Post New

When Lord Trump decreed an end to birthright citizenship, he said his decree would only apply going forward. There is an implicit modification to that position in this report.

Trump insists birthright citizenship only 'meant for the babies of slaves'

"If the court sides with you and ends birthright citizenship, are you going to try to take away citizenship from people who already had it?" she wondered.

"I honestly haven't thought of that, but I will tell you this. The case is very interesting because that case was meant for the babies of slaves," Trump argued. "And if you look at the dates on the case, it was exactly having to do with the Civil War and all of a sudden their whole family becomes, you know, United States citizens."

"That case is all about slaves, the babies of slaves, and it was a good reason for doing it," he continued. "And that's all it was about."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-insi...

Of course, trying to take away the citizenship of USian born people, with non-citizen parents, going back to the Civil War, would seem to violate the Constitutional prohibition on "ex post facto" laws, but the regime will probably argue that the previous interpretations of the 14th were in error, so the people never had citizenship in the first place.

I doubt his nibs is telling the truth when he claims he had not thought of denying citizenship to people who were born before his decree. Since the racist immigration law was replaced in 1965, only about 14% of immigrants to the US were WASPs. Following, the same train of thought, if the US born spawn of immigrants are not citizens, then their US born spawn are not citizens either, and so on, down through the generations, to now.

My paternal grandfather was not naturalized until 1921. My father was born in the US, in 1912. Under Lord Trump's latest brain fart, dad would not be a citizen. However, as was the practice at the time, when my grandfather, as head of the family, was naturalized, the entire posse was naturalized, so my dad is listed on his dad's Certificate of Naturalization.

Steve....100% USian

Steve,

The issue isn't children born in the U.S. of "non citizen" parents.

It is regarding children born in the U.S. of parents who were not legally present in the country at the time of the birth.

These are two entirely different issues.

The Ark case from 1986 involved a child born in the U.S. of two non-citizens who were legally present in the country at the time of the birth.

The ignorance of you people on the basic facts of the issues you discuss is appalling.

would seem to violate the Constitutional prohibition on "ex post facto" laws,

Ex post facto applies to criminal law an punishments, not civil law. They do make taxes retroactive sometimes.

It is regarding children born in the U.S. of parents who were not legally present in the country at the time of the birth.

That, and only applying going forward, was what he originally said.

(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present
in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen
or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2)
when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but
temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful
permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are
born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

https://www.aila.org/library/president-trump-signs...

Now, he is trying to narrow it to only the spawn of former slaves. So the spawn of all the immigrant non-slaves who did not have their papers first, did not spawn citizens. Thus the spawn of those spawn would also not be citizens, unless their parents became citizens, and they were listed on their parent's naturalization certificate, like my father is. According to the net sifter, children had to be naturalized separately, and be issued their own certificates, starting in 1940:

1790–1906 (Old Law): Children under 21 automatically gained citizenship, but were usually not named on their father's papers.

September 1906–1922 (Federalization): The Basic Naturalization Act of 1906 created federal standards, requiring children to be named on the father's certificate for derivative citizenship.

1922–1940 (Women's Citizenship Act): Laws changed so either parent's naturalization granted citizenship; children could be listed on either or both parents' papers.

1940–Present (Child Citizenship Act): The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1940 and later the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (effective 2001) mandated separate naturalization for children, ending the automatic derivative process and naming on parent's certificates.

What his nibs is nudging toward now, is declaring all the spawn of non-citizens, at least since 1940, non-citizens.

Steve

What his nibs is nudging toward now, is declaring all the spawn of non-citizens, at least since 1940, non-citizens.

By the time the 14th passed it had been debated so much it was clear what it meant. IIRC there was a Civil Rights act just before it that used the same language, and it was debated heavily too, Johnson vetoed it, but they overrode him. If the Supremes move to change the meaning, we have a huge problem with the court.

If the Supremes move to change the meaning, we have a huge problem with the court.

This court has demonstrated it has no qualms about overturning precedent. They could easily rule that being a citizen is like being a vampire: citizenship can only be passed on by citizens.

Steve

Doesn't matter what you believe he is trying to do.

The Ark case is clear precedent as to children born here of non citizen parents here legally. That part will never be reversed.

The legal ambiguity that needs to be addressed is whether Ark intended to grant citizenship to ALL children born here or just the ones whose parent or parents were here legally.

Ark read literally and restrictively directly applies only to children whose parents are in the country legally.

And the 14th Amendment contains the clause "and subject to the justification of" in addition to "born in the United States."

So the Court at a minimum had to clarify what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means because it is an additional requirement to being born here

No, there is a second clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction of," which needs to be defined.

Where two clauses are separated by the word "and" they mean different things. So there must be a meaning to jurisdiction aside from just being born here. The law assumes a second clause is necessary, not simply saying the exact same thing in a different way.

The Ark case clearly dealt with only children born here of non citizens in the country legally.

So the issue of automatic citizenship for children born here of non citizens here illegally still needs to be addressed.

Doesn't mean trump will win. It only takes four votes to get Supreme Court to hear a case. So Alito, Scalia, and two of the three libs would be enough or any other combo.

This court has demonstrated it has no qualms about overturning precedent.

Yes, but this isn't a precedent which is a prior court decision, this is an amendment to the Constitution, and they have records of the debates. The Constitutional scholars and historians say it is clear what the meaning was, so if they radically change it, we've got a real problem.

Lapsody/Lamburgini,

Stop filtering all information through your political and cognitive bias and try to start looking at issues by searching for possible weaknesses in them. Otherwise, you're just engaging in confirmation bias, not analysis.

The Ark case, which is the only Supreme Court precedent on this issue, specifically only addressed children born in the U.S. to non-citizens who were in the country LEGALLY.

It did not address the citizenship status of children born into the United States of non-citizen parents who are in the country ILLEGALLY.

So that's issue one that the Supreme Court needs to address. It's never been decided.

Issue 2 is the precise meaning of the 14th Amendment. There are TWO requirements listed, not just one:

1) people born in the United States "AND" 2) "subject to the jurisdiction" thereof.

In legal analysis, there is a very well accepted general principle that "surplusage" i.e. completely unnecessary or redundant language will not be assumed. Where two clauses or requirements are separated by "AND" the presumption is that it is a conjunctive clause--meaning that the legal presumption is that there are 2 separate requirements, not just one that is redundantly repeated using different language.

On that basis, there is a legitimate case for the Supreme Court to take this case and answer these questions.

Third issue is what "subject to the jurisdiction of" actually means in this context. Does it simply mean physical presence in the territory of the United States?

If being born in the United States automatically means that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, why even include the second clause? It wasn't necessary, they could have taken it out entirely.

Saying that these questions need to be answered is not the same thing as saying Trump will win.

Stop parroting propaganda and start actually thinking.

Even if you wind up coming to the same conclusions you already believe in the first place, you will have a better understanding of why other people might have a different viewpoint--they aren't just Nazi Maga fascists--and from a practical sense, you will have a much better ability to debate and rebut those positions you disagree with.

It is called having a brain. Try it.

Doesn't matter what you believe he is trying to do.

I am going by what he said, that the citizenship clause of the 14th only applies to the spawn of slaves.

If he succeeds in invalidating the 14th's impact on everyone else, then we go back to the 1866 Civil Rights law:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/hi...

It could be argued that "subject to a foreign power", includes citizens of a foreign power.

The POTUS has a large number of sharp lawyers, eager to please him, so they will find a way to justify what he wants.

Steve

If the Supremes move to change the meaning, we have a huge problem with the court.

I think it is already clear that we have a problem in this very radical right court.

Yes it could be argued that non-citizens are subject to a foreign power.

Which is why the Supreme Court was absolutely correct to take the case and sort it all out for us.

Which is why the Supreme Court was absolutely correct to take the case and sort it all out for us.

I used to keep reminding folks on the Fool, "there is no such thing as 'settled law' in Shinyland". How many times was Roe challenged, before the anti-abortion crowd finally got the decision it wanted, after nearly 50 years? There was a sodomy law in Texas that was challenged, decades ago. The court upheld the law. Decades later, the law was challenged again, and overturned. "Separate but equal" was upheld, green-lighting segregation, before it was overturned.

Steve

If the Supremes move to change the meaning, we have a huge problem with the court.

I think it is already clear that we have a problem in this very radical right court.

