US Supreme Court Watch - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15176792
Istanbuller wrote:
Yes, I am serious. Tribal and religious divisions within Indian population still exist till today. But that doesn't make them different people. India's population is pretty much homogenous compared to America and Eruopean countries.



One of the reasons India is in so much trouble right now is because of the way ethnic conflict has played out in their politics.

"For the purposes of bureaucratic administration, the British offered their own construction of “Hindu” as an overarching religious category. Any Indian who was not a Muslim or one of the other readily identifiable religious traditions was labeled as part of the same “indigenous” group. The “Hindus” included ethnic identities such as aboriginal Adivasi woodlands dwellers who could draw their descent in the land for tens of thousands of years, earlier than Homo sapiens had even arrived in Europe; Indo-European Vedic peoples who migrated to the region some 3,000-3,500 years ago; and even Zoroastrian Parsis and old communities of Jews. As the British sought to create a single box to hold most of the inhabitants of a landmass the size of Europe, they developed a frame that would have consequences. Islam was a religion that had originated outside India. So for an Indian who opposed foreign imperial administration, and yearned for an independent government of local Indians, the British unintentionally provided a label: Hinduism.

And the movement came into its own with the explicit articulation of an exclusionary notion of Hindu-ness and Hindu nationalism in a 1923 pamphlet called “Essentials of Hindutva” (later retitled “Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?”) by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. This duly formed the ideological basis for the right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded two years later, arguing that an independent India should be a state for Hindus (and Buddhists).

This split within the independence movement would lead to the young democracy’s original sin, one whose aftershocks are felt to this day. Less than half a year after India won its independence from the British, Gandhi was assassinated by a member of the RSS who was angry that the constitution of the Indian state was to be inclusive of Muslims and Anglo-Indians."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/13/mo ... autocracy/

Modi is RSS... The weird thing is that ethnic conflict has been in the news from India since the country was founded. So where the heck have you been?
#15176795
late wrote:Modi is RSS... The weird thing is that ethnic conflict has been in the news from India since the country was founded. So where the heck have you been?

You are comparing oranges to apples. India's foreign rule did not start with British. Mughal dynasty was Turko-Persian ruling family. Indians made significant contributions to Ottoman Empire during wars. They had still connections to Turkey in early 1900s.
By late
#15176798
Istanbuller wrote:
You are comparing oranges to apples. India's foreign rule did not start with British. Mughal dynasty was Turko-Persian ruling family. Indians made significant contributions to Ottoman Empire during wars. They had still connections to Turkey in early 1900s.



Homogeneous they ain't..

"Such efforts reached an apex in advance of the 2019 elections, when Modi engaged in large-scale voter suppression, removing an estimated 120 million eligible voters from the electoral roll by demanding documentation to prove residency. The aim was to erase religious groups that are seen as non-Indian in the Hindutva ideology, leading to the removal of some 70 million Muslims and Dalits. In clearing the rolls, Modi played the odds, gambling that a combination of voter suppression of minorities and gaining the votes of the Hindu majority would be enough to guarantee electoral success."

And it's a central part of why they do what they do...
#15176807
@Istanbuller I don't see Latin American immigrants as losers. That is for people who don't know them well. I will include you in that group of losers who don't know Latin Americans well.

They can repress all they want. In the end the ones living in the USA, paying taxes and educating their children there are the ones who wind up getting to be a part of American society. The white racist ole men might want to rule indefinitely but they won't. The capitalists need to keep selling their products to the youth. Which won't be white people. Period.
By Doug64
#15176814
Drlee wrote:So your conclusion on this is based on the fact that they will not vote Republican?

Nope, because I don't believe in rewarding people for breaking our laws. If they want citizenship, then they can leave the country and petition for legal entry.

I don't like illegal immigration either and have repeatedly proposed a permanent solution for it. Simple, cost effective and humane. But if we are going to let people live and work here permanently we should allow them representation lest we accept a permanent underclass.

But there would be nothing permanent about it, because while they might never become citizens, their children would--even if you hold, as I do, that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship doesn't apply to those born to people that are passing through. Clearly, people that have been granted permanent residency status aren't "passing through."

It did. No doubt about it. And until we enforce the immigration laws in the marketplace and make it illegal and severely punished to employ undocumented workers, it will continue. We have to impose workplace enforcement that makes hiring illegals a threat to the business license and a real criminal offense. The checks required would be easy and cheap to implement.

Agreed, I believe that E-Verify should be mandatory for all employers. So does 2/3 of the country, including 83% of Republican, 68% of Independent, and even 53% of Democratic Likely Voters. For the racial breakdown, that's 70% of Whites, 52% of Blacks, 69% of Hispanics, and 64% of Others. (That Hispanic number goes a long way to explain why the Democrats' open border policy isn't necessarily the major draw for Hispanic voters they think it is.)

So you see Doug. On this issue we are both on the conservative side. Not the neocon side but the classic conservative side.

