Immigration and multiculturalism news

[Jormungandr]

Police Scotland 'Can't Cope' With Flood of Hate Speech Reports as 8,000 Flood in During First Week of Draconian Law

Police Scotland 'Can't Cope' With Flood of Hate Speech Reports

Police Scotland was overwhelmed by a flood of approximately 8,000 hate speech reports during the first week of the new speech restrictions.

www.breitbart.com

Only 8,000? Seems low. We gotta get those numbers up!

Rainbow Tumour cultists being offended over everything and anything and trying to use the system to shut down all those "evil Naxis" for their 'mean words'? Say it ain't so!

 

[Marduk]

Yes. But that's not because of any reinterpretation of a law. It's that a system is being tested by an out of context problem. Please don't opine on US law, you keep shouting how little of it you know every time you do so. It would be like me shouting about Polish law.

It's easy to say nothing changed when you don't care to know about changes and say others know little when it is you who knows jack shit.

The evolution of immigration reform under Obama – a timeline

A path that begins during the president’s upstart campaign six years ago is so far littered with false starts and undelivered promises

www.theguardian.com

Refugee Act of 1980 - Immigration History

While adhering to the UN standard for defining refugees, this law made U.S. refugee policy more responsive to changing situations through the implementation of annual admissions quotas that could be adjusted annually after consultation between Congress and the White House.

immigrationhistory.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/09/how-the-haitian-refugee-crisis-led-to-the-indefinite-detention-of-immigrants/

There's a lot of changes in law and interpretations, especially detention policies, you just don't know about them, and don't give a shit to check before saying nothing changed.

The LIRS literally works with the US government. It's the first sentence of the link you gave. Thanks for proving my point?

>work with US government
Obviously. But how much of its funding comes from US government?
Those are separate questions, don't play these games with me...

It's not just the cash, it's the need for contacts, etc. This is how illegal immigration is actually fought: make it financially infeasible. It's not the only thing needed to do, but it would be a huge help.

Obviously if a hardline GOP administration comes in and categorically bans any cooperation with NGOs, they can obstruct the process a lot. Less migrants would get through over time and activist lawyers would have a lot more paper on their desks.
But the problem is that as soon as democrats get some offices again they will start to talk again and the process will become smooth again.
To make it financially infeasible you need draconian legal sanctions or punitive taxes on groups of people protected by the left - their NGOs (charities with halo effects), their donors and employers (do gooder celebrities and corporate leaders), or the migrants themselves (poor people of diversity), or better yet all of the above.

Trump would be willing. He got the remain in Mexico policy done last time, he can do it again.

Willing, but the ability to actually get it done was moderate at best.

Asylum Grant Rates Climb Under Biden

Trump's effect was much more moderate than both his fanboys and haters think, at least before he could opportunistically use COVID for it, but that's a one-off - the 3/2020 asylum seeker ban is the most visible change out there.

 

[Abhorsen]

It's easy to say nothing changed when you don't care to know about changes and say others know little when it is you who knows jack shit.

The evolution of immigration reform under Obama – a timeline

A path that begins during the president’s upstart campaign six years ago is so far littered with false starts and undelivered promises

www.theguardian.com

Wow, none of that was at all relevant to the problem at hand. No relevant laws got passed by Obama. In fact, he kept failing at immigration laws. He got one rule change (DACA, basically Dream but a rule not a law), DACA isn't really relevant to the problem of the mass migration, and Obama did nothing else. And none of that was the fault of "woke courts or parliaments", as you claimed initially. That's the executive branch, issuing a new rule on how they will enforce the law.

More, that rule isn't the thing that sparked off the immigration problem either. It's a relatively minor part of the problem.

Then you site a law from the 1980s. That's not some radical new reinterpretation. That's completely in line with my statement about laws from a while ago are now dealing with an out of context problem. Your final cite is an opinion piece in WaPo that is paywalled. Great sourcing there.

Basically, you frantically searched for random news articles that appear to confirm what you are saying but don't, then post it as if it's proof.

You did the same shit the last time you were completely wrong about US law, and it's just as pathetic and transparent now as it was then. Look, you don't know US law. At all. Stop pretending you do. Or I'm going to take a page from your book and just start making up Polish law and cite irrelevant sources.

>work with US government
Obviously. But how much of its funding comes from US government?
Those are separate questions, don't play these games with me...

