Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 09:48:59 JST iced depresso
   the dreamer stuff is actually kind of weird i don't know how i feel about that one
   
   i might let them stay but they wouldn't be allowed to sponsor their parents
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 09:50:25 JST iced depresso

     in reply to
     this is mostly because as minors they weren't really a willing participant in being made to commit trespass but since they grew up here and speak the liguia franca and are otherwise indiscernible from an integrated immigrant it kind of doesn't make sense to punish them for it
     
     the parents are the ones who smuggled a child in to a country they had no right to be in and we're not typically in the business of punishing children like this
     pistolero likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 09:53:10 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • Jazzy
     @Jazzy_Butts americans are traditionally libertarian :blobcatpirate:
     
     i mostly don't care if people want to come here as long as they do american things.
     
     i don't want people from a failed state to come here and start pushing culture of a failed state on the natives
     pistolero likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Jazzy (jazzy_butts@gameliberty.club)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 09:53:11 JST Jazzy

     in reply to

     @icedquinn I don't want anybody here who doesn't share "American" (socialist) values, anyone brown white yellow or black trying to come in here who is a purely capitalistic individualistic pig can fuck off. Be ready to contribute to the whole of America not only with your wallet but with your attitude of positivity and kindness to all Americans, not just the ones who came off the same boat you did.

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 09:55:14 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • Jazzy
     @Jazzy_Butts if they want to hate big goverment, love freedom, civilized militias and local democratic republic things, that's great.
     
     if they're just here to sap work to ship overseas or so amazon can get cheap labor then they can piss up a rope (the capitalists rigging the immigration system can also piss up ropes)
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 09:58:07 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to
     @icedquinn I would give them an amnesty if some framework could be set up to prevent it from being done twice, this has been the problem with every amnesty, that it is done in exchange for promises for policy changes and then later democrats just don't honor their promise
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 09:59:40 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1
     @sun trump tried to do that but they're all screaming about it right now
     
     i read the birthright citizen thing. there's a really old argument about whether it means "vagina on soil = citizen" vs it being a bizzare historical artifact about freeing slaves
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:02:30 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1
     @sun like tl;dr there's historical argument for some hundred years that it wasn't written to enable anchor babies
     
     dreamers are a real specific case of people who were smuggled in as toddlers and grew up here so deporting them actually generates a greater cultural misfit for them (they get sent back to mexico or w/e and they don't even speak mexican spanish)
     pistolero likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:04:51 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to
     @icedquinn even if you grant that the people that wrote it to apply to slaves also for some reason meant it to apply to anybody (the wording implies this but, why would they do that in historical context) there's no reason apply it to people here illegally.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:08:34 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1
     @sun if i recall they wrote it that way because people wanted to have debates about who was emancipated
     
     technically all the blacks would have been illegals since their right to remain was based in being imported property. so it was the easiest way to avoid lawyering about.
     dilbert 1 likes this.
     Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:09:36 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1
     @sun its funny though they care about the constitution again all the sudden despite like almost every function of the federal government being extremely illegal
     Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: and dilbert 1 like this.
   • Embed this notice
     anemone@ebiverse.social's status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:13:43 JST anemone

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1

     @icedquinn@blob.cat @sun@shitposter.world i wouldn't call it funny, it's so played out at this point. They have been doing this longer than I have been alive

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:13:43 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • anemone
     • dilbert 1
     @anemone @sun everything that exists is funny to me the sarcasm is my coping process :blobcatnomouth:
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:16:29 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to

     • anemone
     @icedquinn @anemone I mentioned in a previous thread that I think Trump can make a ton of changes that people assume are not constitutional, because if you really read how immigration and naturalization policy has been set in the last 100 years, it was done by legislative creative reinterpretation of the constitution. so like, why can't a republican president decide something and the republican congress formalize it?
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:17:30 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • anemone
     • dilbert 1
     @sun @anemone because the judges also get a say in making random shit up
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:18:05 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to

     • anemone
     @icedquinn @anemone sure I just think it's really favorable to trump right now.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:18:25 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • anemone
     • dilbert 1
     @sun @anemone they're simultaneously trying to claim that security clearances are at the discretion of the president and security council but also trying to file a suit saying the president can't revoke them if he feels like it and are actually discussing a class action lawsuit so a judge can issue an injunction on revoking clearances
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:18:42 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • anemone
     • dilbert 1
     @anemone @sun those judges haven't actually been doing him many favors
   • Embed this notice
     anemone@ebiverse.social's status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:18:43 JST anemone

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1

     @sun@shitposter.world @icedquinn@blob.cat he can make a ton of changes regardless because he appointed conservative activists to the supreme court

   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:20:07 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to

     • anemone
     @icedquinn @anemone trump might have been smarter to fire them without giving a reason and then just arguing under employment law he doesn't have to give a reason.
     pistolero likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     anemone@ebiverse.social's status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:23:30 JST anemone

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1

     @icedquinn@blob.cat @sun@shitposter.world Granting him immunity from criminal prosecution for basically anything he did as president is a huge favor lol

   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:23:30 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • anemone
     • dilbert 1
     @anemone @sun he wasn't charged for criminal activity.
     
     they kept shouting insurrection this and that but he was never indicted for incitement. he was charged with civil offenses they illegally converted to criminal ones because reasons
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:24:03 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to

     • anemone
     @anemone @icedquinn I think they are carefully re-evaluating what they did to him the last four years now that he can do the same thing to them. I don't like it but you can't reverse time so they need to get what they deserve.
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:25:27 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • anemone
     • dilbert 1
     @anemone @sun they've been playing a huge hall of mirrors game by going in the news and defaming people for things where they can't be held accountable, but then turn around and actually charged the rioters with other things, or in the case of trump made up weird lawsuits with unusual rules (like being convicted of Unspecified Crimes to be determined Someday, and the jury not actually having to agree unanimously with them as is typically required)
   • Embed this notice
     iced depresso (icedquinn@blob.cat)'s status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:27:53 JST iced depresso

     in reply to

     • anemone
     • dilbert 1
     @anemone @sun
     > occurred during his Presidency
     
     oh yeah, nobodys allowed to sue a sitting president for anything. you need a senatorial conviction or a treason charge.
     dilbert 1 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     anemone@ebiverse.social's status on Sunday, 26-Jan-2025 10:27:54 JST anemone

     in reply to

     • dilbert 1

     @icedquinn@blob.cat @sun@shitposter.world https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf