Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 3612

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 4467837 times)

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile

No it wont. if i was an american, i wouldn't care less who represents the US at the UNSC (the US ambassador to the UN, obviously) but i would definitely care who sits in the situation room and who has an active role in one of my country's most important forums.
... you might not care, and indeed many americans wouldn't, but americans like that are probably approaching half the reason trump and co is pretty liable to hard screw this country over the next few years. One guy at home shouting at other folks at home, as a part of a committee and held in check by everything involved with that and the position, is a notable problem but not that bad.

One jackass diddling around outside of it, acting as representative of country to pretty much everyone and thoroughly pissing off every single other country in the world in the process (and let's not kid, here, unless someone cut out his tongue and removed all his ability to move so he couldn't make rude gestures, that would be exactly what happens), is more than just "bad". It's trade war on the table, looking at a terrorism upspike, actually contemplating the possibility of a land war on home soil, complete clusterfuck. Putting someone like bannon in the US seat of the UN security council would be an experiment in if you really can completely destroy the political and economic (and possibly military, too) projection power of a superpower in under four years/however long it takes to get him out of the position.

It could be legitimately argued by a constitutional lawyer that illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the USA, and if you can get the Supreme Court to rule in favor of that, you can strike down birthright citizenship for children of those who are not citizens.
Well, it could be argued. Legitimately, no. US jurisdiction covers US soil, period, end statement, do not past go, any exceptions are at our pleasure, there is no second option unless you want to try to force it militarily and ahahahaha. Most of the time if a non-citizen commits a crime on our soil, we will allow whatever country that has normal jurisdiction try them in their courts should said country desire to (largely because most of the time it's not really possible for a single person to do anything worth the trouble of doing otherwise, and it's good relationship building besides). Sometimes we don't, and the latter is our first prerogative. Even citizens of other countries are under US jurisdiction when they're on our land. The SCOTUS is no more going to rule in favor of that than they're going to suddenly going to start preaching the merits of the sovereign citizen movement (though I guess it may get more likely some of them do in the near future...).

Other side of that, you're not going to get a judge (and not have it shortly repealed, anyway), much less any legislative body that is not drunk on sixteen different kinds of cocaine spiked rubbing alcohol, to abrogate US jurisdiction on US soil under any circumstances that's not voluntary, towards anyone we do not allow at our largess. That is not a thing that is going to happen. It is not an option on the table, it is not an argument you are going to see entertained other than to be laughed at as soon as the cameras and/or reporters aren't looking, if delayed that long.

... basically, that argument is something that almost sounds reasonable if you have pretty much absolutely zero experience with our legal and legislative systems. A constitutional lawyer that didn't get their certification from a crackerjack box would laugh at you until you stopped saying what you were saying. Probably keep laughing at you until you went away. Not a line of attack you're going to see employed. About as close to ever as reality can get.

E: Now, removing citizenship, that's something different. You might see that, and we have legislative grounds to do so under varying circumstances. Jurisdiction, though? No. You're not going to see a precedent that makes that anything even approaching procedural. Allow for exceptions at governmental discretion, yes. No other situation.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2017, 09:39:45 am by Frumple »
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Sindain

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

PTW
Logged
"just once I'd like to learn a lesson without something exploding."

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH

What happened to the other thread

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile

smjjames you need to declare that you are temporarily but indefinitely taking over the duties of Ameripol until such time as order is restored.
Seconding this. AmeriPol has long ago moved on from being an asylum patient.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile

All of that talk about constitutionality of these decisions is not super relevant, because Trump's executive branch is already violating that federal court order to let poor people stuck at the airports in, see lawyers, be subject to a proper due process, etc.

Though, it's from Twitter, so take that with a grain of salt.
Logged
._.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile

Even if it's not salt ridden, that sort of thing can be... fiddly. Lawyer access is shakier when due process isn't involved, and due process largely (if not entirely) only applies to criminal issues. So if it's not criminal, protections start getting a lot more... loose.

Again, this is why our judicial system hasn't spent the last decade+ swamped and cosplaying a financial black hole due to processing undocumented immigrants -- they're largely not illegal, haven't committed criminal acts, and are consequently not protected by the same guarantees a criminal is. Can't quite recall how that applies to civil issues, but iirc it's again notably less strict.