Yes, lightning does strike occasionally.
#15176819
@Doug64 wrote:
Agreed, I believe that E-Verify should be mandatory for all employers. So does 2/3 of the country, including 83% of Republican, 68% of Independent, and even 53% of Democratic Likely Voters. For the racial breakdown, that's 70% of Whites, 52% of Blacks, 69% of Hispanics, and 64% of Others. (That Hispanic number goes a long way to explain why the Democrats' open border policy isn't necessarily the major draw for Hispanic voters they think it is.)


You have incredibly wrong perceptions of what those establishment Democrats represent and what international socialists and democratic socialists represent. You are just plain wrong Doug.

First of all, the establishment Democrats like Harris don't want open borders. They want controlled borders but they also have to consider the needs of greedy employers who love hiring people with no authorization to work because in certain jobs like this Chicken farm etc they can't find American workers willing to work. There is a myth out there where Americans think there are jobs that American people who are looking for work are willing to do. Most people won't work badly paid with no benefits jobs and the ones who are willing? Already are working the jobs. Now the issue is about COVID 19 and people who get paid better on unemployment. No one wants to be exploited. Not the Latino workers and not the American workers. But? The employers who hire the ones who don't have authorization know they can't fill the positions with the legal American work force. If they could do it without a problem they would have.

My solution is to raise wages in Mexico and Central America. That is the only way to stabilize the situation. The Dems and the Repubs are in the pockets of these very crooked employers. Otherwise? This e-verify thing would have worked a long time ago. It is not working because there is not enough labor department enforcement and the richest of the corporations who pay off politicians have the last word there. If you don't understand that it is not my problem. I am interested in having all the Latin Americans stay home. Get paid decent wages. But that is not reality. They have nothing to lose by jumping into the USA on refugee status visas. Cubans get there with political persecution visas. They can stay in Mexico free of political persecution. They never do because the truth is they need to make money and get higher wages and professional educations so they can be paid decently. That is the reason they are immigrants. Poverty. Not enough jobs. Do you want to solve the problem? Pressure the corporations paying people $1 to $2 dollars an hour in Mexico and Central America. The PRC pays MORE than the minimum wage in Mexico, Central America does. Why? Study Latin American labor fights. Multinationals and corporations don't want wages to go up. They are making money. They are incredibly powerful people with lobbyists in Washington DC and control both the Democratic politicians and the Republican ones. You got corrupt bought-off assholes running your nation and letting it happen. So concentrate on them.

Persecuting some low-wage workers who flee Latin America's cities because they have no urban skills in Latin America and fill jobs Americans can't do and then you don't see how the E-Verify doesn't work because the politicians are do-nothings is not a solution Doug.

Solve the issue on the economic core level. The only ones who know how to extract some money and put these corporations in their place? Socialists and far-left people. But you hate us. So you won't ever get a solution.

Thems the breaks.

Most Mexicans are not even going to the states. The ones going there are Hondurans and Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. Nicaraguans aren't going, neither are Panamanians or Costa Ricans. Neither are the regular seasonal workers and it is costing Alabamans bucks and problems. Rotting veggies and so on and lost taxes and revenue. Look at this:





It is not just Alabama it is New York, New Jersey, and many more.



Indians with options:



The USA has issues because it doesn't educate the number of people it needs. Why? Lack of investment in training and education that is affordable. It is wasting people and the USA has a lot of drug consumption and people with very little preparation for the skills involved in many types of jobs. A lack of investment in many ways is going to transform the USA. Educate the brown ones and stop the bullshit, Doug. I think your writing on this subject is seriously flawed and ignorant.

I don't give a damn about the need to keep America white. Give it up. That is over.



You are not going to keep the well educated professionals. You are making ignorant decisions. Again the applications for becoming new American citizens are from four major nations. China, India, Cuba and Mexico. That is it. There are a lot of others from Africa and the Middle East. But England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Holland, France, Germany, and Denmark, etc, and Norway, Sweden and Finland, and Russia is not that many of them coming really. It has stabilized.

Get over the bullshit and concentrate on educating the big four and their kids there. And make good decisions about decent workers contributing. If you want to destroy the USA? The essential workers (many of them are not white people Doug). Hispanics want what? They want good-paying jobs. They are not here without authorization but if you keep attacking their communities, their relatives in Mexico, and their relatives in Central America and think Juan Gonzalez born in 2002 and going to University this year and is a citizen and he is getting frisked and stopped and asked to prove he is not Juan Gonzelez the border jumper? You will wind up with pissed-off people who think there is something wrong with the system.

Educated people with temp status and nonpermanent status can book on out of the USA. To find the ones who will tolerate the red tape, and then some government full of hostility and bullshit and some dummy people thinking that the USA is so great that all the other nations are static and stopped waiting for the American Dream. A lot of them in these places got some options. It is not what you think it is.
#15176822
How do you e-verify someone working a cash job? Lol.

It's true, the Dems and GOP are in the pockets of the corporations who benefit from illegal migration. It's also true that a lot of food would cost more without these workers.

Many countries have a temporary seasonal worker program and the government brings in migrant workers to work legally on farms, then go home after the season and many come back the next year.
#15176823
Unthinking Majority wrote:How do you e-verify someone working a cash job? Lol.

It's true, the Dems and GOP are in the pockets of the corporations who benefit from illegal migration. It's also true that a lot of food would cost more without these workers.