All you do is make up facts and cite irrelevant articles. You complaining about games is hilarious. But here you go:

NGOs use American tax dollars to relocate migrants

Nongovernmental organizations, like charities or religiously affiliated nonprofits, are under scrutiny by DHS for misspent funds.

www.newsnationnow.com

According to Forbes, the NGO Catholic Charities USA received $1.4 billion from government support compared with $1 billion in private donations. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service reported more than $93.1 million in U.S. government grants in its 2021 financial statement, making taxpayer-funded grants more than 80% of its total support.

This is too easy.

Obviously if a hardline GOP administration comes in and categorically bans any cooperation with NGOs, they can obstruct the process a lot. Less migrants would get through over time and activist lawyers would have a lot more paper on their desks.
But the problem is that as soon as democrats get some offices again they will start to talk again and the process will become smooth again.
To make it financially infeasible you need draconian legal sanctions or punitive taxes on groups of people protected by the left - their NGOs (charities with halo effects), their donors and employers (do gooder celebrities and corporate leaders), or the migrants themselves (poor people of diversity), or better yet all of the above.

Literally all you need is a law banning funding. I didn't ask for an administration to fix this, because yes, rules can be rewritten. But laws aren't nearly as easy to alter.

Trump's effect was much more moderate than both his fanboys and haters think, at least before he could opportunistically use COVID for it, but that's a one-off - the 3/2020 asylum seeker ban is the most visible change out there.

Moderate? Did you look at your graph at all? You see that spike? That's not moderate. And the spike happened in 2019, prior to covid.

Why do all your sources support me Marduk?

 

[Captain X]

Rainbow Tumour cultists being offended over everything and anything and trying to use the system to shut down all those "evil Naxis" for their 'mean words'? Say it ain't so!

It could also be from people like Dankula flooding the system with fake reports, or reporting Leftist examples of "hate speech."

 

[Marduk]

Wow, none of that was at all relevant to the problem at hand. No relevant laws got passed by Obama. In fact, he kept failing at immigration laws. He got one rule change (DACA, basically Dream but a rule not a law), DACA isn't really relevant to the problem of the mass migration, and Obama did nothing else. And none of that was the fault of "woke courts or parliaments", as you claimed initially. That's the executive branch, issuing a new rule on how they will enforce the law.

More, that rule isn't the thing that sparked off the immigration problem either. It's a relatively minor part of the problem.

Let's not play with technicalities, laws are a tip of the iceberg, the little details of how agencies, courts, and other government institutions are meant to work also have their own effects.
"But it's executive branch" is a hilarious way to handwave policies that mysteriously survive changes at the helm as irrelevant.

Then you site a law from the 1980s. That's not some radical new reinterpretation. That's completely in line with my statement about laws from a while ago are now dealing with an out of context problem. Your final cite is an opinion piece in WaPo that is paywalled. Great sourcing there.

LMAO get noscript.

Basically, you frantically searched for random news articles that appear to confirm what you are saying but don't, then post it as if it's proof.

You did the same shit the last time you were completely wrong about US law, and it's just as pathetic and transparent now as it was then. Look, you don't know US law. At all. Stop pretending you do. Or I'm going to take a page from your book and just start making up Polish law and cite irrelevant sources.

Saying i'm wrong is not an alternative to an argument, and your handwaving game is weak, you're as much of a lawyer as i am so stop pretending otherwise.

All you do is make up facts and cite irrelevant articles. You complaining about games is hilarious. But here you go:

NGOs use American tax dollars to relocate migrants

Nongovernmental organizations, like charities or religiously affiliated nonprofits, are under scrutiny by DHS for misspent funds.

www.newsnationnow.com

This is too easy.

Too easy for you to kill your argument.
Catholic Charities USA, if you say 1.4 vs 1 billion in private, that's slightly over half of funding, they won't fall if government would manage to cut it completely (probably includes blue state governments too).
Then you have state vs federal government funding division that's not shown there, and i doubt a GOP executive is willing and able to stop blue states from spending money on importing more blue voters.
Let's say realistically you kill half their funding, you think they will disappear when left with "only" the other half?

Literally all you need is a law banning funding. I didn't ask for an administration to fix this, because yes, rules can be rewritten. But laws aren't nearly as easy to alter.

Good luck passing a law comprehensive and challenge proof enough to ban all the tricks blue states can and will use to send money to these and not be undermined.

