phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
6d ago
I also have a right to rule of law, and I rank my right much higher than his.
What evidence did Garcia need to stay here? Per his 2019 removal proceedings the only evidence he needed was testimony of him and his family that they were threatened. Why would I believe him when 1) he didn't apply for asylum until it was clear he was going to be deported and 2) his family at the time were in Guatemala, not El Salvador? I just don't believe him.
phosphorus2
8d ago
I would maybe agree with your feelings if Garcia made any effort to come here legally. But he did not. He chose to lie and cheat his way in. So I feel it is reasonable to deport him, regardless of the outcome.
phosphorus2
8d ago
Yes he was wrong. He fabricated a specific claim of danger to game our asylum laws. That some totally different thing happened to him has no bearing on his original claim.
phosphorus2
8d ago
This centers the criminal, and his rights, and what is in his interest. What about my rights? And my interests? Why should my state put the interest of someone who has zero right to be here above mine?
He is not an American. He has zero right to be here. He broke the law to be here. He lied that he was in danger to abuse our asylum laws. He is not a good faith actor.
Given the harmfulness of being locked up indefinitely in a country with a spotty human rights record, I would argue that this demands due process on the scale of a capital crime trial.
Infinity Salvadorans, Infinity Afghans, Infinity Somalians
phosphorus2
8d ago
I understand why it was done by Garcia's lawyer. But before I looked into it I would have assumed that its against the rules to lie to judges in the lawsuits (or whatever it was) you file. The claim is that:
the U.S. government has never produced an iota of evidence to support this unfounded accusation.
Which clearly is not true. They did have evidence. Maybe it was really weak evidence, I don't know, but it was evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but can you really just get away with blatantly lying like that?
phosphorus2
9d ago
The alien claims that the govt. has presented no evidence that he's a member of any gang at all, let alone MS-13 in particular.
How about we check for ourselves?
Here is the specific claim from Abrego Garcia v. Noem linked by OP:
'19. Plaintiff Abrego Garcia is not a member of or has no affiliation with Tren de Aragua, MS-13, or any other criminal or street gang. Although he has been accused of general “gang affiliation,” the U.S. government has never produced an iota of evidence to support this unfounded accusation.
Here is what the government says in their DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM linked by OP:
During a bond hearing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) stated that a confidential informant had advised that Abrego Garcia was an active member of the criminal gang MS-13. Id. ¶ 31. Bond was denied. See id. ¶¶ 34, 39; see also IJ Order, infra Ex. A, at 2–3 (finding that Abrego Garcia was a danger to the community); BIA Opinion, infra Ex. B, at 1–2 (adopting and affirming IJ Order, specifically finding no clear error in its dangerousness finding).
...
Abrego Garcia is barred from disputing that, as a member of the criminal gang MS-13, he is a danger to the community. This factual finding was made in his bond proceedings before the agency, IJ Order 2–3, and he appealed that finding to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed it as not clearly erroneous, BIA Opinion 1–2. Because he did not seek further review of the Board’s decision, that decision is a final judgment precluding relitigation of the issues it resolved.
So the government has presented evidence that Garcia was in a gang (a confidential informant). And the court has found that he was in fact a gang member. And when Garcia appealed that finding, the finding was affirmed. Which he did not again appeal.
Seems... not ideal... that people can just make stuff up in the "FACTS" section of court documents. Why are people allowed to claim things as "FACTS" that clearly aren't facts? The government either has or has not presented evidence that Garcia is in a gang. Both can't be true, and both sides are claiming that they did/did not provide evidence. Someone's "FACTS" are not actually factual.
phosphorus2
27d ago
watching her torturously dragging herself through mandatory remidial physics and algebra classes
Children take algebra in middle school. If we want our doctors to be the best, or even good, then we simply cannot have anyone who struggles with middle school mathematics as an adult. Questionable that someone who struggles with remedial algebra is in college, much less med school. How did she get in? Don't you have to take like the MCAT? Are you overselling here disability? You're describing a woman who can barely read...
but because she literally can't read what the problem is asking without making symbol transposition/translation errors, and has to redo every problem about five times to arbitrate the inevitable failed attempts.
oh god, she can't even read and shes a doctor prescribing medication. What if she needed to read it six times instead of five, would she even know? You're telling us she is incapable of deciphering words.
They pushed for disability accommodations because they wanted my sister to be given a chance to prove herself,
A disabled doctor. I'm glad your sister got to prove herself at the expense of the health of her patients. Good for her, I'm sure she is really self actualized.