Many countries have a temporary seasonal worker program and the government brings in migrant workers to work legally on farms, then go home after the season and many come back the next year.


The USA doesn't want to do what is necessary to make it a stable work environment for guest workers. There is a part where this is explained in the New York immigration video. People who vote for these dumb laws don't understand what is involved. They never do.

It is about immigrants not being able to vote and politicians playing to the racist dumbells who think that the vast majority of Latinos are illegal aliens and drug dealers. The vast majority of the Latinos who are not citizens work service industry jobs, hotels, agriculture, landscaping, construction, and the list is really endless. One is talking about dozens of millions of people. Deporting them is just incredibly expensive and difficult.

Many had kids in the USA and those kids are USA citizens. What are you going to do? Deport the parents? And who raises the kids? They can't even reunite the kids they separated at the border with their zero-tolerance policy.

Poverty is the issue in Latin America. Latin America is not far away. It is next door. Period. Mexico has internal fights about what to do about raising the minimum wage, dealing with corruption and drug traffic and organized crime. They also have tremendous disputes about politics. The rich and well off want wages low and they neglect needed investment in education, housing, medicine and welfare and raising the standards of living. Mexicans discuss thoroughly all of Mexico's issues Unthinking. The problem with the caravans? The US government sends money to Mexico to 'stop the tide' of Hondurans, etc from crossing. None of them are interested in staying in Mexico because the Mexican wages SUCK. Not enough to live on and not much different than their home nations. The solution is attacking the obstructionism from the elite class who hates raises in their workers and the corrupt politicians in both nations in bed with wealthy corporations flooding political campaigns with black budget funds that are not required to be transparent. Mexico right now is in a very interesting fight with the freezing of the Sinaloa Cartels' monies. The Mexican gov't is not going to go and have fire fights with drug kingpins because they kill people. What is happening is freezing all their money and taking the money and SPENDING it fast. I do mean fast on all kinds of programs. It has made the drug dealers furious as hell. They can't identify who the judges and law enforcement people are freezing their profits. Then it is becoming cash. Corruption is rampant in Mexico and the tactic is to stop the bank accounts and clean them out. They interviewed the cartels....they are angry. But violence will be a result. In the end? You either have clean government on both sides of the border or you will have workers not getting treated fairly in either nation. The drive to the states is about FINANCES and JOBS. That is reality. But the Americans like Doug are nationalists. They only care about their 'nation' not anyone else's. I find them short-term thinkers who won't do much change. They don't attack those sellouts in DC? They will be doing nothing. If Doung can't live on one dollar an hour wages what makes him think a Mexican or a Honduran worker or farmer can? No one can live on that shit. SOLVE that low wage. If not? Nothing changes.

If you can make $11 dollars an hour picking cabbage in New York? Versus $1 an hour in Michoacan? You are going to New York. But if you got dummies saying they are taking the jobs of locals? It is foolish shit. But the politicians play politics. Do you want those special guest-worker visas? PAY US the government red tape we ask for and you better give us a slice of the American profit pie. The only ones winning are incredibly wealthy mega agricultural industries. Hotel maids, landscapers, etc. all need stability and labor rights, and decent wages. But with that pandemic? Tourism dying off. Old people are dying Unthinking. The graying of America is real. Who is young? The Latin Americans. Stop marginalizing people who all they do is work. They don't deal drugs and they don't run around in gangs. Identify the hard workers who are not criminals and pay them stable good wages and house them and educate their children.

If you want white people who obey border laws? They don't exist folks. The white folks from Canada are living in Canada. They make money and stay in Canada.

Again, the only ones interested in some false fake American bullshit dream are the ones desperate enough to break border laws and visa overstays. You get rid of them? Who raises their children? YOU. The USA taxpayer. WHere do they go? Foster care? You got to pay foster parents an average of 800 to 1750 a MONTH to take in kids from the system. You do that for 10 or 15 years how much is that going to cost the state?

Most of these people thinking capitalist greed is not the issue with E-Verify don't know jack shit about poverty in Latin America. Who the hell wants to go to a foreign nation under criminal fears to work bad jobs unless they are DESPERATE. Get rid of the desperation and you have a solution. Don't deal with it? It never goes away.
#15176871
Tainari88 wrote:It is about immigrants not being able to vote and politicians playing to the racist dumbells who think that the vast majority of Latinos are illegal aliens and drug dealers. The vast majority of the Latinos who are not citizens work service industry jobs, hotels, agriculture, landscaping, construction, and the list is really endless. One is talking about dozens of millions of people. Deporting them is just incredibly expensive and difficult.

Many had kids in the USA and those kids are USA citizens. What are you going to do? Deport the parents? And who raises the kids? They can't even reunite the kids they separated at the border with their zero-tolerance policy.


Yes it is expensive and difficult, and raises moral and logistical questions.

These are what's called "anchor babies". On one hand nobody with any moral decency wants to be cruel and break up families, on the other hand this isn't a problem caused by the United States, this problem was caused by the parents who migrated illegally and made these life decisions such as having children without legal status. If they were deported should we be mad at the government, or the put the blame on people who made risky decisions and put themselves and their children in that situation?