Moderate? Did you look at your graph at all? You see that spike? That's not moderate. And the spike happened in 2019, prior to covid.

Why do all your sources support me Marduk?

Your capacity do delude yourself that you are right by handwaving all the inconvenient facts as irrelevant is truly amazing.
Can you even read graphs? The spike you are talking about is in number of asylum decisions, not proportion of cases denied. On the contrary, even with relatively lower proportion of granted cases, the raw number of positive decisions is higher in 2019 than in any year under Obama...

 

[Abhorsen]

Let's not play with technicalities, laws are a tip of the iceberg, the little details of how agencies, courts, and other government institutions are meant to work also have their own effects.
"But it's executive branch" is a hilarious way to handwave policies that mysteriously survive changes at the helm as irrelevant.

This whole conversation began because you accused the courts and legislatures of doing the problem. That's exactly what I objected to. It's not a technicality. It's an important point of how to fix the problem. Spoiler alert: the US and Europe are different.

Saying i'm wrong is not an alternative to an argument, and your handwaving game is weak, you're as much of a lawyer as i am so stop pretending otherwise.

I read Supreme Court opinions for fun, I follow legal cases in my free time, and I love researching the law. For evidence, I'm one of the most regular posters on the various legal threads in this forum. Meanwhile, you think there's a martial law exception to the constitution, coming across like a sovereign citizen. There's a difference between us, a large one.

But qualifications are really irrelevant. What matters is that you have a habit of claiming American law works in a certain way, being wildly wrong (again, martial law exception to the constitution), then citing irrelevant webpages that probably appeared on the first page of a google search. What matters is that your arguments stink, and you have no evidence.

Catholic Charities USA, if you say 1.4 vs 1 billion in private, that's slightly over half of funding, they won't fall if government would manage to cut it completely (probably includes blue state governments too).
Then you have state vs federal government funding division that's not shown there, and i doubt a GOP executive is willing and able to stop blue states from spending money on importing more blue voters.
Let's say realistically you kill half their funding, you think they will disappear when left with "only" the other half?

This is sad. You keep claiming clearly wrong stuff and moving the goal posts when I point out how wrong you are.

You claimed that LIRS wasn't government funded. I show it's 80% government funded. You then try with Catholic Charities "But it's only 50%". This is a goal post move. And an unsuccessful one, because again, you don't know what you are talking about. Catholic Charities, unlike LIRS, is a broad charity that does a ton of stuff, including disaster relief, feeding the homeless, etc. It messing with immigration isn't what it focuses on, unlike LIRS. So the answer is simple, just threaten it enough to stay away from that category, and it will and can change its focus back to what it should be doing.

You obviously don't just punish the bad actors: if you just punish, you lose your control because you lost the carrot. You threaten instead.

Good luck passing a law comprehensive and challenge proof enough to ban all the tricks blue states can and will use to send money to these and not be undermined.

Again, you move the goal posts. But that's fine, as again, I have a response.

See, the issue isn't really inside the states. It's that NGOs funded by the US, in foreign countries, are helping illegal immigrants get here. The main job of the US is to kneecap those groups specifically. One is Catholic Charities. The US has the leverage to do this already.

Can you even read graphs? The spike you are talking about is in number of asylum decisions, not proportion of cases denied. On the contrary, even with relatively lower proportion of granted cases, the raw number of positive decisions is higher in 2019 than in any year under Obama...

The proportion also increases under Trump.

You also don't seem to know why the blue bar matters. The raw number of decisions going up is a good thing, because without a decision, the asylum seeker will stay in the US. The green number is pretty much irrelevant, as prior to getting an acceptance, the person was in the US, and after, they were still in the US. Even if you argue "but the remain in Mexico Policy", that didn't happen for the entirety of the Trump Era, and more importantly, you'd have to compare the green number with the amount of illegal immigration let in by Trump.

The Blue bar is the only thing that gets people out of the US. And so, it's the only thing that matters. And if you had read the graph, which you didn't seem to do, you'd note that it increased under Trump.

 

[Marduk]

This whole conversation began because you accused the courts and legislatures of doing the problem. That's exactly what I objected to. It's not a technicality. It's an important point of how to fix the problem. Spoiler alert: the US and Europe are different.