I know this sounds really rude, but I don't know your sister. I know her through your words. And you have told me she is someone who can barely read, struggles with basic math, and also prescribes extremely vulnerable patients powerful medication. If what you're telling us is accurate, its just evil. Its your sister putting her aspirations over the health of her patients. No, your sister who can't read shouldn't be a doctor. How did she get through med school? Can she really not read?
phosphorus2
1mo ago
A student being more open about their feelings
That "more open" was a political and ideological choice by the state. Interest groups lobbied to make "more open" happen. Students and schools did not used to be open about sexual minority identities, but now they are. If you change someone's views, you have converted them.
Maybe this is just a disagreement about the wording, I take "conversion" to be more along the lines of "trying to change their actual feelings" rather than "changing their willingness to be open".
We do have a disagreement about wording, because I am using the actual definition of conversion and you have made up your own incoherent definition. A students "willingness to be open" is a students feeling! If you are try to change a students willingness to be open, you are trying to change their actual feelings! That is what it means to convert someone!
But it is not just being "more open". LGBT is a group specifically and deliberately organized around sexual minority identity. The idea that sexuality, and particularly minority sexuality, should be incorporated into identity is a central tenant of LGBTism. So it is not just being open, because a person being open about something is inherently a person incorporating that thing into their identity.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
What evidence do you have for this? I don't see any large scale proof that a large number of gay people are trying to actively "convert" straight kids into same-sex marriages when they're adults. And don't be citing campaigns based around accepting LGBT students, it needs to be widespread proof that they're trying to convert children since that was your wording.
The CDC says a quarter of high schoolers are LGBT, a dramatic increase from what it used to be. Acceptance (and celebration) of LGBT students has resulted in more of them. That is what happens when things are accepted and celebrated in societies. Why would it not? Why do you think LGBT is a special case? In what sense have those students not been converted? What is your justification for discounting an acceptance campaign as conversion evidence? No justification is given.
The idea of a "campaign based around accepting LGBT students" is inherently political. It was a choice to make this a value of the state, and organizations like GLAAD put a lot of resources and effort and human capital to make it a value of the state.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Everything is an official act if the president wants it to be. Everything else gets done by underlings and receives pardons.
This is not true, reference the SCOTUS case above.
Also nothing about pardon power has changed from Trump, the president could always pardon people. The only change to pardon was arguably Biden giving blanket pardons for future acts.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Democrats adopt progressivism because it is useful to them-- because they have particular common needs the ideology serves. They would still be (mostly) bound together if they found a different way of addressing the same needs. That's why I call democrats the urban party-- because their needs and desires are fundamentally a result of what urbanites need and want.
I don't think this makes any sense but I don't care enough to dispute it.
Uh, the fact that we're already here? Two trump assasins and luigi. Unless the economy skyrockets and things start getting immediately better now we're already going through what later historians will probably call "the american troubles" or something alike.
What evidence do you have that any of those 3 people acted in coordination with anyone else? I have seen none and the official account is that there is none. So in no sense could these 3 instnaces be considered organized political violence, by even the broadest definitions. In the context of this thread, where you are mentioning paramilitary groups, this is not a serious response.
Political violence, sure. But 1) organized 2) political 3) violence, no.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
To be clear, which I was not really, this is the context of the original claim I had in mind:
I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries.
Ok yes the LA riots and 2020 would both meet the bar of organized political violence. But I think both of these are much closer to "tacitly approved race riots" than to "paramilitary organizations targeting political and / or ideological opponents". They are not and have not been permanent political fixtures, its something that bubbles over every 30 or so years (1967, 1992, 2025).
Even if I were to concede - and say yes, ok, these are two examples of paramilitary orgs targeting people I don't think it proves OP's point.
A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?
You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.
The 1967, 1992 and 2020 race riots were all urban phenomenon. They were targeted at urban whites, not the old or the rich or suburban / rural. Don't quote me on this but I wouldn't be surprised if the rioters burned down and destroyed more of their own community than those of who they were mad at. Even if I were to concede these count as paramilitary orgs doing paramilitary political violence, which I think is very weak, they have historically been targeting by proximity more so than anything else. They aren't going out the the country to do whatever OP has in mind.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
The democrats aren't the "progressive" party. They're the urban party. Progressivism is highly adaptive for urbanites, so urbanites adopt progressivism and demand democratic leaders. It's not the other way around, where progressive leaders convert urbanites.