I have a lot of sympathy for the children in these situations since they're totally innocent, but I have far less sympathy for the parents.
#15176899
Unthinking Majority wrote:Yes it is expensive and difficult, and raises moral and logistical questions.

These are what's called "anchor babies". On one hand nobody with any moral decency wants to be cruel and break up families, on the other hand this isn't a problem caused by the United States, this problem was caused by the parents who migrated illegally and made these life decisions such as having children without legal status. If they were deported should we be mad at the government, or the put the blame on people who made risky decisions and put themselves and their children in that situation?

I have a lot of sympathy for the children in these situations since they're totally innocent, but I have far less sympathy for the parents.


No Unthinking I am very clear on who is responsible. People in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and many of Mexico's migrant workers are just looking either for safety or for asylum and or wages so they can have better living standards. There are criminals but the cartels grow heroine, or marijuana etc because that is profitable and the USA consumes drugs like there is no tomorrow. The USA drug consumption culture, emotional and lack of ability to manage the drug situations are responsible for that market. They are also responsible for not holding employers accountable for hiring workers because they are greedy. They want to pay the lowest wages for the hardest work for seasonal and unstable work. The government doesn't do much to regulate it and when they do? It is too much for the farmers. They refuse to deal with guest workers in a fair way. The employers complain that the wages required are too high. Profit problems again. It is capitalism Unthinking. It the need to make money and pay little. Simple as that. People in Mexico and Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador get paid for agricultural farm work worse than in the USA. Much worse. But they are citizens and want rights and fight for it. The local right wing elitist rich people battle against it and violently too. The same right wing conservatives in the USA in the Republican parties and Democratic party don't want to deal with minimum wage laws either for farm work. No one wants to give people a living wage. The American workers just listen to who? Greedy politicians and corporate CEOs with a lot of money who never lived those conditions before?

People don't leave Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador or Mexico either if they have housing that is decent, a living wage and health and education for themselves and their kids. No one leaves. Find out why they leave? Why people seek asylum in other nations. Then discuss with the government of those nations and find out why the situation is so dire. If you dig? The USA is indeed responsible Unthinking. They created and sunk a lot of money into civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala. Honduras they used as a springboard to create death squads and they used Honduras as a throwaway state to mount dictatorships to protect very powerful companies like the United Fruit Company that exports huge amounts of fruits and vegetables to the USA.

Honduras is literally the base of all the USA's horrible foreign policies in Central America. So yes, they are responsible for the instability. They are responsible for encouraging violence to repress local needs for decent wages and unions of workers an every Leftist movement for social justice was brutally repressed. So, I don't buy that shit about the USA not being responsible. I never did.

The parents fled because there are no jobs for women that pay enough to live. Many women are threatened by gangs with rape and murder and having their children kidnapped and indoctrinated in the gang culture. The decent ones leave or bust a move out of there rather than give in. Most don't stay in Mexico because Mexico pays workers with zero urban skills and very little formal education bad wages the same as the Mexican people who are citizens of Mexico.

Why stay when the USA promised to take people in who suffered violence and terroristic threats.

If someone tries to eradicate bad wages and improve things? The ones with the money from the USA are there to threaten and kill. The USA is indeed responsible.

The USA pursues bad policies and the food quality in general is not very good unless you shop at some expensive supermarkets like Whole Foods and such. Paying high prices that most Americans can't afford to pay.

The parents? People have kids regardless. Central Americans are extremely religious too. Most of them are dedicated Christians and taught that abortion is a sin. El Salvador throws you into the slammer if you are a woman and try to get rid of the baby and even when it is a spontaneous miscarriage they question you if you are a woman. Getting an abortion and the Salvadoran government finds out about it? To the SLAMMER. Did you know that Unthinking?





These people live in tiny inadequate homes with bad plumbing or no plumbing. if they get second grade educations it is a lot. They make very little money.

They got gangs and crime running around raping them.

Where is the relief about this? It is not the USA's problem. Then don't interfere with UNION ORGANIZERS and activists saying "Where is the damn SUPPORT for women? For parents? Where are the wages to support these KIDS?!!"

They don't have any? The kids wind up in the USA. By themselves.

They need jobs, education, housing, and help. Greed only doesn't work Unthinking. Thinking about United Fruit Company or some bullshit.....and not caring won't change the fact that these nations are in the AMERICAS. Not Europe. Those people can walk to the USA and they do. It takes a long time. But they can get there physically.

What needs to happen is that the USA needs to start dealing with the nations they have interfered in all these years.