Here's a well known enough for even me to have heard of example of courts helping with detail based obstructionism in immigration enforcement:

U.S. Government Reaches Settlement in Class Action Family Separation Case Seeking Injunctive Relief

On Oct. 16, the United States reached a settlement in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., a class action litigation filed in 2018 seeking injunctive relief relating to the separation of parents and children at the southwest border. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the...

www.justice.gov

I read Supreme Court opinions for fun, I follow legal cases in my free time, and I love researching the law. For evidence, I'm one of the most regular posters on the various legal threads in this forum. Meanwhile, you think there's a martial law exception to the constitution, coming across like a sovereign citizen. There's a difference between us, a large one.

But qualifications are really irrelevant. What matters is that you have a habit of claiming American law works in a certain way, being wildly wrong (again, martial law exception to the constitution), then citing irrelevant webpages that probably appeared on the first page of a google search. What matters is that your arguments stink, and you have no evidence.

Yeah, sure, there's a reason why there's such a stigma against people who think they know the law as amateurs. Now i understand why.

This is sad. You keep claiming clearly wrong stuff and moving the goal posts when I point out how wrong you are.

If you make that push in politics goalposts will keep being moved, politics, or even our discussion, are not a formal debate, in reality "defense in depth" tactics, watering down laws with minor modifications and exceptions until they no longer work properly, and all sorts of other tricks like getting decisions stuck in lawfare and then running out the clock on an election are very much used and effective.

You claimed that LIRS wasn't government funded. I show it's 80% government funded. You then try with Catholic Charities "But it's only 50%". This is a goal post move. And an unsuccessful one, because again, you don't know what you are talking about. Catholic Charities, unlike LIRS, is a broad charity that does a ton of stuff, including disaster relief, feeding the homeless, etc. It messing with immigration isn't what it focuses on, unlike LIRS. So the answer is simple, just threaten it enough to stay away from that category, and it will and can change its focus back to what it should be doing.

Again, that only another complication for cutting off the charities from government money, as the funding, infrastructure and money for them get mixed inside the charity.
You can threaten them, but you can rest assured the left side of that political conflict will keep their own push (and internally those charities lean that way too) and as far as backroom threats go in politics the left so far gets much more mileage out of that than the right.

You obviously don't just punish the bad actors: if you just punish, you lose your control because you lost the carrot. You threaten instead.

If you threaten but don't punish, or punish lightly, the bad actors will laugh at you and become even worse.
And the government, assuming sufficiently strict law, will always have further leverage in form of criminal charges, as it's hard to run a NGO from a federal prison.

Again, you move the goal posts. But that's fine, as again, I have a response.

See, the issue isn't really inside the states. It's that NGOs funded by the US, in foreign countries, are helping illegal immigrants get here. The main job of the US is to kneecap those groups specifically. One is Catholic Charities. The US has the leverage to do this already.

In the unlikely scenario this works, there are single purpose ones that will take up that slack.
It's a game of whack-a-mole with a whole network of federal, state and private funding, some of which is fungible. This isn't some foolproof solution to the migration problem forever, it's something that would have to be fought over indefinitely with shifting balance between the sides while circumstances also keep changing and migrants keep adapting.

The proportion also increases under Trump.

You also don't seem to know why the blue bar matters. The raw number of decisions going up is a good thing, because without a decision, the asylum seeker will stay in the US.

Depends how many decisions are there in comparison to the numbers of asylum seekers coming in - have you forgotten the news about massive migrant caravans in pre-covid part of Trump presidency?

Border at ‘Breaking Point’ as More Than 76,000 Unauthorized Migrants Cross in a Month (Published 2019)

The number of migrants apprehended on the southwest border is up about 90 percent from levels recorded at the same time last year, the authorities said.

www.nytimes.com

The green number is pretty much irrelevant, as prior to getting an acceptance, the person was in the US, and after, they were still in the US. Even if you argue "but the remain in Mexico Policy", that didn't happen for the entirety of the Trump Era, and more importantly, you'd have to compare the green number with the amount of illegal immigration let in by Trump.

The Blue bar is the only thing that gets people out of the US. And so, it's the only thing that matters. And if you had read the graph, which you didn't seem to do, you'd note that it increased under Trump.

At least legally, this isn't a deportation statistic, just asylum refusal statistic.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yeah, sure, there's a reason why there's such a stigma against people who think they know the law as amateurs. Now i understand why.

You. You are the reason, as you keep citing irrelevant things thinking it proves stuff.