The democrats are definitely the progressive party. Their policy is progressive. The mechanism they arrive at their progressivism doesn't really concern my argument. But if we agree then I don't care to dispute it.
You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.
What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence? Why would I think in a frame that doesn't accurately reflect the world? No, I am not going to think in those terms, and I find the idea ridiculous.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Previously, a congressional party with 51% majorities in the senate and house could refuse to confirm presidential appointments, and therefore limit the ability of the president to interfere with independent agencies.
Congress still has the power to refuse confirmation with 51% majorities. They still have that ability, in that specific context you yourself have denoted, to limit the president from interfering with independent agencies.
Previously, a president faced the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law.
The president still faces the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law. Quoting Trump v. United States:
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
Now, presidents can do what they want w.r.t independent agencies, and to interfere congress needs a 51% majority in the house and a 60% majority in the senate to impeach and remove. Now, presidents have permanent immunity against prosecution.
No, this is not true. Congress still controls the purse. Congress can still interfere by cutting funding to the executive branch, and it only needs 51% in both houses. And per above, congress can still interfere by not approving appointments.
The senate needs 2/3rds to remove, not 60%.
No the president does not have permanent immunity against prosecution, see above.
Conrgess has lost a portion of its power over the president, dramatically and permanently.
I do agree that congress has lost some power. I don't think its as drastic as you think it is. I think they have a good change of clawing a lot of that power back by writing bills better. Right now it seems that all congressional funding is passed in omnibus bills, that are very general. They say things like "USAID is an agency that does X, its under control of the president" and "fund USAID with $X money". They give a lot of leeway. If they write the bills with less leeway, then I think they can claw a lot of that power back. Something more like "fund 100 positions to do XYZ at USAID". But we will see.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Presidents need congress to fund their projects and the courts to prosecute people acting against them.
These are reasons that do not support your position that it is easier to create than to destroy, they support the position that it is easier to destroy than to create.
- Funding projects is creation. If the president needs congress to fund their projects, that is a barrier to creation.
- Unfunding projects is destruction. If the president does not need congress to defund projects, then there is no barrier to destruction.
If the president has a barrier to create, but no barrier to destroy, then that should lead you to believe that it is easier for the president to destroy than it is to create. That is the opposite of your position.
Yes, and that's a structural weakness of the democratic party that can only be solved via completely changing their electoral coalition. The democrats need to abandon some group of people that relies on the government to the republicans, while pulling in an anti-government faction.
Ok if the democrats need to completely change their electoral coalition to solve this, then that seems like a pretty good indication that this change really does not favor the democrats. Helping people with the government is a pretty core belief of progressivism. If the democrats abandon that position, then to what extent are they democrats anymore?
I don't think that structural weakness can actually be solved by the democrats. The democrats are the progressive party, and progressivism is about change. Which happens though reform, or action, or creation. If the president can now unilaterally stop and / or destroy federal programs, then that does not favor reform or action or creation.
Yes there are some conservative oxen that can be gored by a left wing president. But structurally there will always be more progressive oxen, the progressives are the ones interested in change and expansion.
The democrats win the urban core, while the republicans win the rural areas. That is to say: the people who literally own more land go for republicans.
A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?
phosphorus2
1mo ago
No, unfortunately (for me) the create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere. Congress needs consensus between both houses to pass laws, but on the contrary either house can defect from equilibrium to shut down the government. That's a structural advantage for conservatives that can't be legislated or protested away.
Ok, but you haven't actually given a reason why your rule works everywhere, in particular for the president. I do agree the rule holds for congress, but you aren't arguing in OP that "create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere", you are arguing it specifically for the president without any support. Why exactly does it hold for the president? Your justification given for the "create-vs-destroy rule" clearly does not apply to the president - the president is one person. There is no barrier of consensus to for one person.
Then if republicans target democratic priorities (welfare for the poor, cultural projects) they can enforce MAD even with a minority government.
Republicans can target these priorities because, if it holds up in court, a president can now just fire anyone who works at a government agency. That clearly structurally favors those who do not like government agencies, the GOP. The president cannot just create a new government agency, not to the extent he can just destroy one. The president still needs congress for funding of that agency.
Given trump's expansion of power, I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries. Landowners fundamentally have higher security needs, which makes the greatest strength of the republican party also their Achilles heel.