Where they paid them shit for wages and created paramilitary death squads and never cared about their standards of living. They are NEIGHBORS, not people who are not sharing history with. The USA has huge amounts of Latin Americans. More than African Americans. Deal with that community and stop the bullshit.
#15176919
Tainari88 wrote:No Unthinking I am very clear on who is responsible. People in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and many of Mexico's migrant workers are just looking either for safety or for asylum and or wages so they can have better living standards. There are criminals but the cartels grow heroine, or marijuana etc because that is profitable and the USA consumes drugs like there is no tomorrow. The USA drug consumption culture, emotional and lack of ability to manage the drug situations are responsible for that market. They are also responsible for not holding employers accountable for hiring workers because they are greedy. They want to pay the lowest wages for the hardest work for seasonal and unstable work. The government doesn't do much to regulate it and when they do? It is too much for the farmers. They refuse to deal with guest workers in a fair way. The employers complain that the wages required are too high. Profit problems again. It is capitalism Unthinking. It the need to make money and pay little. Simple as that. People in Mexico and Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador get paid for agricultural farm work worse than in the USA. Much worse. But they are citizens and want rights and fight for it. The local right wing elitist rich people battle against it and violently too. The same right wing conservatives in the USA in the Republican parties and Democratic party don't want to deal with minimum wage laws either for farm work. No one wants to give people a living wage. The American workers just listen to who? Greedy politicians and corporate CEOs with a lot of money who never lived those conditions before?

People don't leave Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador or Mexico either if they have housing that is decent, a living wage and health and education for themselves and their kids. No one leaves. Find out why they leave? Why people seek asylum in other nations. Then discuss with the government of those nations and find out why the situation is so dire. If you dig? The USA is indeed responsible Unthinking. They created and sunk a lot of money into civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala. Honduras they used as a springboard to create death squads and they used Honduras as a throwaway state to mount dictatorships to protect very powerful companies like the United Fruit Company that exports huge amounts of fruits and vegetables to the USA.

Honduras is literally the base of all the USA's horrible foreign policies in Central America. So yes, they are responsible for the instability. They are responsible for encouraging violence to repress local needs for decent wages and unions of workers an every Leftist movement for social justice was brutally repressed. So, I don't buy that shit about the USA not being responsible. I never did.

The parents fled because there are no jobs for women that pay enough to live. Many women are threatened by gangs with rape and murder and having their children kidnapped and indoctrinated in the gang culture. The decent ones leave or bust a move out of there rather than give in. Most don't stay in Mexico because Mexico pays workers with zero urban skills and very little formal education bad wages the same as the Mexican people who are citizens of Mexico.

Why stay when the USA promised to take people in who suffered violence and terroristic threats.

If someone tries to eradicate bad wages and improve things? The ones with the money from the USA are there to threaten and kill. The USA is indeed responsible.

The US has caused some of the conditions in Latin American countries, I agree. But the US doesn't force these people to grow and traffic drugs and shoot each other.

Economic conditions are not a valid reason for a refugee claim. Otherwise most of Africa could claim refugee status. A refugee is a person who is seeking refuge from things like political persecution, war etc. And if you do have a refugee claim you can go to a US port of entry and make a refugee/asylum claim. I think the US should take some hispanic refugees, but it's also up to the US to decide as a sovereign country who is and who isn't allowed to come inside their country. The US also shouldn't be disrespecting the sovereignty of any Latin American countries. The US should also donate foreign aid to latin countries as reparations for the harm they've caused rather than just taking in migrants, which doesn't address the root problems of poverty in these countries.

The parents? People have kids regardless. Central Americans are extremely religious too. Most of them are dedicated Christians and taught that abortion is a sin. El Salvador throws you into the slammer if you are a woman and try to get rid of the baby and even when it is a spontaneous miscarriage they question you if you are a woman. Getting an abortion and the Salvadoran government finds out about it? To the SLAMMER. Did you know that Unthinking?

If you don't want to have a child then don't get married. If someone forced you to have sex that is rape. I don't believe in birthright citizenship, a child should inherit the citizenship of the parents. If a mother or father is deported and separated from their family that is due to the mother or father's actions. They knew he rules when they came in. It's a good idea not to get into a romantic relationship and then bear children with someone if you're not legally allowed to live in the same country.

Illegal migrants know what they're doing. The US government doesn't force them to cross the border or stay illegally. They know full well they're breaking the law. There's no point in having a law if people are allowed to break it without punishment. I have compassion for people obviously but there's 7 billion people in the world, about 6 billion who are poor, you can help some but you can't save them all. You need a system of rules in place to process people, and make things fair for everyone. A person who stays illegally is cheating the asylum seeker who follows the law and leaves when their refugee claim is rejected.
#15176951
Unthinking Majority wrote:The US has caused some of the conditions in Latin American countries, I agree. But the US doesn't force these people to grow and traffic drugs and shoot each other.