It changes the scope of just how big the problem is. We do have a "problem" with the court right now, the use of the shadow docket to make decisions that genuinely require a full written decision by the court, that their decisions allocate power away from Congress to the Executive, small decisions of allowing ICE to use skin color as a basis for suspicion of illegal presence - there are a lot of these that throw precedence out the window, they look like they will go along with declaring certain groups terrorists in an EO and allow full blown investigations of them on the whim of the President. There are firings of people who have done nothing wrong base on the executive power - lots of these. There are a host of these that have already occurred and more, but the rebuttal arguments are that illegals presence here in the US reduces their protection, and that the groups are acting in concert against the government and therefore the people, causing huge property damage and killing people (Charlie Kirk), and the President can exercise his executive power at his discretion. These actions stretch from some being a reasonable interpretation, though based in the right wing, to interpretations that are obviously false, contrived, to justify any action the president desires.

But if you reinterpret the Constitution to threaten the clear basic citizenship rights granted in the Constitution, you will be crossing over to Dred Scott territory, which is famously considered the worst decision the Supreme Court made. If that happens applying the word fascist to this movement and administration is very correct, and the least of our worries. Trump will have succeeded in using executive powers to change the constitution.

Lambo,

You're just parroting leftist propaganda (as usual).

Have you actually read any of the Supreme Court decisions (or lower court decisions) that you are referencing?

Even a single one?

At any level?

Cause you sound pretty ignorant.

Ex post facto applies to criminal law an punishments, not civil law. They do make taxes retroactive sometimes.

I posted, a few days ago, about how the regime intends to investigate, and prosecute as "terrorists", people who express an "anti-capitalist", or "anti-Christian" vewpoint.

TYT added a bit of detail to that policy, yesterday.

At about the 7 minute mark, Ana reads an excerpt of the memo that states the DOJ will be going back 5 years, looking for things in people's backgrounds that they want to prosecute under this new policy.

Trump's Justice Dept. Is About To UNLEASH HELL On AMERICANS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mub9zLwSUOQ

Steve...hallowed be the Trump

small decisions of allowing ICE to use skin color as a basis for suspicion of illegal presence

---------------

Not true.

Try this, if sanctuary jurisdictions and other liberal bastions would only honor ICE detainers then custody is transferred in a secure detention facility only after the local police have arrested the perp for something else. That way they are choosing the population who is exposed to ICE arrest. I can't imagine why these liberals would allow the dangerous criminal illegals to walking among them just to make some political statement. ICE is perfectly willing to take them off your hands and out of your community.



threaten the clear basic citizenship rights granted in the Constitution,

---------------

It's only clear since the ambiguous language appears to lean in the direction you desire. Others see it just as clearly, but in the other direction.

Not true.

Show your cite or it is true. Capiche?

Try this,

No, please explain the above with cites. Here's the case: a recent Supreme Court emergency order (in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem) temporarily allowed agents to consider race/ethnicity, location, accent, and job type as factors, overturning a lower court block on these tactics, effectively permitting stops based on these profiles, at least for now.

threaten the clear basic citizenship rights granted in the Constitution,

---------------

It's only clear since the ambiguous language appears to lean in the direction you desire. Others see it just as clearly, but in the other direction.

Please explain what you think is ambiguous about the language and give cites. Here it is:

"Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

And please explain why we are pulling people out of their swearing in ceremonies and how it isn't racism and hate.

At about the 7 minute mark, Ana reads an excerpt of the memo that states the DOJ will be going back 5 years, looking for things in people's backgrounds that they want to prosecute under this new policy.

I think they'll prosecute them under old laws that already existed. I'm looking, but you can call them terrorists while prosecuting them under other laws. Id be interested in any new laws. Them there's this:

"In a footnote, the Memorandum explicitly disclaims investigations based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment. But by defining the “Common Characteristics of Domestic Terrorists and Organizations” in this manner, individuals and organizations that disagree with the Trump administration undoubtedly will be concerned about federal scrutiny. "

"The key message is unmistakable: federal law enforcement will target individuals, organizations, and funders whom the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) contends are “domestic terrorists,” under a definition that links political violence to “anti-fascist” ideologies."

Here's her memo:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/20...

"Through this comprehensive strategy, law enforcement will disband and uproot networks, entities, and organizations that promote organized violence, violent intimidation, conspiracies against rights, and other efforts to disrupt the functioning of a democratic society."

There are plenty of laws already in existence that can be used for this:

"assaulting Federal officers or employees or otherwise engaging in conduct proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 111; conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. 241; conspiracy to commit offense under 18 U.S.C. 371; solicitation to commit a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 373; money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956; funding of terrorist acts or otherwise facilitating terrorism under 18 U.S.C. 2339, 2339A, 2339B, 2339C, and 2339D; arson offenses under 18 U.S.C. 844; violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.); and major fraud against the United States under 18 U.S.C. 1031." Note the laws with terrorism in the name

They're forming a task force to go after antifa and similar groups, and any coordination to disrupt ICE. Cenk thinks anti Israel and anti Trump is on the offing for the JTTF. If you donate to these groups make sure it's non traceable cash, with no name, etc.

https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/blogs...

Forgot this one:

Sec. 3. Department of Justice Designation. In the course of and as a result of the investigations directed by section 2 of this memorandum, the Attorney General may recommend that any group or entity whose members are engaged in activities meeting the definition of “domestic terrorism” in 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) merits designation as a “domestic terrorist organization.” The Attorney General shall submit a list of any such groups or entities to the President through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor.

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended-

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

You can get inventive and make any org into a domestic terror org, and if you lose on that, no biggee, you still have them on other laws.

There are plenty of laws already in existence that can be used for this:

Yes, used to investigate/roust, even if there is no ghost of a chance of a conviction. How many times does your boss need to hear from the FBI about you, before your boss starts thinking you are a liability to his company?

Cenk thinks anti Israel and anti Trump is on the offing for the JTTF. If you donate to these groups make sure it's non traceable cash, with no name, etc.

TYT has a particular burr in it's kazoo about Israel and it's undue influence over the US. I watch TYT, the same as I watched Fox Noise. I want to know what is being said. I have not donated to any bunch with the slightest whiff of a political agenda, ever. I don't even donate to MSF or the Red Cross anymore.

Steve

You can get inventive and make any org into a domestic terror org, and if you lose on that, no biggee, you still have them on other laws.

And the DOJ has the infinite resources of the government of the United States, to prosecute it's case against you. When do you run out of money with which to mount a defense?

Steve

Sounds like Trump is following a Western Europena Model.

Sounds like Trump is following a Western Europena Model. marco100

Posting gibberish @4Am, saddest life ever.

I find your propensity to supply an endless stream of internet flatulence tiresome, albeit impressive.

"Through this comprehensive strategy, law enforcement will disband and uproot networks, entities, and organizations that promote organized violence, violent intimidation, conspiracies against rights, and other efforts to disrupt the functioning of a democratic society."

Weaponized DOJ to go after perceived enemies on the left. When, in reality, the real threats of "organized violence, violent intimidation, conspiracies against rights, and other efforts to disrupt the functioning of a democratic society" are coming from the right.

Inversion world.

Weaponized DOJ to go after perceived enemies on the left. When, in reality, the real threats of "organized violence, violent intimidation, conspiracies against rights, and other efforts to disrupt the functioning of a democratic society" are coming from the right.

Inversion world.

Yes. and it's been that way for some time. I'll bet Antifa members who gave interviews to the press are thinking Canada at this point.

I want to know what is being said. I have not donated to any bunch with the slightest whiff of a political agenda, ever. I don't even donate to MSF or the Red Cross anymore.


I donate to the Dem party around election time, so I'm suspect. So now, does my wife's Green Card suddenly get revoked? Yes. Finally bought a good TV and it came with access to a lot of news channels and TYT, so I'm watching them. The theme was Israel controls us. Cenk talked about being slaves to Israel. The blonde lady ( can't remember her name) I like. I haven't watched any FOX because they stopped getting it in the Philippines. I got so I watched Cuomo on CNN because it was on at the right time, but I got most of my news from the PC, and one Filipino channel for local.

When I posted in an expat group what was going on in the island, I found some got upset. The FOX news expats didn't want to know that 14 sugar cane leaders were pulled out of their houses ad executed by the police. One fellow from Spain got upset with me for posting events in the local news. It seems if you actually bought land there, you didn't want other expats to get the idea it was unsafe to live there. :)

And the DOJ has the infinite resources of the government of the United States, to prosecute it's case against you. When do you run out of money with which to mount a defense?

You can put up a go fund me and run it around USA and Europe to see if it gets anywhere. But if your depending on the state, all they really do is try and get a decent plea deal. And you'll get plea to 2 years in jail or go to court and risk 25 years. Better yet, tout you're a pedo and Trump will get you off. :)

I'll bet Antifa members

Can you be a member of a non-organization?

"Weaponized DOJ" (blah blah blah...)

...You do realize, don't you, that the DOJ is very "weaponized," it has lots of employees who have guns and stuff.

Dr. Lambo asks will his wife's green card be revoked?

I don't know. Did she, or you if you sponsored her, make any misrepresentations throughout the green card process?

Even if you or she thought it was "OK" because "everyone else was doing it" and no one was facing any consequences.

Did your wife, and you, follow all the rules and regs 100% to the letter? Did you dot every i and cross every t?


I've seen multiple posts by you expressing real fear about your wife's immigration status.

You're AFRAID.

There's a reason you're afraid.

What did you or she do wrong?

ges asks:

"Can you be a member of a non-organization?"

without defining what "member" means and without defining what "organization" means or why it has any relevance.

You guys love to call everyone you disagree with "fascists" and "Nazis" even though there is no organization called "fascist" or if there is, it's a political party which the people you are accusing of being fascists, are not actually "members" of. Same with Nazi. You call people Nazis--which was a political party in Germany a while back--who are not "members" of the Nazi party.

And then there is the world wide association of "Assholes of the Universe." It's not actually an "organization" and it doesn't have any official "members" since it isn't an "organization." But I'll be if it was, they'd sign you up quicker than the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducted Chuck Berry.

You guys love to call everyone you disagree with "fascists" and "Nazis" even though there is no organization called "fascist" or if there is, it's a political party which the people you are accusing of being fascists, are not actually "members" of. Same with Nazi. You call people Nazis--which was a political party in Germany a while back--who are not "members" of the Nazi party.

This is such a stellar point. The left's cosplaying Antifa foot soldiers, why, no - they're not terrorists because Antifa doesn't have a Tax ID and a headquarters in a strip mall with a PO Box. So we can't possibly prosecute this "idea" no matter how many people the "ideas" smash over the head with bike locks or how many fire bombs the "ideas" set off.

But literally anyone who disagrees with them can be lumped into the Bad Guy category and get the full force of federal law rained down on them. If it weren't for double standards libs would have zero standards.

There's a reason you're afraid.

What did you or she do wrong?

Something done, that was not a problem previously?

***ripped from the headlines***

US revokes 85,000 visas amid sweeping immigration and security crackdown

According to CNN, a State Department official said the numbers include more than 8,000 student visas — double last year’s figure. The official said the most common revocation triggers were “DUIs, assaults, and theft,” which together accounted for almost half of the revocations in the past year. Such offenses, the official said, represent “people who pose a direct threat to our communities’ safety.

Officials did not disclose the remaining reasons for revocations but have previously cited visa overstays, criminal concerns, and support for terrorism. CNN reported that the administration has increasingly targeted international students involved in campus protests over Gaza, sometimes accusing them of antisemitism or support for extremist groups.

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/us-news/story/us-r...

These days, daring to say "Bibi is not a nice person", seems to count as "terrorism".

Steve

"Can you be a member of a non-organization?"

without defining what "member" means and without defining what "organization" means or why it has any relevance.

That is the best sort of organization, to a prosecutor. If an organization is real, it has a member list. If you aren't on the list, you aren't a member. But an imaginary organization has no list, so you can't prove you aren't a member.

Steve

You're AFRAID.

There's a reason you're afraid.

What did you or she do wrong?

***also ripped from the headlines***

Irish woman with green card faces US deportation over $25 bad cheque

Donna Hughes-Brown, 58, was detained in July after landing in Chicago on a flight from Dublin and is being held in isolation in a detention centre in Kentucky. She has lived in the US since 1977, has five children and grandchildren, and ran a horse farm in Troy, Missouri.

Her husband, Jim Brown, a US citizen and military veteran, told reporters his wife was not a criminal and that he “100%” regretted voting for Donald Trump as president.

He said she had been detained on a misdemeanour relating to a $25 cheque she signed a decade ago and for which she made restitution and received probation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/10/ir...

Steve

he “100%” regretted voting for Donald Trump as president.

I feel sorry for the wife. As a green card holder, she can’t vote.

As to her husband, he’s getting exactly what he voted for. Perhaps next time he will think a little harder before voting.

—Peter

As to her husband, he’s getting exactly what he voted for. Perhaps next time he will think a little harder before voting.

He probably thought his wife was safe from the xenophobic pogrom because she is white and Christian.

This guy, a naturalized US citizen, is not white. The Mayor and Police Chief both have publicly apologized for ICE rousting him.

US citizen arrested by ICE in Minneapolis because he ‘looks Somali,’ city officials say

An American man was dragged out of a restaurant, forcibly arrested, and detained for two hours by masked federal immigration officers, according to reports.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/america...

Steve

What did you or she do wrong?

Nothing, and I gave you the reason:

I donate to the Dem party around election time, so I'm suspect.

And being ever-so-slightly apprehensive is not the same as being AFRAID. Everything's kosher, she didn't even have the final interview and they mailed her the green card. But if you've paid attention, just because there's no reason for something to go wrong doesn't mean that nothing will go wrong in this Trump ICE era.

I think everyone understood that but you, and for you it was convenient so you could make accusations. Ploink.

Dope1,

Antifa does have a tax ID(s) and PO Box(es) but under the umbrella of supervising organizations such as: The George Soros Foundation, the Democrat National Committee....

Steve, you only get a "pass" on your virulent anti-Semitism since I don't have to interact with you in real life and you like Star Trek to the extent that you even quote from it.

Steve,

Once again, the ignorance of some of you Progressives/Anti-Semites/Trekkies/Nasty Ol' Hermits who Never Shave Nor Take a Bath, or whatever the watchmacallit you regard yourself as, remains absolutely appalling.

The RICO statute, federal criminal laws, and criminal conspiracy laws do NOT REQUIRE the members of the conspiracy to have a formal "organization" much less a "membership list."

You ever see the movie, "Heat"? It's about a bunch of bank robbers who conspire to rob a bank and the hi jinx which then ensue. It has DeNiro as the head bank robber and Pacino as the cop who chases him down.

They didn't have a "club" or "organization." They didn't have a "membership list."

Guess they never robbed that bank! Guess they never killed anyone as a result of pursuing that criminal conspiracy because they didn't have a treehouse that said "Bankrobbers Club--Fuzz NOT ALLOWD!" and they didn't have a "membership list" either!

Wayngro will be very pleased to hear that he's actually not dead after all.

You ever see the movie, "Heat"? It's about a bunch of bank robbers who conspire to rob a bank and the hi jinx which then ensue. It has DeNiro as the head bank robber and Pacino as the cop who chases him down.

Ever see "Breakfast at Tiffany's"? Sally Tomato and his lawyer knew they had an organization. Holly was clueless, in spite of the $100 payments she received, so, presumably, after the drippy ending, she did not go to prison, though her main line of work would not stand close scrutiny.

Trivia bit. I recognized the name in the credits, but I did not recognize this guy in the film.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXw3MScWsAUBgnb.jpg

here's another angle.

https://cdn.imago-images.com/bild/st/0094626809/s....

It's this guy!

https://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptationstv/star_...

Steve

OMG!

It's the Tribble Salesman!!!!

His name was "[Something] Jones" I think in that episode. I don't know the actor's name, good catch that he's the same as the guy from Breakfast at Tiffany's.

(I see you use your time as wisely as I do!)

I guess I perceive him as sort of a poor man's Zero Mostel.

Wouldn't it have been cool if they had actually gotten Zero Mostel to be in a Star Trek episode?

They probably would have had to pay him a fortune though. He was probably pretty much at the height of his fame and popularity when the original Star Trek series was running in the 1960's.

O.K., Google tells me that Stanley Adams played "Cyrano Jones" in that episode.

The pop culture itch has been scratched, at least temporarily!

Keep the Star Trek trivia coming!

Try again, Steve.

The now-naturalized (really? Do we even know this? He refused to identify himself beyond an alleged first name for the Independent article) wasn't "arrested," he was "detained" because he refused to cooperate with ICE agents (he deliberately tried to evade contact with them) and he refused to permit his photograph to be taken (obviously for an A.I. facial recognition search in the ICE database).

The fact that there is no dispute he was Somali in appearance, plus his deliberate attempt to evade an interaction with them, plus his refusal to cooperate by allowing his photograph to be taken, gave full legal justification for ICE to detain him until his identity as a naturalized U.S. citizen could be verified.

After that, he was released.

No harm, no foul.

They were being very nice if they apologized to him, but actually had nothing to apologize for.

Yet another example of someone creating problems and then claiming victimhood.

Dude was so outraged that he refused to actually identify himself to a sympathetic rag, the Independent.

So he could be FOS especially the part where he says he offered to show them his passport "on his phone."

Really?

OK so the Irish wife is a criminal check bouncer or check forger and was in the United States illegally.

Her U.S. husband regrets voting for Donald Trump.

So in other words, he's stupid, doesn't want to take responsibility for aiding and abetting an illegal alien's (in this case happens to be his spouse) presence illegally in the United States.

