Los Angeles Clashes between ICE and demonstrators, Trump sends in the National Guard.
- Thread starter hyperman
- Start date
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
9th has stayed Breyer's order for the time being.
RabzonKhan
Trusted Member
Many analysts and legal experts have sharply criticized Trump's decision to federalize the California National Guard and deploy troops to Los Angeles, calling it an overreach of executive power rather than a necessary response to violence. His move appears deliberately designed to escalate tensions rather than restore order.
To me, this looks more like a manufactured crisis, meant to divert attention from his struggling policies, including trade and tariff wars that have yielded no positive outcomes, his excessively aggressive immigration enforcement, which has resulted in numerous legal violations, and his controversial tax bill, which threatens to strip millions of Americans of healthcare while cutting essential programs that disproportionately affect low-income and vulnerable communities.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Police Department and California state authorities have been actively working to maintain law and order, but the situation remains tense. LAPD officers have made over 400 arrests and deployed riot control measures, including tear gas and rubber bullets, to prevent further clashes, though civil rights attorneys argue that LAPD has violated California law by using crowd control weapons indiscriminately.
Governor Newsom has deployed 800 additional state and local police officers to Los Angeles to handle confrontations between protesters and federal troops. He has also filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the federalization of the California National Guard violates state sovereignty.
Mayor Karen Bass has imposed a curfew in downtown LA, which has helped curb nighttime violence. Law enforcement leaders say the curfew has been key in restoring order, particularly by preventing criminal activity after dark.
There is no doubt that some extremists and troublemakers are exploiting the situation, attacking federal buildings, waving foreign flags, and setting vehicles on fire. However, instead of undermining California’s leadership, Trump should have worked alongside Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass to support local efforts in restoring order.
To me, this looks more like a manufactured crisis, meant to divert attention from his struggling policies, including trade and tariff wars that have yielded no positive outcomes, his excessively aggressive immigration enforcement, which has resulted in numerous legal violations, and his controversial tax bill, which threatens to strip millions of Americans of healthcare while cutting essential programs that disproportionately affect low-income and vulnerable communities.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Police Department and California state authorities have been actively working to maintain law and order, but the situation remains tense. LAPD officers have made over 400 arrests and deployed riot control measures, including tear gas and rubber bullets, to prevent further clashes, though civil rights attorneys argue that LAPD has violated California law by using crowd control weapons indiscriminately.
Governor Newsom has deployed 800 additional state and local police officers to Los Angeles to handle confrontations between protesters and federal troops. He has also filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the federalization of the California National Guard violates state sovereignty.
Mayor Karen Bass has imposed a curfew in downtown LA, which has helped curb nighttime violence. Law enforcement leaders say the curfew has been key in restoring order, particularly by preventing criminal activity after dark.
There is no doubt that some extremists and troublemakers are exploiting the situation, attacking federal buildings, waving foreign flags, and setting vehicles on fire. However, instead of undermining California’s leadership, Trump should have worked alongside Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass to support local efforts in restoring order.
Davey Crockett
Elite Member
US Marines deployed to Los Angeles have carried out first known domestic detention of an American civilian in history, the U.S. military confirms
Last edited:
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
Let's make sure the full story gets posted, ok?
The detainee, who was later released, had crossed a yellow line into an area that had been cordoned off for security purposes. The Marines detained the individual and then transferred him to Homeland Security.
I read about this earlier today. The individual was treated appropriately and he confirmed such.
The individual was an Army veteran who earned his citizenship as a result of his service and was headed toward the Wilshire Federal Building at the time of his detention.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
There is also the unspoken and implied contract, which has been the basis for illegal immigration to continue in the US. Paying people to keep quiet, stay in the shadows and take below market rate (minimum wage) pay. The real people citizens should be mad at are the business lobby that allows these workers to undercut domestic labor. Now that businesses are facing the impact of ICE doing work place raids in more visible and unpredictable ways, businesses are putting pressure on Trump to pull back.