Literally I could match your arguments by citing Dr Suess, it's about as relevant.

Here's a great example:

Here's a well known enough for even me to have heard of example of courts helping with detail based obstructionism in immigration enforcement:

Guess what? That's not a judge's fault AGAIN! That's Biden (the executive branch) fucking people. Specifically, a settlement requires both parties to agree to it, and barely requires a judge at all. It's a great way to cripple a system as they are far stickier than just rules. It was used by Obama's DOJ extensively to implement criminal justice 'reforms' under consent agreements.

Seriously, you consistently show you don't know what you are talking about. If you knew anything about US law, you could have just realized that from the title. If you bothered to read your sources instead of grabbing the first thing you found, you would have noticed Merrick Garland's quote.

You are such a joke! Why do you keep handing me evidence?

If you make that push in politics goalposts will keep being moved, politics, or even our discussion, are not a formal debate, in reality "defense in depth" tactics and all sorts of other tricks like getting decisions stuck in lawfare and then running out the clock on an election are very much used and effective.

... I'm not saying that politics are moving goal posts. I'm saying that you are. You are arguing dishonestly by saying "prove this". I then prove it. You then say "What about that" which I then prove, but you seem to have an endless amount of irrelevant facts to 'counter' with.

If you threaten but don't punish, or punish lightly, the bad actors will laugh at you and become even worse.
And the government, assuming sufficiently strict law, will always have further leverage in form of criminal charges, as it's hard to run a NGO from a federal prison.

You don't seem to know how what I wanted to set up works. It's a well known system the US government uses a lot to control people it deals with (especially Federal Contractors). It isn't some empty threat, or easy to remove if put into law (usually with Federal Contractors its a rule, not a law). It simply puts a condition on getting federal money, which changes the incentives for most charities. It's designed to counter stuff like this:

Again, that only another complication for cutting off the charities from government money, as the funding, infrastructure and money for them get mixed inside the charity.
You can threaten them, but you can rest assured the left side of that political conflict will keep their own push (and internally those charities lean that way too) and as far as backroom threats go in politics the left so far gets much more mileage out of that than the right.

Basically, as a condition of receiving federal dollars, they cannot do X. Since they all rely on federal dollars, and want to do things, they'll either shrink significantly, or stop doing X. X has been a lot of things over the years, so an answer could be found to prevent helping illegals.

Depends how many decisions are there in comparison to the numbers of asylum seekers coming in - have you forgotten the news about massive migrant caravans in pre-covid part of Trump presidency?

Another paywalled source. How are you not embarrassed yet? Meanwhile, the question really is "Did Trump deport more than he let in?" And the answer is no. It was about equal, keeping at around 11 million people. Biden is the first president in a while that has lost this battle though, even Obama held the line here.

At least legally, this isn't a deportation statistic, just asylum refusal statistic.

Denied asylum seekers are those who can get deported. It's a pretty important number.

 

[Marduk]

You. You are the reason, as you keep citing irrelevant things thinking it proves stuff.

Literally I could match your arguments by citing Dr Suess, it's about as relevant.

Here's a great example:

Guess what? That's not a judge's fault AGAIN! That's Biden (the executive branch) fucking people. Specifically, a settlement requires both parties to agree to it, and barely requires a judge at all. It's a great way to cripple a system as they are far stickier than just rules. It was used by Obama's DOJ extensively to implement criminal justice 'reforms' under consent agreements.

How is that not the judge's fault too? As you said, it takes both parties.
I'm not arguing that Biden admin is innocent in this, but activist judges in cooperation with democrats can and do set up legal status quo that stays there even when a Republican holds the presidency.

Seriously, you consistently show you don't know what you are talking about. If you knew anything about US law, you could have just realized that from the title. If you bothered to read your sources instead of grabbing the first thing you found, you would have noticed Merrick Garland's quote.

You are such a joke! Why do you keep handing me evidence?

Again, more clownish handwaving and attempts at being smug, pathetic.

... I'm not saying that politics are moving goal posts. I'm saying that you are. You are arguing dishonestly by saying "prove this". I then prove it. You then say "What about that" which I then prove, but you seem to have an endless amount of irrelevant facts to 'counter' with.

And i said it's irrelevant, go debate larp with someone who cares about such.
It doesn't fucking matter if 99% of their funding is government, when you don't have data how much the government funding comes from states that realistically will stay blue regardless of federal politics, but you don't want to even consider that because that would take away your self declared victory.