That's the problem with these illegals and those who claim to care about them.

It's always someone else's fault.

It's Trump the Nazi's fault his wife is a criminal. (Remember, criminals typically do their crimes many times over for each time they are actually caught & formally convicted.) It's Trump the Nazi's fault that the whining husband also violated the law by aiding, abetting, and harboring an illegal alien.

Got it.

So, if that's Lamposody's reason for having fear, you're basically accusing his wife of being illegal and him of knowingly aiding and abetting her.

Nice analogy, perhaps it fits.

Lampo shrieks:

"I donate to the Democratic Party [so Nazi Trump's ICE stormtroopers will come to arrest and deport my totally legit green card having PHillipEENO spouse]."

You have paranoid delusions.

Even on this quazy clazy crazy message board, not a single one of you tin foil hat wearing leftists has posted a single example of a completely "Kosher" (your word) legally holding green card permanent resident of the U.S. being detained or deported because their born in the U.S., U.S. citizen, made a political donation to the Democrat party.

Nor have you indicated anything that has happened specifically to you or your wife that would give you any cause for fear. You haven't been approached or contacted by immigration enforcement. Haven't received any suspicious mail or emails or texts.

No, according to your story (at least today's verion) your wife was so legit they didn't even bother waiting for the final interview before sending her her green card.

That's EXACTLY the point. If your wife is totally legit and you are too, neither of you has anything to fear.

Absolutely every sob story posted is just another example of a sympathy play by a person who is clearly illegally in the U.S. and likely has been for a very very long time, and/or by their biased family members who don't accept their legal obligations.

You're either lying Lampo or you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You could be both. If you're paranoid schizophrenic your wife might only exist in your delusional reality.

As far as your insistence on "ploinking" me, sorry, I'm heterosexual, and my wife would object.

But ploink away at your wife or lady boy or whatever "she" is. Have fun.

Can you be a member of a non-organization?

You can be known to your local group, but their have been many hoaxes by the alt right, so it's going to be blurry. It would be funny if the alt right hoax folk are jailed as being antifa.

His name was "[Something] Jones" I think in that episode. I don't know the actor's name, good catch that he's the same as the guy from Breakfast at Tiffany's.

I recognized the name in the movie credits, but, as many times as I have seen that ep of "Trek", I didn't recognize him in the movie, with that red crew cut and glasses. Are all red haired guys named "Rusty"? If his name is Rusty in the book, maybe they dyed his hair for the part.

On the guy rousted by ICE, he offered to show his passport to the ICE agents, repeatedly. (I didn't know that a passport image on a phone was a thing) The agents should have let him show his papers, the first time he offered, and that should have been the end of it. Of course, racial profiling, like rousting him because he "looks Somali", with no other probable cause, is supposed to be illegal in this country.

Here's the Mayor's presser about the incident, including video of the guy being pushed around.

Video shows ICE agents forcefully arresting U.S. citizen in Minneapolis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceMKgxnhmHA

BTW, for those unfamiliar with the word "roust".

roust / roust/ • v. [tr.] cause to get up or start moving; rouse: I rousted him out of his bed with a cup of coffee. ∎ inf. treat roughly; harass: the detectives who had rousted him the night of the murder.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionari...

Steve

Steve,

The Somali naturalized citizen guy only SAID that. That doesn't mean it happened that way.

What is undisputable is that he ran away from ICE (suspicious conduct) and he refused to let them take his photograph.

He also refused to give his last name.

Sounds like he may have gotten his naturalization under false pretenses. Maybe he stole some other Somali's identity.

With all the fraud going on among the Somali population--a very huge scandal for your mini-Harris, Tim Walz--it is completely consistent with someone who needs to be de-naturalized ASAP.

Hopefully ICE will follow up on this guy and investigate him thoroughly.

I doubt we have heard the end of this story.

Are all red haired guys named "Rusty"?

A fellow seminarian in the 70s had red hair. He was also saddled by his parents with the first name of “Russell”. So, naturally, he went by “Rusty”..

A few years ago, i spoke with him after several decades of going our separate ways.

“Rusty!” I exclaimed.

“Russell, or ‘Russ’,” he laughed. “I left ‘Rusty’ behind with my beard and motorcycle.”

The Somali naturalized citizen guy only SAID that. That doesn't mean it happened that way.

If you were a citizen, and being rousted by ICE, would the first thing out of your mouth be "I'm a citizen", and the second thing "get off me, and I'll show you my papers".

I was warning people on the Fool, for several years, to get their papers in order.

Steve...has papers, lots of papers

Hi Steve,

You're missing the big picture with this particular story, I think.

It's undisputed, at this point, that there has been MASSIVE and on-going fraud throughout the Somali migrant community in the United States, perhaps in excess of billions of dollars' worth.

You don't think it's at all possible that green card and citizenship fraud is part and parcel of that fraudulent "way of doing things" amongst that specific population?

It's time to take your rose-colored glasses off.

It's undisputed, at this point, that there has been MASSIVE and on-going fraud throughout the Somali migrant community in the United States, perhaps in excess of billions of dollars' worth.

There has been massive fraud going on all over the US. Remember "The Scooter Store"? Massive fraud worked on Medicare.

You don't think it's at all possible that green card and citizenship fraud

There is ID fraud all over, both by people who are obstructed from entering the US legally, and there is ID fraud used to steal from people, all the time.

What I have a problem with is his nibs painting a target on the backs of the members of one community.

Steve

Trump didn't paint a target on the backs of the Minnesota Somali community.

Get out of your delusional bubble for once.

This is on the Somali community in Minnesota and the far left Minnesota and federal politicians who happily enabled.


It's on YOU, Steve.

Trump didn't paint a target on the backs of the Minnesota Somali community.

His call for a pogrom against Somalis could not be clearer:

Trump says he does not want Somalis in US as ICE plans Minnesota operation

US President Donald Trump has said he does not want Somali immigrants in the US, telling reporters they should "go back to where they came from" and "their country is no good for a reason".

"I don't want them in our country, I'll be honest with you," he said during a cabinet meeting on Tuesday. Trump said the US would "go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c208x9v68w3o

pogrom
/poʊˈgrʌm/


The organized destruction of an ethnic group is called a pogrom. The word comes to English via the similar Yiddish and Russian words; pogrom literally means "devastation."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/pogrom

Steve

Steve, I see you're back in Anti Semite mode (well that's your default setting).

"Pogrom"? So Trump is slaughtering Somalis?

You're insane, and a liar, but I give you a pass since you like Star Trek.

Steve, I see you're back in Anti Semite mode (well that's your default setting).

But, I'm not Jewish?????

Jonathan Greenblatt "the rabid anti-Zionist is just an anti-Semite, by any other name even if they come from our Jewish community. We need to recognize that as well.

At the 33:25 mark, or you can listen to the entire discussion.

In These Times with Rabbi Ammi Hirsch (68) - Jonathan Greenblatt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUXILyjP10

So, if you are not all in on hyper-nationalist, ethnic cleansing, Zionism, you are antisemitic, even if you are a devout, practicing, Jew, says the head of the ADL.

Nor am I Ann Coulter:

Coulter draws fire over remarks about Jews
Conservative author Ann Coulter finds herself in the middle of a firestorm once again after remarks on a CNBC television show in which she said Jews need "to be perfected" and suggested the nation would be better off if it were all-Christian.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21257498

Steve

If you were a citizen, and being rousted by ICE, would the first thing out of your mouth be "I'm a citizen", and the second thing "get off me, and I'll show you my papers". - Stev

-----------------

No and definitely no. I would adopt a meek and compliant demeanor. My first objective is not to convince him I am a citizen but get him to see me as not a threat. Respond to questions and commands. Yes, sir. No, sir.

When I am stopped for a traffic stop. the officer will find me begin the wheel, window already rolled down, and with both of my hands on the steering wheel. When he asks for my license, before reaching for my hip, I will say to the officer, 'Yes sir my license is in my wallet in my right rear pocket. I am going to reach for it slowly, OK?

I find it goes better for me this way rather than oozing contempt or defiance for having been stopped by the mistaken cop in the first place.

I find it goes better for me this way rather than oozing contempt or defiance for having been stopped by the mistaken cop in the first place.

Someone running back inside a building that he just came out of during lunch break isn't "oozing contempt or defiance". You know that, don't you? Your response is typical white men need have no fear type of bunk. I'm not meek, I show respect, but not everyone is me, and I don't think because they aren't me that I get to condemn their actions, maybe advise them, but who among us hasn't had the wrong instant reactions in situations?

Remember, these guys are allowed to pick you up right now based on your looks, and if nothing else cost you some earning days while you learn the ways of jail.