Even “liberals/democrats” say the quiet part out loud.
George Carlin said it best; they want obedient workers. Politicians don’t mean anything. It’s the monied elites that set the contract at the expense of citizens and illegal immigrants alike.
The following is from 20 years ago (2005) when he already says the American worker had already been screwed over for the past 30 years (since 1975).
This is 50 years of anti-middle class policies coming home to roast.
Last edited:
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
I have been saying the same thing for many years.
As a country, we've done this to ourselves and I've made no bones about it on many an occasion.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
We have done this to ourselves and the cumulative effect on the youth is what also saddens me. Young people can’t afford a home, can’t afford to raise a family without their family’s help, millennials and younger generations seem hopeless, which is why Trump’s quick fix but not well thought out solutions get so much traction.
Both parties are owners by the business elite and the joe everyman has got no one to stand up for their right to just live a honest middle class life. It reminds me of the talk about Detroit a few years ago. All of america seems like Detroit now; hollowed out. And they want us to be mad at the illegal immigrants after it is the business class that made it possible for illegal immigrants to come into the us by getting around labor laws.
Middle class in the US now just means not being homeless.
AZ_HighCountry
INT'L MOD
Sir, you would be welcome in my home at any time. Chance are we wouldn't agree on everything, but the views we hold on critical issues are indeed similar.
In reality, I'm not mad at the illegals. My own company has employed them indirectly through staffing agencies.
What I'm mad about are those who've allowed this to happen. Then again, that falls right back on our shoulders. The voters who put these people there.
FuturePAF
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Thank you. Likewise, you would be welcome in my home as well. where it counts we see eye to eye.
It’s true as voters and citizens we haven’t held the politicians to account. Perhaps letting Trump play out we create the forest fire that will clear away the dead wood of both parities at let new voices, middle class voices come up.
Last edited:
gambit
Professional
And that is my point...That if the CHILDREN of diplomats can be, and are, excluded from the 14th, why not the CHILDREN of illegal aliens?
So let us look at the language of the 14th again...
U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,...
We can substitute 'person' for 'CHILDREN' for clarity.
All CHILDREN born or naturalized in the United States
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
Now, back in 1868 there is no way for them to list out what KIND of person who are automatically not under the political jurisdiction of the government, so they came up with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", meaning someone who has, or developed, some kind of political affiliation to the US government.
- Diplomats
- Invading/occupying army
That is the current list of exceptions. Their CHILDREN cannot automatically be US citizens just for being borne on US soil.
So the question is: Can we add illegal aliens to that list?
Can we say illegal aliens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US government?
Merely being on US soil does not make a person 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US government.
Obeying US laws does not make a person 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US government.
Take the diplomat, for example.
The foreign diplomat is paid by his government and he does not pay US income tax, right? But if the diplomat buy a snack from a street vendor, he would have to pay a US tax on that snack. So did that made him 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the US government? Hardly.
Unlike the diplomat who was invited, an illegal alien already broke US laws, specifically immigration laws, and that mean even though he is on US soil, he was unwelcome and is still under the political jurisdiction of his birth country. So why should his CHILDREN be automatic US citizens? That is the argument before SCOTUS.
The interpretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction' is at stake.
The question remains:
The CHILDREN of:
- Diplomats
- Invading/occupying army
- Illegal alien
Cannot be automatic US citizens.
Where is the MORAL arguments AGAINST adding illegal aliens to that list?
Sorry, but if assisted suicide is made legal, that means the MORAL arguments for it was sufficiently compelling, and still means that for every law, there is a moral foundation for it. Murder can never be legal because the killing is unjustified. The justification itself is a moral argument for the act, and if the justification is deemed acceptable, such as in self defense, then the killing can never be classified as 'murder'.
That is not murder because murder involves some degrees of participation, or we can be more specific -- KNOWLEDGE.
