the US system is fundamentally broken in ways that only Congress can fix. Executive orders can help (or hurt), but they're just bandaids on a bullethole. You can try mangling interpretations of laws created decades ago and hope the courts don't notice, but they have the annoying habit of saying "hey bro, you can't just ignore Congress" and striking things down. In the status quo, the best conservatives can hope for is Obama-era levels of immigration. At worst, they can expect open borders with next to no recourse. Changing the laws on the books could significantly help that.
I say "citation needed here." Even Trump isn't enforcing the laws on the books to their fullest extent. The idea we need more laws to fix the problem doesn't pass the smell test. If anytime a Democrat gets elected they stop enforcing the law, no law is going to fix that. As much as I think it would be brilliant design to make welfare contingent on border enforcement, that's never passing. And certainly nothing like that was in the 2024 law that fizzled out. There was nothing in that bill that could have prevented what Biden did in the first three years of his presidency, which was, essentially, tell ICE agents to do a different job. Because law enforcement and prosecution is the job of the executive. If he wants to dismiss cases against Ethyl Rosenberg because he loves commies, he can. The only recourse is impeachment + removal. And it simply will never happen for the border no matter how flagrant the violations because Democrats are not going to get onboard.
anti_dan
10d ago
Given that Trump single-handedly mitigated the vast majority of the border problem in about a month, we now have definitive proof that the entire border issue was a deliberate intentional undertaking by Joe Biden. So we're left with two possibilities:
Agreed. This is an utterly bizarre time to take a "victory lap" for that border bill. From my recollection, even before Trump got involved there were large elements in the Republican party agitating against it, including the prominent hawks like Cruz and Cotton. The fact that it was initially "bipartisan" was simply because there were/are some open borders Republicans still left, and also because the negotiation team thought they had a mandate that said "any deal is better than no deal" which was absurd.
The fact is, our immigration laws are STRICTER than even Trump's enforcement. He is particularly lax on things that could really rustle the ire of the business community. He's abstained from any raids on meat packing plants, construction sites, and similar venues. The idea we need new laws to satisfy border hawks is pretty much a myth. Unfortunately, because of how courts cannot compel the executive to execute the actual law, the only way Republicans could ensure a future Democratic administration actually enforces border laws is with some sort of draconian contingency law that gores a Democratic ox if border crossings exceed a number. It would have to be something like "all snap payments are suspended for 6 months if border crossings exceed XXXX IN ANY MONTH, and cannot resume unless 6 consecutive months of compliance are certified". ANNNND there would have to be a reliable way to do such certification that cant be gamed by Democrats, which seems unlikely.
anti_dan
10d ago
Adams defended John Hancock in court after the latter's smuggling business was caught out. The big deal in smuggling back then was just getting wine and tea without paying taxes on them, but that was enough that it helped fund and train colonists for and prompt the American Revolution.
So an arm of the revolutionary government and its precursors. State.
Jefferson fought the first of the Barbary Wars, against foes who were nominally Ottoman protectorates but really independent warlords funded by human trafficking, extortion, and piracy.
Yes. And we took basically zero POWs. We just sank pirates until their state sponsor agreed to some terms.
I'm not sure that works as a metaphor here, though. That "avoid becoming a legible government" trick in the modern case is a sneaky one. If we can't stop Tren de Aragua from operating here in the US under our noses, why be surprised or angry with Venezuela about the fact that they also can't stop it there? But if we can, then from our point of view the problem is solved here, no need to go nation-building to try to solve it elsewhere.
Yes its a problem of will here, not means. While its more of a question of means/will (aka intentional by Venezuela). I think there is a lot of intentional burying the head in the sand on this question. 3rd party groups is how modern war by inferior powers is conducted. People acting like Venezuela should be treated like a real nation state that is going to conduct proper military operations are delusional.
anti_dan
11d ago
She had a removal order and was removed. She requested her child accompany her. That was granted.
ICE was as nice as is realistically possible to he aside from not deporting her. The "mean" part is to the child who is 2 years old and doesn't even know what being a citizen is. Also said child can come back to the US when they want to. Obviously that will be in the distant future because she probably can't articulate anything on that level at the moment.
Regarding these immigration stories that keep coming out, I feel like we are at, "Just let the terrorists win" levels at this point. That is the argument coming out of the media.
I dont want the terrorists to win. How do you propose to do so?
anti_dan
11d ago
But presumably the Federal government can expedite that custody process
Please elaborate how you think the federal government can expedite state court judicial proceedings.
I have never seen this happen. I mean, I've only practiced law for 12 years so maybe I will see this in the future. But we live in a world of dual sovereignty, particularly with the courts.
anti_dan
11d ago
Frustration.