These guys need training and to be lead by better leaders than we have right now. We should want to make them very good at what they do, and teach them how NOT to injure people. The truth is this admin doesn't care if you're a citizen if you don't look like us, until they run up against the 48 hour limit (or whatever it is now). But I seriously do mind ripping apart families and hurting people. I'd rather have a hundred illegals be kept on the streets than to find a few American citizens hauled off in one of these sweeps.

Wrong again.

They didn't just pick up the Somali born/"naturalized U.S. citizen" because of the way he looked.

He FLED from, and tried to EVADE, an encounter with law enforcement.

That isn't "appearance," that is a classic example of "behavior" that can justify a detention by law enforcement.

When will you dum dums learn to apply critical thinking of your own--and stop simply relentlessly regurgitating Leftist propaganda that you read in social media?

That isn't "appearance," that is a classic example of "behavior" that can justify a detention by law enforcement.

This is true. In the parlance of the police shows I watched on TV in the 60s, he acted "hinky". Regardless, the agents should have backed off the moment he stated he was a citizen, and offered to show ID. Some realize these mass enforcement actions are theater. Brutality is the objective. The regime was elected to beat up on minorities, and that is what it is doing.

Steve

So there is some room for common ground.

No one is saying that out of all the hundreds of thousands (actually millions, at this point) of these encounters there might not be some slip ups here and there. Especially when people REFUSE to cooperate with law enforcement because the Left has brainwashed them to "resist."

No, naturalized Somalis shouldn't refuse to cooperate with ICE.

Neither should privileged white wealthy liberal Leftists.

If you're a privileged white politican who interferes with ICE at one of their detention facilities, you just might get tossed on your ass.

Isn't that exactly what happened (I think in NJ but not sure) ?

Doesn't seem very discriminatory to me.

If you're a white governor of Illinois and blatantly say you are going to interfere with enforcement of federal immigration law by ICE, you're going to get threatened by Trump. Was it discrimination of Trump to do that against Pritzker (a white very very wealthy male)? Nope.

And we still don't know all the facts about this encounter.

So far every single time we have actually gotten full details, with very very few exceptions, it turns out that ICE was fully justified or at least the "resistance" created a dangerous or ambiguous situation that could have been entirely avoided if the Left stopped agitating people to interfere and block law enforcement from doing their jobs.

But ok let's say there are 1,000 bad arrests or detentions by ICE for every one million encounters (it's likely far less). I'll take that error rate every time--especially when many of the errors are directly caused by Leftist propaganda encouraging the public to actively interfere with and not cooperate with law enforcement in the execution of their obligations.

No, naturalized Somalis shouldn't refuse to cooperate with ICE.

Similarly, ICE agents should not ignore a person's assertions of citizenship, especially if the person says he has his papers on him, and continue to detain/rough up the man.

Do the ICE agents wear bodycams? Where are the ICE agents, giving their version of what happened? There was an incident in Detroit, a few years ago, where a DPD officer shot a man dead. The police chief ordered the body cam video released within a couple hours. The video showed the other guy pulled a gun and fired first. The chief defused the situation by being transparent about what happened. Where is ICE stating it's case about the incident with the Somali guy?

Steve

That isn't "appearance," that is a classic example of "behavior" that can justify a detention by law enforcement.

Look, if someone knows they can pick you up because of your appearance (this is true), and they have a tendency to flee when they know they are going to be picked up even though they are a US citizen, they might flee. Now for marco this is too much of a nuance for him.

So it's a case of 1. cause the behavior and then, 2. blame the behavior for the detention.

Any citizen who doesn't look like us will see ICE and not want to be picked up even though they *ARE a citizen*, because ICE doesn't care and need to care right now if you are a citizen. The citizen may try to flee even though they are a US citizen because - who wants to be held for possibly a few days. The fleeing is understandable and is not in the same circumstances as normal law enforcement - the fleeing that arises to reasonable suspicion before is now questionable if it applies to ICE, especially because ethnicity can be used to justify reasonable suspicion. I agree with Steve that once he says he's a citizen and offers some docs, they should look to see what he has, they aren't looking, and that violates unreasonable search and seizure. But, if they look at his documents and take a few minutes to verify them and release him, that would be reasonable.

Lots of things with small changes can be made reasonable, but sometimes need major changes. Birthright citizenship can be made reasonable with an amendment stating one of the parents has to be an American citizen. I think an amendment of that sort would pass.

Now I don't expect marco to ever understand all this even though I spell it out. He's obtuse to the nth degree. I have him on ignore, but you keep talking to him, so I may have to put you (Steve) on ignore too, just so I don't feel a need to respond.

Hope this is clear enough.

Look, if someone knows they can pick you up because of your appearance (this is true), and they have a tendency to flee when they know they are going to be picked up even though they are a US citizen, they might flee. Now for marco this is too much of a nuance for him.

So it's a case of 1. cause the behavior and then, 2. blame the behavior for the detention.

Your #1 assumes that all law enforcement is the same and absolves the individual being contacted by ICE or a LEO from any responsibility.

It doesn't work that way.

Not every cop is the same, and it's wrong to assume that they are.

Lambo,

This is nonsense, of course.

Once again, as a Leftist, dyed in the wool, you have no comprehension of basic statistics.

You choose outLIARS which are fed to you through MSM and your Leftist Democrat Party and just regurgitate it all without any critical thinking.

At this point, there have been hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS, of interactions (and non-interactions! all the ones where people did not "resist" and did cooperate with law enforcement), between ICE and both citizens and non-citizens. There are THOUSANDS of Somalis and Somali born people in Minnesota who have interacted with ICE in the very recent past.

What error rate is acceptable to you? Zero?

It's like vaccines doncha know.

A very very small percentage will have adverse reactions.

Does that mean ban all vaccines?

Dope1,

Leftists are bad at math, and especially bad at basic statistics.

Even assuming the worst-case about this ICE/Somali-origin person situation--and I don't, I believe the guy was trying to hide something--most likely identity theft or perhaps it will turn out he was involved in or beneffiting from the recent huge benefits fraud scandal--they discount the many thousands and millions of interaction of ICE that don't result in any alleged "mistakes" by ICE.

They also discount the fact that the Left has constantly encourage active "resistance" to ICE rather than cooperation.

As the NJ politician who tried to interfere with ICE at an ICE detention facility in NJ, being a very privileged white politician doesn't mean jack, you will get thrown on your ass too, that's equal, equitable and fair treatment! No discrimination!

Not every cop is the same, and it's wrong to assume that they are.

My default position is that policemen are here to help. They are the guys that carry guns and run toward danger, so I don't need to.

But there are bad ones. Black folks say words to the effect "this is the way we have always been treated. the difference is now there are cameras everywhere, to prove it" There was a case, a few years ago, about an officer in a Detroit burb who beat up a black motorist. The guy had previously been with Detroit PD, and Detroit had received a long list of complaints about this guy. But he was able to be hired again as a policeman.

The oddest thing is that, in movies and TV series about police departments, "Internal Affairs" is always painted as the bad guys.

The function if IA, from the net sifter:

A police department's Internal Affairs (IA) unit investigates misconduct allegations against officers, ensuring accountability, protecting the public, and maintaining department integrity by handling complaints, enforcing policy, identifying systemic issues, and recommending discipline to uphold professional standards and public trust. They investigate everything from minor policy violations to major crimes and civil rights issues, ensuring fair and thorough processes for all involved

This should be a good thing, right? The police who police the police. But they are always portrayed negatively, even in a sitcom, like "Barney Miller".

Lieutenant Scanlon

A member of the Internal Affairs Division of the New York City Police Department, his appearances always meant tense times for the detectives and officers of the 12th Precinct, in particular their leader, series protagonist Captain Barney Miller.

In many respects, he was a nightmare version of a police officer to other police officers, the quota-driven cop who wanted to find petty crimes to expose, and viewing everyone he deals with as guilty to start with.

While tensions always existed between regular police and internal affairs, Scanlon is not the one who could receive grudging respect for someone just doing his job. In fact, on many occasions, it was implied and sometimes even stated outright that Scanlon targeted the 12th Precinct precisely because of its clean tenure under Miller.

https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Lieutenant_Scanlo...

Weird, isn't it?

Steve

ME: So it's a case of 1. cause the behavior and then, 2. blame the behavior for the detention.

DOPE: Your #1 assumes that all law enforcement is the same and absolves the individual being contacted by ICE or a LEO from any responsibility.

I don't think all law enforcement is the same Dope. But this remark indicates you misunderstand the point and are replying to something that isn't there. Or maybe you just aren't clear what you mean, because it doesn't address the issue. Again:


1. The citizen knows that police can roust a citizen, ignore anything he says and any offered documents in his possession, and just take him away. There's multiple reports of this from several different locations and states.