We can indict/convict a mafia boss of murder because he ordered the act, not because he actually killed. He is knowledgeable of the victim, his actors, probably the specific method, and the final outcome. In fact, usually such people are %100 certain of the outcome.
That is why we rarely, if any, charge anyone of non-participation of a death.
I agree that if there is no law, there cannot be a crime. But even in the absence of a crime, the act itself can be deemed immoral. And that was my point.I am not saying there are no moral argument in law, believe me, as a cop myself and my wife being a lawyer, that's what we argue most of the time, but those argument is just that, law is blind, dumb and deaf, that's how law supposed to be, you cannot applies moral clause on law, because if you do that, then we will start having exception to the rules, which then render the rule pointless to begin with. I get what you are saying, because morally, we shouldn't be in charge of those who come into the country legally, but unless you somehow have to redefine the law, that's not what the law said, and trust me, this is not the issue appear the first time, case in point, in 1955 we don't have a law to prevent someone from bombing an aircraft or hijack an aircraft, and I think both you and I can agree that aircraft bombing or hijacking is immoral, BUT because law wasn't written during the time of flight, then United Flight 629 happened.
United Air Lines Flight 629 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And we found ourselves unable to prosecute that crime (well, we do get that guy with felony murder at the end but that's not the point) which mean people who put bomb on a plane, unless he had a specific target, he cannot be prosecuted. Which is why we change the law and code the hijacking and aircraft piracy as law instead of mooching on some law that have a similar reach.......
49 U.S. Code § 46502 - Aircraft piracy
www.law.cornell.edu
Morally speaking, the CHILDREN of illegal aliens cannot be granted automatic US citizenship by simple virtue of breaking US immigration laws in the first place. Entrance to the country is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, and no one in this international forum will challenge that when it comes to his country, and none of them will declare the need for that to be explicit in their laws. It is common sense.
The US Constitution is first and foremost a LEGAL document, and we have SCOTUS who is supposed to interpret that doc against whatever came before it. Abortion is not textually defined but for decades, abortion was interpreted to be allowed in that doc.
j_hungary
Professional
And that is my point...That if the CHILDREN of diplomats can be, and are, excluded from the 14th, why not the CHILDREN of illegal aliens?
So let us look at the language of the 14th again...
U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.constitution.congress.gov
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,...
We can substitute 'person' for 'CHILDREN' for clarity.
All CHILDREN born or naturalized in the United States...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
Again, that mean the issue is NOT about diplomat, if the children of Diplomat can be US Citizen with 14A, as long as one part of the parent is not a registered diplomat..
The issue comes with "jurisdiction" again, as per Vienna Convention, US does not have jurisdiction toward any diplomat in the US, that's where the diplomatic immunity come from, not from 14A....
And no, you CAN'T Substitute the word even just because SCOTUS said so, Law cannot be substituted, you can't just go about and put a group of people because you want this to happen, you want to substitute the law, you need to either pass a new law to repeal the old law, or have an amendment made to the law....
That's my point...
Again, no, if you want to add a group of people into the law, you need to amend the law........
You know what that means in legal term, right? If we say illegal aliens are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then US Law does not applies to them, because that's what jurisdiction mean, if you committed a crime in a City, like Philly, the jurisdiction is in Pilly, PA State do NOT have jurisdiction over you, so does the US government, once you cross county line, then that jurisdiction become the States, and once you crossed state line, that jurisdiction become the Federal Government.
If Illegal Alien is not subject to US Jurisdiction, then US Law simply would not apply to them, which mean they can kill you and move to another state and the FBI would not have jurisdiction to them and can't arrest them. That's jurisdiction mean.
Again, this is the third time in this post we going back to the same argument, you cannot just say "this hasn't been in the law and we can add a category into the law because it had not specifically mentioned. The Jurispurdence in the US would not allow that, that's Court can interpret law as much as they can, but they can't change law and become precedence, if you want to change law, you need to either amend the law, or make new law, "Adding" or strictly legal term "Addendum" is an amendment....