Of course. This is the intended effect of those who failed to enforce immigration law for long periods of time. Generating sob stories to prevent immigration enforcement from being effective has long been an implicit and obvious goal. Its also a problem, in this case, with the dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment we currently live under the rule of (which, I admit, despite its weakness, we will likely have for the foreseeable future).
anti_dan
11d ago
But Trend de Aragua are a criminal gang
That is the word we use to describe them now. But the question at hand is what are the words John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would have used to describe them in the early 1800s. To those people in that time "gang" would have strong implications that a matter is local of origin and scope. Thus, I think in our hypothetical using the word "gang" to describe TDA can only serve to mislead.
A "transnational criminal organization" which controls diverse economic activities including gold mining and sex trafficking, and engages in political assassination as well as more commonplace "murder and torture."
This just sounds like a rogue government. Or some rogue offshoot of a chartered international corporation like the Dutch East India corporation. Adams and Jefferson would PRESUME any org engaging in all that sort of commerce must be sponsored by some government, otherwise the other governments would crush them. Or they would ask you something like, "this Venezuela is a lawless land of pirates then?" We hang pirates, or sink them, of course. "
The question is whether their activities in the US are in coordination with the Venezuelan dictatorship, as asserted by the administration. Coordination or permission is how I understand the idea to be being presented.
anti_dan
12d ago
Yes, I am aware of the meme. You are using it wrong. The overly wordy "High IQ" answer in your depiction is exactly the sort of thing that is classically put as a midwit answer. Plus, journalists themselves are probably the most commonly depicted class of persons as exemplifying the midwit in both this specific meme and internet culture as a whole.
anti_dan
12d ago
Alternative, IMO more accurate frame:
Left: Thats a stupid question.
Mid: Why not answer the question.
Right: Obviously no one would respond to a hostile question.
The judge wanted the case off his call permanently. That is the most likely reason for this attitude.
*Edit
Here is how I imagine the thought process of a tougher on crime in my jurisdiction going:
- Damn it, another dumbass not coming to court.
- Oh counsel with another lame ass excuse is it? OOO WAIT a decent excuse this time. ICE CUSTODY! I havent had one for years!
- Crap. The state is right, this is actually the defendant's fault. I might have to issue a warrant.
- AHA! I can just order them to ask ICE to release him to me! Then I can be rid of this and go to my luncheon on time for once!
- Oh crap, no one actually has power over ICE to make that happen.
- Now I have to make the hard decision between issuing the warrant and risking he comes back and NOT issuing the warrant and he commits some crimes without a warrant issued! GAHHHH. I didn't become a judge to make choices, this is my paid retirement!
anti_dan
13d ago
State and Federal power are concurrent. No one gets to tell the other's LE what to do.
Would it be boneheaded to deport a murderer pre-trial? In most scenarios, yes. Almost every jurisdiction would detain the murderer ONE THEIR OWN DIME IN THEIR OWN FACILITIES, then when the murderer is finally released, they'd notify ICE.
But this is not even closely analogous. This illegal has a pending misdemeanor DV charge. The girlfriend is probably going to ask the prosecution to dismiss the charges soon enough (>50% of these end up this way). Even if she's committed they are in front of this hyper liberal judge who wouldn't imprison a "dreamer" or whatever this fellow is classified is in her mind if she knew ICE was anywhere near his trail. In other words, if ICE doesn't detain him, the most likely outcome is the case is dismissed and he waits out ICE for a while then goes about his illegal immigrant activities until he hits this, or another girlfriend again, repeat ad nauseam.
anti_dan
13d ago
From a practical perspective, ICE fucked up by attempting to detain the guy before his case was resolved. Typically, when a Mexican national commits a violent crime in the United States and then flees to Mexico, we don't leave it at that; we specifically request that the Mexican government extradite him for prosecution here. If he gets deported this is just the administration facilitating his escape. It may not be what he wants, personally, but even for minor crimes, the normal course of business for a criminal defendant in custody awaiting deportation is for the attorneys to request he be released from ICE custody pending the resolution of the case. This is true even for minor offenses like drunk driving, where the defendant is typically out on bail.
This isn't how this usually works. ICE will go through the rigamarole of bringing someone back for some very serious felonies like murder and other Class X (or A, or 1 depending on what state we are talking about) violent felonies. They aren't bringing someone back for a DV unless someone was at least seriously permanently disfigured. In this specific case the case number is 2025CM000814. Although I am not a Wisconsin criminal attorney, I have >90% confidence that stands for "Criminal Misdemeanor" as it does in dozens of jurisdictions I am more familiar with.