2. ICE is allowed to pick up and detain people based on ethnicity (they way they look) and sort it out much later - 5 hours to 5 days later is not unheard of.

3. So if you're an ethnicity that Trump is hatemongering about, and you see ICE, you may try to flee to avoid several days in detention. Why? Because an ICE coming at you means a high likelihood that you'll spend an extended period of time in detention, even if you are a citizen and have verified ID.

4. So have I painted the picture well enough so far? ICE = unknown amount of time wasted in detention without pay, etc.

5. So the citizen makes the choice to initially flee - fight or flight is basic - and is caught, ICE refuses to look at documents, which is by now well known that they don't look at documents for targeted ethnicities, and spends the time in detention.

6. Whether he ran or didn't, he was going to spend time in detention if they got their hands on him. I have never read a case where a targeted ethnicity citizen said, "I'm a citizen, please take a look at my verified state ID. I'm not required to have papers because I'm a citizen", and the ICE man looked at the ID and let him go. It's always sort it out back at the detention center - the journos, etc., say that is what is going on.

7. So here's my #1 - So it's a case of 1. cause the behavior, and your response is:

Dope: Your #1 assumes that all law enforcement is the same

8. No, the behavior is likely caused by 1. Trump hatemongering, 2. News reporting open season on ethnities 3. journos stating that ICE just rounds people up and sorts everyone out much later, 4. did I say Trump hatemongering? etc., and the citizen hears and reads all about this. It appears to have nothing to do with the individuality of the ICE person.

At this point, there have been hundreds of thousands, if not MILLIONS, of interactions (and non-interactions! all the ones where people did not "resist" and did cooperate with law enforcement), between ICE and both citizens and non-citizens. There are THOUSANDS of Somalis and Somali born people in Minnesota who have interacted with ICE in the very recent past.

What error rate is acceptable to you? Zero?

marco, why do you miss the point all the time? This has nothing to do with error rate.

I don't think all law enforcement is the same Dope. But this remark indicates you misunderstand the point and are replying to something that isn't there. Or maybe you just aren't clear what you mean, because it doesn't address the issue.

Your further explanation only makes your logical problem worse, compounding it with the claim that ICE is randomly abducting US citizens based on their skin color alone.

That's not happening. If it was, there would be multiple lawsuits alleging this with several citizens suing the feds over being locked up for days for what amounts to no reason. We aren't seeing that.

3. So if you're an ethnicity that Trump is hatemongering about, and you see ICE, you may try to flee to avoid several days in detention. Why? Because an ICE coming at you means a high likelihood that you'll spend an extended period of time in detention, even if you are a citizen and have verified ID.

No it doesn't. Again, you're drawing conclusions based on a number of claims that aren't backed by evidence.

LOL and whatever happened to those 9 vibrant illegal immigrants who were snatched up by ICE at the Allson,MA carwash?

Down the memory hole.

Same with the Somali/American dude.

Fake story, MSM triggers Leftist outrage, turns out the facts don't support that narrative,

on to the next triggering phoney outrage story.

"Your further explanation only makes your logical problem worse, compounding it with the claim that ICE is randomly abducting US citizens based on their skin color alone.

That's not happening. If it was, there would be multiple lawsuits alleging this with several citizens suing the feds over being locked up for days for what amounts to no reason." - Dumbass Dope

I wonder if Dumbass Dope has realized the reason we are not seeing more lawsuits is because the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that law enforcement targeting people based on their skin color is acceptable.

Can you provide the actual case name and verbatim holding if the case you are citing to? You do have a tendency to misattribute.

I wonder if Dumbass Dope has realized the reason we are not seeing more lawsuits is because the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that law enforcement targeting people based on their skin color is acceptable.

Yah, I think I'm going back to not reading Dope's responses.

Yah, I think I'm going back to not reading Dope's responses.

I can guess the butthurt loser that you’re responding to. You shouldn’t follow in that one’s footsteps - perpetually miserable, unable to have even a simple conversation with other people. That kind of raw acid bleeds into your personal life which is why he/she is such a laughable doofus.

"Can you provide the actual case name and verbatim holding if the case you are citing to? You do have a tendency to misattribute." - Marco the Clown

1. You are being dishonest. That is not a good way to help with your credibility problem. Can you point to any evidence of me "having a tendency to misattribute"? I bet not. Just more to laugh at you for.

2. The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. It was a "shadow docket" ruling issued in September 2025 where the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's temporary restraining order that had blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles from making stops based on factors including a person's apparent race or ethnicity. The alleged Sexual Assaulter (you know how the GOP love their leaders to have engaged in sexual assault....) Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement.

I would adopt a meek and compliant demeanor. Respond to questions and commands. Yes, sir. No, sir.

Sure, you do that after the door is blown off your home and you're lying face down on the street, cuffed in your tightywhiteys, 'cause you're a good citizen.

"Oh, but that can't happen to me 'cause I'm a white man."

Ok do the Supreme Court DID NOT issue a ruling saying what you in fact misattributed to it.

Actually you lied.

"Ok do the Supreme Court DID NOT issue a ruling saying what you in fact misattributed to it." - Marco the Clown

Do you need help comprehending what happened? Your failure and understanding does not make me a liar. Still the Clown.

I read this one as a distinction without a difference... "As one factor.."
So, He was black and in a hoodie so we stopped him. If he were white and in a hoodie we would not have.
Those that deny white privilege exist are working hard to increase the amount of white privilege.
Alan

The Supreme Court, as you admitted, simply declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling on the so called shadow docket.

There was no ruling by the court as to any of the merits of the underlying case. It's the shadow docket.

Not only is there no binding holding in the Supreme Court which says what you falsely attributes to it, there is no binding or precedential holding in the Supreme Court at all.

You're a liar. When your mistake is pointed out to you, rather than conceding your mistake, you double down.

Typical lying Leftist

The Supreme Court, as you admitted, simply declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling on the so called shadow docket.

There was no ruling by the court as to any of the merits of the underlying case. It's the shadow docket.

Of course not. But that didn't stop the utter clown you're replying to from shooting off his mouth and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he doesn't have the first clue about what he's blathering on about, right?

Par for the course with that troll; it's why he's perpetually butthurt. It's like a ritual humiliation fetish or something.

Dope1,

It's O.K. to make a mistake or be ignorant about a subject. No one is perfect.

However, the ability to engage in error-correction, i.e. to actually learn something you didn't know, is critical.

The Leftists almost universally are incapable of incorporating new or different information or opinions or data into their self-referential world view.

The Leftist I had been responding to assumed that when I asked him to cite the [non-existent] Supreme Court holding which he claimed existed, I was somehow trying to do a "gotcha."

Not at all. I was trying to learn something from someone who claimed to be more knowledgeable than I am about it.

I simply asked him to cite the holding, verbatim, under the assumption that he was telling the truth as he saw it, but perhaps when looking at the entire holding, there were some nuances as to its meaning that were at least, debatable.

But as it turned out there was no holding at all.

Instead of responding by saying, "O.K. you have a point there, it's an inference in a concurrence by Kavanaugh [concurrence which he didn't supply either], on the shadow docket--in reality, that's not a holding of the Supreme Court, it's just one justice's possible opinion and is not a binding ruling"--said Leftist goes on the attack.

The inability to admit error is because it would force them to challenge the entire Leftist psyops delusion they are living within.

The whole edifice comes crumbling down once you start challenging your own psychological and emotional biases.

They are NEVER going to concede that Rob Reiner was a shitty father.

They are NEVER going to concede that maybe the psychotic murdering son may have been prompted to violence by his own father's relentless tirades against the father's perceived political adversaries. Who knows what kind of crazy violent imagery and talk this kid had been brainwashed into believing since birth by his equally psychotic father.

The are NEVER going to concede that perhaps Reiner and his wife would still be alive, and his son not a murderer, if Reiner had spent a lot more effort on helping his own family and a lot less effort on telling the rest of the world how smart and infallible Reiner is and how stupid and undeserving of life, safety and basic respect his perceived political adversaries were (at least to Reiner).

They are NEVER going to concede that Reiner, the "father," repeatedly modeled uncompromising hatred of those he disagreed with in the public sphere, which to a mentally ill person might justify "any means necessary."