Unthinking, what are you saying? If you can't make money how do you feed yourself? Answer that question Unthinking. Put yourself in their shoes? How do you feed yourself? No welfare. No food stamps. No job. How do you feed yourself? No bank will lend you money because what you own is some plastic baskets to haul your clothes to the river to hand pound and wash. Do you really understand the positions these people are in? Then you got some local thugs going to your house and saying to you as a woman or a man who is a minor....join the gang and let us rape you and you can be fed and live off of the drug sales. The Americans buy it all because they demand it all. You have no money, no job and if you had a job it won't be enough to do much. How do you solve the problem? The USA can't even stop the opioid crisis in states like Ohio and Kentucky--do you think they can stop it in places with enormous problems like Central American nations with zero safety net and abysmal infrastructure? The ones fleeing to the border are fleeing some horrific violence and terroristic threats by criminal gangs. The state is run many times by corrupt RIGHT WING governments that never do jack shit about wages and law and order problems. El Salvador had a dude that was involved with issues. The USA gov't only interfered with the LEFTIST governments. The ones who wanted living wages and higher standards of living. The United Fruit Company which is now Chiquita something enterprises would pull some strings in DC and they would flood the money in for guns and weapons for literal overthrows of said governments and back to square one. How much power can a nation of one or two or three million people have that live in poverty Unthinking respond to the billions or millions of very wealthy nations like the USA who respond to greedy foreign people who want to hold on to enormous vast holdings of land in order to export fruit and vegetables and etc to the USA markets? You clearly have not thought this through at all. Who has power and why are these nations unstable is a question you should be asking yourself? Because Nicaragua is run by leftists and the Nicaraguans are not leaving Nicaragua in caravans to the USA. WHY NOT? Answer that question. When you do? I will be back to deal with the rest of your ideas about who is responsible? Look Unthinking. I am going to help you along here. Do some homework for you because you are not doing it. Who is the director or the founder of the United Fruit Company? Keith Andrews. Does that sound like a Latin American banana republic dictator to you? Lol. No. He is an American Greed Capitalist of the worst sort. He is the one in the Wikipedia version in Mexico of creating tremendous problems in Central America with his nasty greed and need to bribe politicians and stamp out Left leaning Union folks including anyone going against his ability to monopolize Central American farm land. Why is this American Capitalist allowed to blow away and influence internal political fights in Central America? I will give you an answer.....PROFIT. GREED. AND PAID OFF WASHINGTON DC asshole politicians. Do you see the reason why the USA may be responsible for the instability? The Nicaraguans fought against the horror of dictator Anastasio Somoza. Whom the USA also supported. They fought and died by the thousands against him. The USA decimated Nicaragua for fighting back. Reagan armed the Right Wingers who never allow living wages. Despite all the shit that the USA threw at Nicaragua? The Nicas prevailed. They eventually had democratic elections and Violeta Chamorro won...a moderate, then the Sandinista party won more elections, and they dealt with bad wages and bad living standards. They got stability, changed the land reform issues causing mass problems in an agriculturally based economy and stabilized the scene. Enough that the average Nicaraguan now has enough to live on and they don't join in any caravans. Find out what is going on in Central America Unthinking. Cross Nicaragua off the list of the nations with Asylum seekers. The other ones with no asylum seekers is the nation of Costa Rica, and Panama. Why? Find out. Costa Rica doesn't have a military, Never suffered a civil war and the Americans have invested in that nation a lot of money. Panama has a long history and it has to do with the USA taking over the Canal Zone. Why? The USA has interfered many many times in all these nations. Find out the motivation and then come back and write to me they are not responsible for what is going on with the three nations who have the exodus going on now?

Economic conditions are not a valid reason for a refugee claim. Otherwise most of Africa could claim refugee status. A refugee is a person who is seeking refuge from things like political persecution, war etc. And if you do have a refugee claim you can go to a US port of entry and make a refugee/asylum claim. I think the US should take some hispanic refugees, but it's also up to the US to decide as a sovereign country who is and who isn't allowed to come inside their country. The US also shouldn't be disrespecting the sovereignty of any Latin American countries. The US should also donate foreign aid to latin countries as reparations for the harm they've caused rather than just taking in migrants, which doesn't address the root problems of poverty in these countries.

No, being poor ain't an excuse. But who is causing or what system is causing the poverty? The way it is practiced in Africa and Latin America is not capitalism bringing prosperity is it? I then think what politics and policies are these nations with people who live in stark poverty subjected to? Why doesn't it change? I can give a short answer. CAPITALISM. Banks and bankers, coupled with capitalism that don't benefit any nation considered extraction economies. If your nation is guilty of having a lot of these abusive banking investments and bankers in them? PUNISH THEM. But the sellouts in DC grow rich taking bribes from these industries. They do nothing to alleviate poverty. They worsen it with bank loans in which the extraction nations grow poorer and poorer and with less and less left over to invest in infrastructure and social service and education, etc. they are the cause of the poverty in many nations Unthinking. Again, I am an international socialist for a reason. Look at the big picture and make changes that WORK for alleviating serious problems all over the world. It will pay off in having people stay in their own countries, living their lives well. But if you allow the rich elite and the banksters and gangsters to rule the world? Nothing gets better. Get rid of those assholes' rubber-stamping policies by these banks and capitalists. Do the research.



If you don't want to have a child then don't get married. If someone forced you to have sex that is rape. I don't believe in birthright citizenship, a child should inherit the citizenship of the parents. If a mother or father is deported and separated from their family that is due to the mother or father's actions. They knew he rules when they came in. It's a good idea not to get into a romantic relationship and then bear children with someone if you're not legally allowed to live in the same country.