Do believe some point over the last handful of years there was some kind of extension on how long certain folks can be detained before access to phones/lawyers/etc. is required by law, too. Forget if it was hours or days or weeks or what, though.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

redwallzyl

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

and all this before February. good lord can we bring back bush? i miss him.
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile

[
EDIT: smjjames you need to declare that you are temporarily but indefinitely taking over the duties of Ameripol until such time as order is restored.


lol, okay.

By the power of the Great Toady One! I temporarily but indefinetly am taking over the duties of AmeriPol thread until such time as order is restored!
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread: Trump Immigration Boogaloo edition
« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2017, 10:53:44 am »

Cue Toady coming in and locking this thread :D
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread: Trump Immigration Boogaloo edition
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2017, 10:55:50 am »

Cue Toady coming in and locking this thread :D

lol @ you.
Logged

MorleyDev

  • Bay Watcher
  • "It is not enough for it to just work."
    • View Profile
    • MorleyDev
Re: AmeriPol thread: Trump Immigration Boogaloo edition
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2017, 11:40:41 am »

Pretty sure this is the second petition on the UK government website to call for banning Donald Trump from a State Visit. First was back when he was still running. That signature ticker is going up pretty high.

On the other hand, I kinda want to see exactly how big the protests and demonstrations would be if he did get a state visit.
Logged

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread: Trump Immigration Boogaloo edition
« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2017, 11:41:50 am »

They'd be pretty yooj.
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

If you struggle with your mental health, please seek help.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread: Trump Immigration Boogaloo edition
« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2017, 11:53:30 am »

Anyways, I suspect that we have yet to see the end of the fallout, this article mentions that Iraq is considering or might consider kicking out the troops and contractors that we have in Iraq, one opinion peice is saying that Trump's team is making up their strategy as they go along and calling them incompetent, Sen. McCain is worried that it'll give ISIS a propoganda boost* and is also worried about the Iraqis.

*My opinion= It absolutely will because it gives them the narrative that the West is fighting a neo-Crusade against Islam. Not to mention that this whole thing is just the wrong way to go about it.

Also, the Trump team is considering asking foreign visitors (ALL of them? even tourists from Japan and Britian maybe?) the websites they visit and social media that they use and their cellphone/smart device contacts, and if they refuse, don't let them in.

This seems rather draconian and is likely to run into legal problems. While at first glance it seems to make sense, after all, this is the age of social media and smart devices, it seems like it'd be overbroad (heh) to include your contacts (like your friends, parents, relatives, etc) and one could easily lie as to what websites they go to. Not to mention undertones (or maybe overtones) of police state. If implemented badly, or broadly like they just did, I could see this crashing the tourism industry.

Seems like Trump and his team are trying to govern like Thor (in Mythology, not the superhero) or maybe The Hulk, whose main strategy is just to smash things without any forethought.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2017, 12:00:34 pm by smjjames »
Logged

FearfulJesuit

  • Bay Watcher
  • True neoliberalism has never been tried
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread: Trump Immigration Boogaloo edition
« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2017, 12:00:37 pm »

Thinking of calling McCain's office later today. Dude's an octogenarian, he's almost certainly going to retire after this term, and--the nonsense surrounding Merrick Garland notwithstanding--the man still has a measure of honor and dignity that Cheeto-in-Chief and his minions don't. He showed it in '08, and I think it's still there- the citizenry just needs to remind him that it's time to start thinking about his legacy.
Logged


@Footjob, you can microwave most grains I've tried pretty easily through the microwave, even if they aren't packaged for it.

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread: Trump Immigration Boogaloo edition
« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2017, 12:04:47 pm »

Thinking of calling McCain's office later today. Dude's an octogenarian, he's almost certainly going to retire after this term, and--the nonsense surrounding Merrick Garland notwithstanding--the man still has a measure of honor and dignity that Cheeto-in-Chief and his minions don't. He showed it in '08, and I think it's still there- the citizenry just needs to remind him that it's time to start thinking about his legacy.

AND he's been Senator since 1987, nearly as long as I've been alive. He could start (or rather, bookend) his legacy by standing up to Trump and defending his honor and dignity.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2017, 12:07:30 pm by smjjames »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 3612