There isn't a meaningful difference in voting patterns for landowners or people with money and people without. Suburban voters were split almost 50:50 between trump and kamala.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1535295/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/ https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5198616/2024-presidential-election-results-republican-shift
No there are not paramilitary groups in the US posing any threat to landowners, or the rich, or old people.
You are not engaging with reality here, the world you are describing does not exist.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Congress not wanting to use its magical powers does not mean that congress does not have magical powers. It has these magical powers regardless of the political context. At any time it could use these magical powers, for any reason it chooses to.
Do you see any dissonance with your two positions? I do.
It would be reasonable to complain about bureacrats having to much power relative to politicians... except for the fact that the politicians have held all the power the entire time, except distributed in such a way that they refused to use it.
That requires 60% of the senate. In the modern political context that's just not going to happen. That gives a president effectively total latitude for at least 4 years, even if midterms cut down their majority to 41%.
In the first you argue that power distribution is inconsequential to a body actually having that power. In the second you argue that power distribution is consequential, consequential to the point of negation, of a body having power. Which is it?
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Given that its easier to create than to destroy,
For the president, it is definitely easier to destroy than it is to create. Especially if the president can fire whoever he wants to fire.
Maybe it is harder for congress to destroy than it is to create, but that is because congress needs a degree of consensus. The president does not.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Congress set up the federal bureacracy with an intended balance of power. This is important because, fundamentally, congress is just 435 dudes. They have no magical power to oppose the president-- only the practical power of what they can threaten him with if he won't comply with their demands.
Congress can say to the president "you are no longer president, we have impeached you". That is not just a threat, that is a very real power. They can also overrule his veto.
What does it mean to have balance of power? The president is supposed to be the boss. Congress is to be the purse. If congress sets up a system such that:
- the president can't fire or discipline his own subordinates
- the president can't direct his own subordinates to do things that he is allowed to do
- the president has to do exactly what congress tells him to do with agencies
that to me seems that congress has a lot of power and the president does not have much power. Which is a balance of power, but not a very balanced balance of power.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
believe that if you remove the causes of their grievances they will no longer be as disposed to violence. If you look back in history, there was a population of Palestinian jews who lived in the area without violence - there's actually direct historical evidence of Jewish and Arabic Palestinians living together in peace.
Well there are a bunch of European Jews there now, they understand they themselves are the grievance you describe. And there are several orders of magnitude more evidence that they all won't get along. So someone has to win, and I prefer it to be the ones who currently have nukes and F-35s. They also seem to be a lot more competent than the Gazans.
disarmed in the same way South Africa's were.
What else happened to South Africa? Something mean and competent is better to me than another shithole.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
How exactly do you know this? Do you have access to some kind of magical or scientific device that lets you understand people so well that you can definitively state how they would act in an alternative reality that's extremely different to our own?
Do you hold yourself to this standard on baseless conjecture? How exactly do you know that the Palestinians will "live in peace" if they are fully integrated with a single state solution? The Gazans, who voted in the Kill all Jews Party, will just get along in Israel if they have representation? The ultraorthodox Jews who have been seizing land in the West Bank will be ok with sharing? What is your magical or scientific device that indicates Gazans will play nice, when have they ever done? What happened in other ME states, like Jordan and Lebanon, that accepted in large numbers Palestinians? What evidence do you have a one state solution would turn out well?
Israel: a nuclear armed state, with 5th generation jet fighters, top tier intelligence agencies. If you are wrong about integrating Palestinians into the Israeli state, and all current and historical evidence points to you being wrong, you will hand all of this over to the people who voted in Hamas.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Somehow, this avoided triggering a housing crisis.
They build houses in Texas. DFW and Houston are both adding housing at a higher per capita rate than their population growth.
https://www.axios.com/local/houston/2024/03/19/texas-population-increase-htx https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-investing-most-in-new-housing
phosphorus2
3mo ago
If any critical mass of people here or in other rationalist spaces actually valued the truth above politeness we would rationally immediately ditch all the speech norms of rationalist spaces and adopt those of 4Chan.
When was the last time you went on 4chan? If you have spent a day on /pol/ you have spent a decade there. Nothing changes. Its boring.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
You are misreading the OP. OP is not claiming that X is percolating ideas of a representative sample of the public into the public consciousness, OP is claiming that X is percolating ideas into the public consciousness, period.
If they just grabbed him off the street and deported him I would be more open to your POV. But they didn't. He is not an American, it was properly established and litigated he was here illegally.
More options
Context Copy link