If you have draconian gov't telling women if they are raped, or incested and are forced to bear the baby and raise it and on top of that? You get paid shit for wages or no wages and raise the kid on those kinds of conditions. Meanwhile, the USA signed an agreement on Human Rights after WWII that if you are a victim of aggressive and life-threatening situations you have a right to go to the USA. So, listen to that video. Argue what they are saying about what is going on.

Illegal migrants know what they're doing. The US government doesn't force them to cross the border or stay illegally. They know full well they're breaking the law. There's no point in having a law if people are allowed to break it without punishment. I have compassion for people obviously but there's 7 billion people in the world, about 6 billion who are poor, you can help some but you can't save them all. You need a system of rules in place to process people, and make things fair for everyone. A person who stays illegally is cheating the asylum seeker who follows the law and leaves when their refugee claim is rejected.


Then don't let rich capitalists with money and military power in their sphere of influence to go to these nations and INTERFERE. Stop that. You won't? Then you will have issues forever. Stop the problem of 200 years of interfering. Watch the video.
By Doug64
#15177294
So, a couple more decisions from the Supreme Court today. The one involving Obamacare doesn't mean much so far as constitutional law is concerned, since the Court ruled 7-2 that the state governments lacked standing. Normally I'd consider that another example of the Court dodging the issue, but this time Justice Thomas voted with the majority so there might actually be something to it.

The other case, involving religious liberty, is a much bigger deal--and this time it was unanimous:

Supreme Court sides with Catholic group that turns away same-sex couples as foster parents
The Supreme Court has ruled that Philadelphia cannot exclude a Catholic organization from its foster care program because the group won't work with same-sex couples.

The decision handed down Thursday was being closely watched by LGBTQ advocates who feared the ruling could make it easier for private organizations or individuals providing government-funded services to refuse to serve certain clients based on religious tenets.

The high court's ruling in the Philadelphia case rested on narrow grounds that may not have directly moved the law in that direction. However, the headcount of the justices seen in the court's four opinions indicated that they are prepared to demand more accommodation of religious views, although they do not yet agree on exactly how to do so.

The ultimate decision in the Catholic Social Services case was unanimous. Writing for a six-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts narrowly interpreted Philadelphia's anti-discrimination ordinance and found it did not cover the work the Catholic Church's charitable offshoot does certifying foster parents. He said such work does not amount to the kind of "public accommodation" that cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

"Certification as a foster parent...is not readily accessible to the public. It involves a customized and selective assessment that bears little resemblance to staying in a hotel, eating at a restaurant, or riding a bus," Roberts wrote.

The court's three liberals and two of Roberts' conservative colleagues, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, went along with that analysis.

However, the court's three other conservative justices complained bitterly that the majority's reasoning was tortured and amounted to dodging the main issue in the case: when government can burden the religious views of those through whom it provides services.

"This decision might as well be written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops," Justice Samuel Alito scoffed in a concurrence joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. "The City has been adamant about pressuring CSS to give in, and if the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power. If it does that, then, voila, today’s decision will vanish—and the parties will be back where they started....What is the point of going around in this circle?"

Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas also excoriated their colleagues for failing to issue a more sweeping decision overturning a two-decade-old precedent that the Constitution allows the government to enforce broad-based rules even if they severely impinge on religious beliefs.

With all nine justices in agreement that the Catholic group deserved an exemption from the Philadelphia non-discrimination policy, the central drama in Thursday’s ruling was a rancorous dispute about the court’s decision not to overturn a 1990 decision widely criticized by conservatives and religious freedom advocates, Employment Division v. Smith. In that ruling, the court held that generally applicable laws are not unconstitutional simply because they impact on religious belief or practice.

While Roberts disposed of the Philadelphia case with 15 pages, Alito penned a 77-page jeremiad, largely directed at dismantling Smith.

"After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I," Alito wrote.

Gorsuch filed a shorter concurring opinion that bluntly dismissed the majority's reading of public accommodation law as a "statutory shell game."

"Given all the maneuvering, it’s hard not to wonder if the majority is so anxious to say nothing about Smith’s fate that it is willing to say pretty much anything about municipal law and the parties’ briefs," Gorsuch added. "Not a single Justice has lifted a pen to defend the [Smith] decision. So what are we waiting for?"

The opinions and the vote count indicate that the court's decision not to grapple directly with Smith was driven by Barrett and Kavanaugh, who accepted Roberts' resolution of the Philadelphia case and said there was no need to address Smith directly now.

Barrett's opinion Thursday said she disagrees with Smith, but that requiring governments to prove that they had a compelling need to infringe on religious belief or practice would present vexing questions.

"I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime," Barrett wrote, joined by Kavanaugh. "There would be a number of issues to work through if Smith were overruled."

In the case decided Thursday, the Catholic group contended its religious views keep it from certifying gay or lesbian couples to serve as foster parents. Lawyers for the city of Philadelphia said it requires all the foster care agencies it works with not to discriminate as part of their contract.

During arguments in the case in November, held on the morning after Election Day, some justices suggested the legal showdown was contrived because there was no evidence any gay or lesbian couple had sought to work with Catholic Social Services and was rebuffed. There were also many other organizations that would accept such applicants, conservative justices said.