"Sue Tincher is a 55-year-old American citizen: a grandmother, 5’4’, and white. Just in case you thought you’d be safe.
She walked to her neighbor’s house after getting alerts that ICE was nearby. She stood across the street and asked an officer if they were ICE. They told her to “get back.” She didn’t move.
Seconds later, they threw her to the ground, handcuffed her, and hauled her away. She spent five hours in leg shackles at a federal building. Agents cut off her wedding ring and threatened to pepper-spray her in the truck. Her husband spent all day trying to find where they’d taken her. Federal officials wouldn’t tell him.
Her "crime" was simply standing on a public street, watching, and asking questions.
Read that again: here in Minnesota, a U.S. citizen was arrested, restrained, and disappeared for hours, not for interfering, not for resisting, but for asking a question.
If they can arrest Sue Tincher for standing on a public sidewalk, they can arrest anyone.
Immigration attorneys said they’re seeing constitutional violations every single day now. I’m running because we need leaders who will call this what it is- un-American, unconstitutional, and unacceptable.
Sue Tincher stood up.
I’m standing up.
We must all stand up."

Except BHM. He grabs his patriotic cheeks and spreads 'em for the orange sociopath.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/12/09/federal-a...

This proves that ICE is not engaging in a general pattern of illegal discrimination on account of race or national origin in its enforcement process.

She was told to get back.

She didn't.

Cue: throw her ass on the ground and cuff her.

Equal, equitable, fair treatment for all.

As it should be.

If they can arrest Sue Tincher for standing on a public sidewalk, they can arrest anyone. - sano

---------------------

Your anecdote shows she was not arrested for just standing there but rather she failed to follow the officers command.

"The Supreme Court, as you admitted, simply declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling on the so called shadow docket." - Marco the Clown

That is simply not true in fact you have it backwards. The did not decline to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed a District Court ruling that stopped ICE from using race or ethnicity as a factor in stops. Kavanaugh then went on to clearly imply it in his concurrence with the majority.

"There was no ruling by the court as to any of the merits of the underlying case." - Marco the Clown

No duh. It is a good thing no one implied that they commented on the underlying case otherwise you might have your first ever point.

"Not only is there no binding holding in the Supreme Court which says what you falsely attributes to it, there is no binding or precedential holding in the Supreme Court at all." - Marco the Clown

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Are you just dumb? Maybe English is your second language (Russian first???)? I never said or claimed any of those things. Perhaps you would look like less of an idiot if you argued against things I actually said instead of pretending I said something different. People might stop laughing at you.

"You're a liar. When your mistake is pointed out to you, rather than conceding your mistake, you double down." - Marco the Clown

You inability to comprehend does not render anyone else a liar. It just means you are incapable.

I will make it simple for you. So simple that even a Russian Troll whose primary language isn't English would be able to grasp it.

In the case mentioned, ICE was making stops based on nothing more than a person's apparent race and ethnicity. Despite have no other reason to stop a person, ICE was picking up everyone who looked Hispanic in Home Depot parking lots and car washes. Even American Citizens. Basically trampling all over the Fourth Amendment. A District Court put out an injunction saying ICE could not use apparent race or ethnicity as the sole factor in making immigration stops (papers please?). The DOJ then appealed to SCOTUS where the in an apparent 6-3 decision, the Six Authoritarian Papers Please GOP SCOTUS judges put a hold on that injunction and allowed ICE to continue to trample all over the 4th Amendment. Not only that, Justice Kavanaugh (the alleged Sexual Assaulter type the GOP loves) put out a concurring explanation that went a step further and clearly implied that using apparent race made probabilistic sense as justification for stops. Apparently 10% probability (the estimated percentage of Hispanic people with unlawful status) is enough to overcome the "reasonable doubt" portion of the 4th Amendment.

Here is a link with far more information: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/roving-patrols-....

I look forward to 2028 when President Newsom send ATF agents to stop and search everyone leaving a gun show based on the probabilistic nature that some percentage of the attendees are criminals.

There you have been given a chance to educate yourself. What are you going to do with that chance? Are you going to double down on bluster and ignorance or do better?

"It's O.K. to make a mistake or be ignorant about a subject. No one is perfect.

However, the ability to engage in error-correction, i.e. to actually learn something you didn't know, is critical.

The Leftists almost universally are incapable of incorporating new or different information or opinions or data into their self-referential world view." - Marco the Clown

There is no better form of humor than unintentional irony. Lucielle Ball made a great living doing that form of comedy. You have taken it to the next level.

I have supplied you with the court case, links accurately describing the case. All you have done is put your hands over your ears and responded with bluster and said I am wrong.

What a Clown.

"The Leftist I had been responding to assumed that when I asked him to cite the [non-existent] Supreme Court holding which he claimed existed" - Marco the lying Clown

Where did I make such a claim? Where did I use the words you are claiming I said? You are the one making shit up about what I said.

Where did I make such a claim? Where did I use the words you are claiming I said? You are the one making shit up about what I said.

In addition to having a record of what posters write here, marco has an even better and infallible source:

He KNOWS what you are thinking.

Regardless of the words you commit to writing, marco knows what other posters are thinking.

He’ll even tell you this is so.

Ummm...

You're a liar, and a fraud.

All I asked you to do was to post verbatim the "holding" of the decision you cited.

You spend endless stupid words doing everything except citing the holding.

You make shit up and falsely attribute it to me, to the Supreme Court, to everyone.

You're a liar, when you got caught, you doubled and tripled down.

You're worthless.

Cite the holding,, asholee.

Ummm and wzambon just make shit up constantly.

Bad enough that you guys misattribute to people on a message board, but deliberately misattributing a legal holding to the Supreme Court, then denying you did that, is pure Leftist gaslighting.

Your anecdote shows she was not arrested for just standing there but rather she failed to follow the officers command.

An officer's unlawful command is a constitutional violation; an unlawful usurpation of one's rights.

A 5'4" 55-year-old grandmother who is concerned for her neighbors well-being, who understands and values constitutional rights, has more cojones than you, BHM.

You willingly "spread 'em" for the ignorant law-breaking thugs.

a psycho liberal blocking law enforcement isn't a judge and doesn't get to interfere with law enforcement trying to carry out its legitimate function.

Even if she's white and privileged.

No discrimination! ICE is not racist.

Bad enough that you guys misattribute to people on a message board, but deliberately misattributing a legal holding to the Supreme Court,

Actually, the Supreme Court did say it was OK to use ethnicity as part of a reason for stopping someone for ICE purposes for a time by not upholding the restraining order until the appeals is decided. This can be viewed as a signal that ethnicity as a big part of stopping someone is not viewed unfavorably by the court. Why? Among the factors that the court would use to decide is the damage to citizenry if they are stopped using ethnicity as a large basis of the profiling. It appears that the damage is not enough to support a TRO until it's decided. I view it as the court indicating that if a good case is brought before them, they will eliminate or lower Significantly the prohibition on racial and ethnic profiling.

And no, your question was a gotcha.

Lambo,

Please provide a verbatim quote of what you claim the Supreme Court supposedly "said."

Not what you wish to read into it.

What the Supreme Court actually "said"--otherwise known as the "holding" of the decision.

Not what your imagination fantasizes that the Supreme Court said.

What it ACTUALLY said.

Lambo,

Please provide a verbatim quote of what you claim the Supreme Court supposedly "said."

Not what you wish to read into it.

No. I mentioned no "holding" in what I wrote. Can you summarize what you think the holding is, if you think there is one?

OK if you're not even claiming to referencing a holding of a Supreme Court decision,

you're totally engaging in b.s.

You're just making stuff up totally.

Not surprising.

Did you pull your legal opinions out of your ass?

OK if you're not even claiming to referencing a holding of a Supreme Court decision,

you're totally engaging in b.s.

Can you summarize what you think the holding is in that case, if you think there is a holding? You don't seem to be able to summarize it.

"Cite the holding,, asholee."

LOL

It is ok to admit you are wrong and learn from the experience. No need to show your true assholish colors.

Just learn and move on. Stop destroying America with stuff that would embarrass a Russian bot.

That is twice you lost.

LOL, you are hilarious. I hope you have fun in Ukraine given you absolute failure at being a Russian troll.

Look out for those drones.

It is obvious I hit a nerve with the fact I posted.

"Ummm...

You're a liar, and a fraud.

All I asked you to do was to post verbatim the "holding" of the decision you cited."

Your comprehension problems are not mine. I clearly backed up my statements with facts. You pout and lash out further embarrassing yourself.

Good luck being stuck in a trench.

"Can you summarize what you think the holding is in that case, if you think there is a holding? You don't seem to be able to summarize it." - Lambo

Of course he cannot summarize it. He doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. How do you expect someone sitting in a Russian Troll farm just outside Moscow to know all of the details of the United States legal system? He is more worried about failing at his job and being sent to Ukraine to die in some useless attack.

He doesn't have the knowledge of the legal system so all he can do is resort to hand waving and bluster.

People like Dope will fall for it, but anyone with a normal IQ or higher won't.

Stop gaslighting Lambo.

I didn't assert anything.

You lefist imbeciles are claiming the Supreme Court made some kind of a "ruling."

Now you're playing dumb?