There is no moral value in law, again, you are not talking about moral policing here, simply being immoral is not a crime here, I get what you said we should have law outlawing all immoral through but in reality its harder than it gets., because if you can apply moral standard in law, then you will need to put in all kind of other standard, or at very least, considering to, into existing law, that's the reason why we don't like Shari'a Law, because it put Religion and Moral value into law, I mean if you want to push for that to become our law, that's your business, but we don't look at moral standard or value when we are examining law.
Entrant of the country is privilege, I agree but the constitution is the backbone of our law, and we need to follow the constitution, and if you want to get pass it, you will then need to change the constitution.
Developereo
Elite Member
Sorry to jump in but would such an amendment to the law require a Constitutional amendment or merely a regular law passed by Congress? It seems to be a sneaky way to amend the protections of the Constitution without really amending it.
Such a law woud have major implications: it could open the door to deportations without due process for illegal aliens. SCOTUS would be very very hesitant to create such a loophole.
gambit
Professional
I never said diplomatic immunity came from the 14th. But if the diplomat is immune from certain US laws, they are also excluded from certain US rights, liberties, and privileges, one of the exclusion is that their children, if borne on US soil, cannot be AUTOMATIC citizen.
Green Card for a Person Born in the United States to a Foreign Diplomat | USCIS
A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This person...
www.uscis.gov
A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This person may, however, be considered a permanent resident at birth and able to receive a Green Card through creation of record.
The exclusion of certain US rights, liberties, and privileges carried over to the child. The diplomat cannot buy a gun and neither can his children. Citizenship is no different.
There is no way, from 1868 to today, can we list out exclusions from the 14th, hence the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction'. We have two exclusions without being constitutionally and literally explicit:
1- Diplomats
2- Invading/occupying army
If we have to be explicit, the US Constitution would end up voluminous and cumbersome. The problem now, for the Left, is whether SCOTUS will allow illegal aliens to fall under the same exclusion as diplomats and foreign army without requiring a constitutional convention.
If I entered the US legally, it means immediately I am 'subject to the jurisdiction' of US laws, and if I have a child on US soil, my child would automatically be US citizen.
An illegal alien, by virtue of breaking the first US law encountered -- immigration -- he essentially refused to be such 'subject'. Therefore, his children should be granted automatic citizenship.
No need to change the constitution.
I think you better consult your attorney wife for that error.
Absolutely we enforce morality -- via LAWS.
Morality is about a set of belief, a mindset, and conviction. Law is about explicit behaviors.
If we say someone is a 'moral' person, we are saying that at the least, that person is obeying the laws. Maybe not even a driving violation. His sense of morality restrained his behaviors without the need for external compulsion. For all we know, he maybe a Satan-ist in the privacy of his home and have not been caught about animal sacrifices.
Laws are EXPRESSIONS of morality. Law enforcement is about compelling the people to ACT according to a set of morality. If we have a nude beach, it means we can be nude only when we are on the confines of that location. Nowhere else. That is affecting BEHAVIORS.
stanfordgrad
Registered Member
US law applies to anyone on US soil - invaders, diplomats, illegal aliens. That does not mean they are under our jurisdiction.
There are 1 million h1b Indian software engineers. If Trump decided to draft all of them how many them will comply with the Trump's draft order ? I am sure 95% will claim to be Indian citizens and whimp away
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
-
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds (139 Viewers)- Latest: hussain0216
-
-
-
TF-X / KAAN / Hürjet Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircrafts News & Discussions (2 Viewers)
- Latest: hyperman
-
Latest Posts
-
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds (139 Viewers)
- Latest: hussain0216
-
-
-
US Space Force receives first Meadowlands ground based satellite jammer (5 Viewers)- Latest: Hamartia Antidote
-