But liberal justices warned that giving the Catholic group the green light to exclude gays could open the door to organizations that might refuse to deal with interracial couples or put restrictions on women.

A Justice Department attorney appointed by the Trump administration, Hashim Mooppan, told the high court that the public interest in banning racial discrimination is so “particularly unique and compelling” that it should override the preferences of religious groups. He said the government doesn’t have the same degree of interest in thwarting religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for the Catholic group also argued that because the city allows some consideration of marital status, disability and “familial status” in the foster care process, its anti-discrimination rules are not applied consistently enough to justify blocking religiously-affiliated social-service organizations from following their own beliefs.
By late
#15177303
"Yuval Levin, a prominent conservative policy wonk, wrote in the National Review that the Texas lawsuit “doesn’t even merit being called silly. It’s ridiculous.”
https://www.vox.com/2021/6/17/22538462/supreme-court-obamacare-california-texas-stephen-breyer-standing-individual-mandate-constitution



The larger point is more contentious. While the decision was dismissive, the court has had 3 opportunities to address the larger issues.

"Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.[1][2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

Sacrificing the ends to the means constitutes a concise description of the Republican party these days..
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177334
So, a couple more decisions from the Supreme Court today. The one involving Obamacare doesn't mean much so far as constitutional law is concerned, since the Court ruled 7-2 that the state governments lacked standing. Normally I'd consider that another example of the Court dodging the issue, but this time Justice Thomas voted with the majority so there might actually be something to it.


There is. I think the court is pretty tired of a fourth branch of government. That being any favorable US District Court. I imagine that they are sending a message to both sides that you can't try every single law congress passes in court. Government has to have the latitude to govern. They are also setting up the notion that obscure constitutional arguments are not going to get much time from them. What this really means is that the immensely popular Obamacare is here to stay.


The other case, involving religious liberty, is a much bigger deal--and this time it was unanimous:


Agree. The government needs to stay out of religious practice. Full stop. Same sex couples can adopt in every state. There is no change there. Just not from some churches. Religions can set their own standards. Also no change. This bodes well for such things as challenging male clergy and other gender based religious doctrine. It is a strong support for the first amendment.
By Doug64
#15177343
late wrote:The larger point is more contentious. While the decision was dismissive, the court has had 3 opportunities to address the larger issues.

"Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.[1][2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

Ah, yes, the end justifies the means. If you want an example of where that leads, check the history of the Directorate in the French Revolution.

Drlee wrote:They are also setting up the notion that obscure constitutional arguments are not going to get much time from them.

There's nothing obscure about questions of severability.

Agree. The government needs to stay out of religious practice. Full stop. Same sex couples can adopt in every state. There is no change there. Just not from some churches. Religions can set their own standards. Also no change. This bodes well for such things as challenging male clergy and other gender based religious doctrine. It is a strong support for the first amendment.

It's also anathema to the Left, as is any other restriction on its ability to use the government to impose its values on the rest of the country. Though as the article points out, the six that signed on to the "majority" opinion ruled narrowly, and that isn't likely to settle anything. That's the major failing with Minimalist judicial rulings, their very narrowness just sets the stage for the next round in a year or two. If they are too narrow, they useless for any useful guidance for lower courts at all. The lesson the Left is going to take from this one is, if they want to shut down religious opposition, they can't have any flexibility in the law so that it will be "generally applicable."

And that's another thing, the "majority" justices' argument that this isn't a situation of general applicability because it applies to so few individuals seems particularly torturous to me. I can think of all sorts of situations--such as medicals doctors, they take years of training, can any law governing their practice be considered generally applicable?
By wat0n
#15177345
Let me see if I get this straight.

Some States sued because setting the Obamacare tax to $0 damaged them, and the remedy they sought was a complete repeal of the Act?

Isn't this a bit... Inconsistent?
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177356
@Doug64 It's also anathema to the Left, as is any other restriction on its ability to use the government to impose its values on the rest of the country.


It is. It is a warning shot that the court is not going to endorse strong central power but will rather empower states, as it should be.

As a religious person I was getting pretty tired of both sides of this argument. The left wants the central government to provide these services "untainted" by religion but they are unwilling to pay for it. The right wants to use public money to pay religious organizations to do this but does not want to accept public control of their money.

As a social libertarian and fiscal conservative (and of course Christian) I support private organizations in their work to provide for social services consistent with whatever religious beliefs they have. I would say to 'the left', "Look guys. If you want us out of this business then pony up the money and embrace every orphan in the country. Start 120 days before they are born."

When I see some progressive whining about (as an example) a Muslim orphanage requiring the little girls to dress IAW their modesty rules I am inclined to say, "well my progressive friend...adopt her and raise her any way you like".
#15177358
Not letting gay people act as foster parents does not help kids.

It simply reduces the number of available foster parents for these kids.

There is no rational reason to do so.

Philadelphia should simply no longer provide funding for the Catholic foster parent organization, and give said funding to a foster parent group in the city that does not use irrational restrictions.

I think it is important to note that the study th[…]

@Juin It's incredibly arrogant of you to say t[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

I got two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and I belie[…]

Five Steps.

Hi, ckaihatsu! Thank you for taking time to[…]