You're a time wasting liar.

No holding, just typical Leftist b.s.

You're all a bunch of liars.

Ummm is once again lying and frauding.

He made up "facts" which don't exist--specifically supporting his claim that the Supreme Court made some kind of a ruling which says what ever he now claims it to have said.

But there is no such ruling.

Liar. Fraud.

Leftist.

ROTFLMAO! Classic little ummie, the most butthurt person on the interwebs.

1. You are being dishonest. That is not a good way to help with your credibility problem. Can you point to any evidence of me "having a tendency to misattribute"? I bet not. Just more to laugh at you for.

2. The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. It was a "shadow docket" ruling issued in September 2025 where the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's temporary restraining order that had blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles from making stops based on factors including a person's apparent race or ethnicity. The alleged Sexual Assaulter (you know how the GOP love their leaders to have engaged in sexual assault....) Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement.

Starts off with an insult - and always claims everyone has a "credibility" issue, then goes into an assertion.

In this case:
a) "The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. It was a "shadow docket" ruling issued in September 2025 where the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's temporary restraining order"

lUmmie gets this right. I haven't really checked but since the libs never link source material, here is the actual case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169...
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and
by her referred to the Court is granted. The July 11, 2025
order entered by the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, case No. 2:25–cv–5605, is
stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ
is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall
terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted,
the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the
judgment of this Court.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the grant of the
application for stay.

So all this is is just...issuing a stay while the matter plays out in the 9th Circuit.

b)"blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles from making stops based on factors including a person's apparent race or ethnicity"

Here lUmmie automatically assumes racist intent on ICE. But Brett Kavanaugh reminds the dUmm among us that
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes
immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person
believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in
the United States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(1).
Immigration officers “may briefly detain” an individual “for
questioning” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on
specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned
. . . is an alien illegally in the United States.” 8 CFR
§287.8(b)(2) (2025); see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,
422 U. S. 873, 884 (1975); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U. S.
266, 273 (2002). The reasonable suspicion inquiry turns on
the “totality of the particular circumstances.” Brignoni
Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273.

...there is ample statutes and case law indicating that that ICE can you know, do their jobs.

c) "The alleged Sexual Assaulter"

This troll can't go 3 seconds without using hyperbole or other insulting language, because of its limited mental capacity.

d)"Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement"

Let's test this one. We know none of the libs actually read the order:
Not surprisingly given those extraordinary numbers,
U. S. immigration officers have prioritized immigration
enforcement in the Los Angeles area. The Government
sometimes makes brief investigative stops to check the
immigration status of those who gather in locations where
people are hired for day jobs; who work or appear to work
in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car
washes that often do not require paperwork and are
therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not
speak much if any English. If the officers learn that the
individual they stopped is a U. S. citizen or otherwise
lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the
individual go. If the individual is illegally in the United
States, the officers may arrest the individual and initiate
the process for removal.

That's called "logical". One can see why our board's population of libruls can't process it.

Ummie made an assertion that "Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement".

But the actual ruling from the lower court...
Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of
illegal presence have been an important component of U. S.
immigration enforcement for decades, across several
presidential administrations. In this case, however, the
District Court enjoined U. S. immigration officers from
making investigative stops in the Los Angeles area when
the stops are based on the following factors or combination
of factors: (i) presence at particular locations such as bus
stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural
sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does;
(iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent;
and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity.1
The Government contends that the injunction will
substantially hamper its efforts to enforce the immigration
laws in the Los Angeles area. The Government has
therefore asked this Court to stay the District Court’s
injunction.

BK reviews the rules of stays when he says
To obtain a stay from this Court, the moving party must
demonstrate a fair prospect that, if the District Court’s
decision were affirmed on appeal, this Court would grant
certiorari and reverse. The moving party also must show a
likelihood that it would suffer irreparable harm if a stay
were not granted. Those two factors are the “most critical.”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). Particularly in
“close cases,” the Court also considers the balance of harms
and equities to the parties, including the public interest.
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010)
(per curiam); see Nken, 556 U. S., at 435.

In my view, the Government has made a sufficient
showing to obtain a stay pending appeal.

...and then explains his last statement:
To begin with, given the significance of the issue to the
Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, this Court
would likely grant certiorari if the Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court’s injunction. See, e.g., United
States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670 (2023); Biden v. Texas, 597
U. S. 785 (2022).

No race there. Ummie isn't off to a good start.

First, under this Court’s decision in Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U. S. 95 (1983), plaintiffs likely lack Article III standing
to seek a broad injunction restricting immigration officers
from making these investigative stops.

No race there. Kavanaugh goes on to shoot down the BS "logic" that says Because Something Bad Happened Some Time Ago That Means I'm Exempt From The Possibly Of The Bad Thing For All Time.

Second, even if plaintiffs had standing, the Government
has a fair prospect of succeeding on the Fourth Amendment
issue. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873; Arvizu, 534 U. S.
266; Application 22–30; Reply 9–14.
To stop an individual for brief questioning about
immigration status, the Government must have reasonable
suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the
United States. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 880–882;
Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273; United States v. Sokolow, 490
U. S. 1, 7 (1989).
Reasonable suspicion is a lesser
requirement than probable cause and “considerably short”
of the preponderance of the evidence standard.

Sounds like the lower court needs a course in Law Enforcement 101.

But here's the killshot to Umm's lazy nonsense:
To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone
cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s
case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient
factors. Id., at 887.

Here's where Ummie read something he didn't understand and will try to claim victory...but BK says, "nope". To spell it out, saying "Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement" is a dishonest reading of the opinion as BK is clearly citing case law.

Whoops. Add yet another Umm fail to his 20+ years of futile posting and walking with a limp. All because he lacks the brainpower to think for himself.

But let's dunk on him (and all the other libs) some more.

Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common
sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at
least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United
States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that
immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and
inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S.
citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that
individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only
if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop
lead to further immigration proceedings.
In short, given this Court’s precedents, the Government
has demonstrated a fair prospect of success both on
standing and Fourth Amendment grounds. To conclude
otherwise, this Court would likely have to overrule or
significantly narrow two separate lines of precedents: the
Lyons line of cases with respect to standing and the
Brignoni-Ponce line of cases with respect to immigration
stops based on reasonable suspicion. In this interim
posture, plaintiffs have not made a persuasive argument for
this Court to overrule or narrow either line of precedent,
much less both of them.

So no, libs, we're not overturning how law enforcement works in this country because you lot have the IHATETRUMPPUTINHITLERRUSSIA vapors. Your librul hate isn't relevant to the real world.

Learn logic. Learn civics. Learn how to think.

Or you're end up bitter, perpetually butthurt, and...very, very stupid. Just like Ummie has.

Kavanaugh's coup de grace:
especially weighty legal interest.
To be sure, I recognize and fully appreciate that many
(not all, but many) illegal immigrants come to the United
States to escape poverty and the lack of freedom and
opportunities in their home countries, and to make better
lives for themselves and their families. And I understand
that they may feel somewhat misled by the varying U. S.
approaches to immigration enforcement over the last few
decades. But the fact remains that, under the laws passed
by Congress and the President, they are acting illegally by
remaining in the United States—at least unless Congress
and the President choose some other legislative approach to
legalize some or all of those individuals now illegally
present in the country. And by illegally immigrating into
and remaining in the country, they are not only violating
the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those
noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line to
immigrate into the United States through the legal
immigration process. For those reasons, the interests of
illegal immigrants in evading questioning (and thus
evading detection of their illegal presence) are not
particularly substantial as a legal matter.

Boom.

Take the L, bitch. I'll check back on you in another 10 years to see if you've gotten any smarter. The current data says "no".

"Ummm is once again lying and frauding.

He made up "facts" which don't exist--specifically supporting his claim that the Supreme Court made some kind of a ruling which says what ever he now claims it to have said.

But there is no such ruling." - Marco the Russian Clown

You realize that here is the U.S. we have access to this website called Google? It is a search engine. That means people can type into it the case I mentioned (Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo), and Google will spit out all sorts of references to the case, from news articles to law blog reviews to even a link to the case itself.

That means it is very easy for everyone to verify what I claimed.

All you have is bluster and insults. Literally nothing else.

That trip to the Ukrainian front is getting closer.

"Take the L, bitch. I'll check back on you in another 10 years to see if you've gotten any smarter. The current data says "no"."

Hilarious that Dope still cannot comprehend his own links.

Hilarious that Dope still cannot comprehend his own links.

Take the loss. Add it to all the others you've accumulated over decades now.
And quit begging for attention from your betters, because you're not worthy of it.

"Take the loss. Add it to all the others you've accumulated over decades now." - Dumbass Dope

Still the Black Knight eh? Too funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlYrn2bXsc4

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.