Tripnsweep

Actually it is not a criminal act. Merely being present without the right documents is a civil offense, akin to a traffic ticket.

Most people hopping the border to come here are doing one of two things: Getting away from a violent situation that could get them killed, or seeking to get a better paying job. Or some combination of the two. Just coming here doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Being present in this country without documentation is not a criminal act.

The idea of our special forces sweeping in and routing them won't happen. These guys have intelligence, not terribly sophisticated, but they will know what is coming and if we send our guys in there, we're going to be surprised by how many of our own get killed. The cartels aren't stupid. They have their own soldiers, they have the money to hire good people and to buy weapons that are a step above what most regular soldiers carry. And if the US did manage to push them into the jungles and mountains, then they'd have a different problem. Because the cartels would just operate from there. It would be a lot slower but they'd still do it.

First of all the title says it all. This is beyond stupid and ill conceived. Designating them terrorist organizations doesn't really do anything. It doesn't change how the Mexican authorities deal with them. The other problem is exactly what level of involvement would make somebody a member of the cartel? They are usually on pretty well compartmentalized, and use independent contractors to handle certain aspects of their business. Is the guy who handles transportation but nothing else a terrorist? There's no clear answer. The other problem is that if there is direct military action taken against them in Mexico, it isn't going to go the way people think. The cartels aren't stupid, they have military equipment and weapons. A fair number were also special forces in either the Mexican military or in other foreign armed forces. I'm not saying they're at the same level as the US as far as special forces training, but it wouldn't be as one sided as you might think. Even if the US succeeded in wiping out a good number of them, the guys who actually run the cartels and hold power are mostly insulated or live in places that any direct assault would be asking for something bad to happen. Guys like El Chapo are mid to upper level management. Even if they took guys out at that level, there's going to be guys who take their place. But taking out the top guys is next to impossible. But even if that succeeded, there's still going to be someone who replaced them. So what should be done? Stopping the idiotic and wasteful "war on drugs". It has been an abject failure. If drug addiction was designated as a public health issue and treated as such, we would actually save money, decriminalization of small amounts, and redirect law enforcement to focus only on large scale trafficking, wholesalers, etc. We would save so much by doing that. Less people in prison, more money for drug counseling and in/outpatient treatment, and less barriers to being able to get your life back on track by not having a felony for possession on your record. But none of that is particularly exciting or doesn't sound like you'd be punishing drug addicts or people you don't like.

That isn't going to stop anyone.

That isn't a congressional action. That's just common sense. To be honest I wouldn't trust most people who own guns to not put out their own eye trying to spoon pudding into their mouth. I was qualified to carry a gun on duty and chose not to because I didn't feel it would do anything but possibly escalate a situation.

I don't believe that having unfettered access to firearms is the intent behind what the 2nd amendment is. It's an obsolete amendment that was created when there was a very real and reasonable threat towards this country existing. In the subsequent 250 years, I think we've eliminated the notion that we are going to be invaded. The last time a foreign country occupied any part of the territorial US was during WW2, and that was some remote Alaskan island. The military was more than capable of handling it. I think we should have some personal responsibility that goes with gun ownership. We have it with cars, why not guns? If you aren't mentally ill, not a criminal or anything, can pass a written test, demonstrate you know how to actually use your firearm properly, and insure it, then I don't have a problem with that. If you think you need a machine gun or something like that, that just shows how unqualified you are to own a gun.

Maybe I'll get a presidential pardon too.

I don't see putting rules on something like guns as being unconstitutional. The intent behind the amendment was that if we were invaded or involved in a war, regular citizens would have a way to be able to resist or fight. Honestly it's outdated. We aren't being invaded nor will we probably ever be due to the strength of our military and our geography. So most people who own guns are not proficient with them, they don't practice or shoot regularly. So it renders them almost useless. My big problem is that people mostly don't respect what guns are. They're not toys. They are instruments of death. You don't shoot to do anything but kill, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. They don't teach you in the military or police to wound people. Yet I'd say around 80% of people who own guns treat them like toys or fashion accessories, have awful discipline with them and handle them unsafely. Part of why we have mass shootings is because people don't respect guns. This isn't a video game or a movie where you can just go mow down bad guys with a machine gun and have no unintended consequences. That kind of stupidity is sadly baked into culture here. My view of guns is very unromanticized. If you really believe you need a gun for your personal safety, either you live in a war zone or you'd better be at the range at least twice a week, otherwise you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member by accident.

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-voting-machines-trump-investigation-2018890 Sure sounds like it.

Most gun owners aren't proficient enough with their firearms to be effective when or if it comes to a situation where they may need to use it. I can't tell you the number of idiots I have met who are proud of owning something impractical but brag about it or wear it around, when they're more likely to shoot themselves in the foot. We have few restrictions on carrying guns in public and I think it's stupid, because this isn't the wild west, and you're not a cowboy.

As long as you aren't hurting anyone then that's fine. There's obviously going to be reasonable limits to it, like not carrying a rocket launcher around in public, but my only problem is keeping guns away from people who have mental illness or previous issues like DV or something like that. In general I think most people who own guns or want to are idiots who treat them like toys, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone then can cosplay all they want.

We have this thing called the Constitution, of which we have codified rights (first ten amendments), so violating that and causing somebody to be harmed or killed sounds like a great way to open yourself up to a lawsuit. Now let's hear your argument that people here illegally aren't subject to our rules or jurisdiction. That'll be fun to hear.

My father actually told me today that specifically, if one of his clients is harmed, due to the suspension of asylum claims, that his surviving family will retain him as co counsel to sue the Trump administration and all relevant authorities. It might take a few years, but with such easily provable evidence, I'd be shocked to find any judge in a civil case who wouldn't find for the family. Some people are going to cash in at the expense of the federal government. This is what happens when you elect a moron who doesn't care about America at all. Just lining his own pockets and having power. That's all Trump ever has cared about. And you suckers who voted for him really believe he cares about anything but himself or his own interests

Then you're too stupid to have an adult conversation.

I mean those billionaires who don't want to pay taxes had to buy their way into setting policy, and who better than a wannabe billionaire?

Totally normal to just accidentally give a Nazi salute.

Apparently you can't count past 2 as of yesterday.

Hope everyone likes the cap on prescription drugs going away. I bet all the senior citizens who voted for Trump are going to be very appreciative.

Apparently your lizard brain can only do so much thinking.

Didn't match the one in his possession the day of the shooting though.

Who's Polosi?

Except it didn't. The ballistics didn't match the rifle he had in his possession.

Good question. But a lot of people on the prosecution or the judicial side don't seem to think Peltier did. "Pine Ridge was a powder keg with the Goon Squad operating there with the government's help. AIM was there to protect those who were not part of the Goon Squad. There were many murders and assaults in a three-year timeframe. When plain-clothed agents in unmarked cars arrived, a firefight ensued. Leonard did not shoot the agents, and the FBI knew this but withheld evidence. The court of appeals acknowledged this but couldn't overturn the conviction due to legal standards. Judge Heaney, who wrote the opinion, later supported clemency for Leonard. Now, 38 of Judge Heaney's former clerks support parole for Leonard, including three who worked on his case. The government admits they don't know who killed the agents, but it wasn't Leonard. It's time to release Leonard and start the healing process."