In fact, the bail issue is why ICE probably detained him instead of letting the case go to pendency. If he was a murderer, ICE could be fairly confident Wisconsin's courts and law enforcement would detain him, or put him on EM+home confinement or something similar. Instead, his paltry DV charge means he will be walking around Wisconsin for months, if not years only for the victim to probably recant and/or for him to be sentenced to something like 12 months of court supervision. All that time he will have freedom to flee from ICE. ICE also simply doesn't have the space and manpower to detain him themselves and bring him to all his court appearances. Of course defendant's attorneys request that ICE let the case be resolved prior to detention. 1, that is how they get paid, and 2, its ultimately a lot better for their client, PARTICULARLY with misdemeanors. One of the worst things for an illegal alien is to miss court because you got deported because then the next time you get a traffic ticket (and lets be honest you will, that's probably how you got caught in the first place for whatever case you are in court for) there will be a warrant for your arrest. Then you get sent back to that courtroom and ICE can find you all over again. If you clear up the DUI, then get deported, you can sneak right back in and local law enforcement won't run you through the list of deported persons, while the would have run you through the list of nationwide warrants.
So even if this guy is out on bail on domestic battery charges, deporting him to Mexico makes his case impossible to prosecute, and even if ICE is willing to allow him to return for court appearances, it's impossible for the court to monitor his compliance with bail conditions, and he has little incentive to return to the US for criminal prosecution. The ideal situation, from a criminal justice perspective, is to allow him to stay in Wisconsin until his case is either dismissed or his sentence complete, and then begin deportation proceedings. By deporting him now, you only get half a loaf.
There really is no loaf for criminal justice in these charges. He's certain to get minimal to no punishment. The only purpose not deporting him serves is to enable his escape. And again, his failure to appear is kind of a hidden benefit because a more reasonable judge (obviously this one would not) would put out a warrant for his arrest and if he ever came back he'd be right back in that courtroom.
anti_dan
13d ago
Has the President ALWAYS had the authority to do this under the AEA, and Trump was just the first one to receive an electoral mandate to use this authority...
I find the AEA argument to be quite weak in this case. For the TDA members and their supporters. The AEA was passed when John Adams was President and Thomas Jefferson, his main political rival, was Vice-President. If we transported both to 2025 and had someone neutrally describe TDA, with no conclusion language or question begging (i.e. don't use "invading army", "criminal gang" etc to describe them), describing their place of origin, appearance, and actions both would agree on the outcome. It would go something along the lines of, "Sure I guess we can expel them with the AEA, but why not just hang them like we do with the rest of the Indian warbands that do those things?"
So the dilemma is not real a dilemma about the AEA, its a dilemma about whether expulsion or public execution within 48 hours is the more appropriate punishment. Due process is not something appropriate for foreign savages, both would tell you. In criminal courts it is for co-citizens like the British soldiers Adams defended in court, or for uniformed British soldiers eventual President Andrew Jackson would take prisoner during the war of 1812, who would be held pending the outcome of the war, or immediately expelled under the AEA, depending on what was militarily appropriate. Jefferson, in his later years might note that very few Barbary pirates were ever afforded the opportunity to surrender in that war, mostly ships were left to sink or set ablaze with losses frequently being total.
anti_dan
14d ago
Mass transit, which is typically ambiguously defined, is only better at moving people where the system operates in a hub and spoke system.
If everyone goes to a place for work and then goes home, mass transit is awesome if the place for work is all the same.
However, if there is slight divergence, mass transit loses spectacularly on time. It often even loses spectacularly on price when public subsidies are factored in.
anti_dan
14d ago
There is this thing called the Constitution that does ban discrimination against citizens of another US state.
anti_dan
20d ago
Jus Soli was never intended to be enshrined for birth tourism of any kind, and 1865 isn't so long ago that those people couldn't have imagined better boats and people coming in from Mexico temporarily. There is a reason Wong Kim Ark is about the child of legal permanent residents and there is a reason the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 had to be passed to grant Indian's citizenship, and that reason is that the 14th Amendment does not contemplate expansive jus soli as currently defined. Instead, it applies to people borne her who have no other foreign allegiances, and those who have taken substantive steps to submit themselves to US Jurisdiction as subjects of the nation.
And, of course, it goes without saying that in 1865 the idea of a dual citizen would have been considered absurd by all the people involved.
So they just sit there doing what exactly? Universities have always produces knowledge and influenced government policy. They do in Korea and Mexico as well. They aren't captured by woke there because woke isn't a salient interest, but AFAIK they are captured institutions that are out of touch with the mainstream citizens of those countries.
More options
Context Copy link