You don't seem to know how what I wanted to set up works. It's a well known system the US government uses a lot to control people it deals with (especially Federal Contractors). It isn't some empty threat, or easy to remove if put into law (usually with Federal Contractors its a rule, not a law). It simply puts a condition on getting federal money, which changes the incentives for most charities. It's designed to counter stuff like this:

Again, your self-confidence is touching, but i for one have no belief that such an attempt would kill such organizations. Cutting their funding by half would be realistic (i never claimed it would not hurt them at all), 75% would be very optimistic, but with time the progressives would adapt some workarounds even then .

Basically, as a condition of receiving federal dollars, they cannot do X. Since they all rely on federal dollars, and want to do things, they'll either shrink significantly, or stop doing X. X has been a lot of things over the years, so an answer could be found to prevent helping illegals.

Which is... your belief. In reality "finding the answer" can take decades of cat and mouse games, election cycles, lawfare etc. As i said, there won't be a definite end to this, the left cares too much.
At worst the NGO complex will be forcing into specializing organizations more, and more of the private and blue state funding being channeled into the controversial ones.

Another paywalled source. How are you not embarrassed yet?

About using noscript? No, i do it proudly, i recommend you do it too.

Meanwhile, the question really is "Did Trump deport more than he let in?" And the answer is no. It was about equal, keeping at around 11 million people. Biden is the first president in a while that has lost this battle though, even Obama held the line here.

That's my point - Trump was moderately successful in that, just because Biden manages to be much worse doesn't make his numbers great, if in objective comparison they mean merely "holding the line maybe a bit better than Obama".

Denied asylum seekers are those who can get deported. It's a pretty important number.

But not the ultimately important one, which is deportation rate. There can be quite a gap between numbers of people who *can* be deported legally and people who do in fact get deported these days.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Wait... Is this even possible?



Biden could've done something about this border the whole time?

I thought the House Republicans and Trump were stopping him... Or something.

Wait... Is this even possible?



How is it possible that Biden could do something about the border now that he couldn't do before? Will he even have time, it coincidentally being even closer to the election and all now.

 

[Abhorsen]

How is that not the judge's fault too? As you said, it takes both parties.
I'm not arguing that Biden admin is innocent in this, but activist judges in cooperation with democrats can and do set up legal status quo that stays there even when a Republican holds the presidency.

Both parties are those suing and those being sued, not the judge. The judge saying "No" to a settlement is incredibly rare. It's rarer than them refusing a plea bargain, and that's very rare also.

See, this is common knowledge to people who actually know the bare basics of the US justice system, something you don't know (as you've consistently shown). That's fine, it would be weird if you did, you aren't American, there's no big issue. The issue comes from you insisting that you do when you keep getting basic facts (like this) wrong.

Again, more clownish handwaving and attempts at being smug, pathetic.

Given the above, I have actual reason to be smug. You don't. This is just another in a long line of "Marduk arguing by google".

And i said it's irrelevant, go debate larp with someone who cares about such.
It doesn't fucking matter if 99% of their funding is government, when you don't have data how much the government funding comes from states that realistically will stay blue regardless of federal politics, but you don't want to even consider that because that would take away your self declared victory.

Every argument you come back with is more and more wrong. Almost all such funding comes from the federal government. If you know how the US government works, you might know that. Usually US Government funds are separate from the State funds.

Second, 'debate larp'? I'm sorry, I was hoping the person I was talking to was engaging with a modicum of honesty. But if you want to declare to the world that you aren't, and that the only way you continue to debate me is by knowingly using lies and fallacies, feel free too.

Again, your self-confidence is touching, but i for one have no belief that such an attempt would kill such organizations. Cutting their funding by half would be realistic (i never claimed it would not hurt them at all), 75% would be very optimistic, but with time the progressives would adapt some workarounds even then .

Your reading comprehension astounds. Again, you don't cut there funding, like I've said the past 5 or so times. You threaten to. If you threaten, they don't look for workarounds, as you've provided them with a work around: don't do X, and you get to do Y with federal money.

That's my point - Trump was moderately successful in that, just because Biden manages to be much worse doesn't make his numbers great, if in objective comparison they mean merely "holding the line maybe a bit better than Obama".

Hilariously, you weren't able to prove your point until I literally handed you the proof. You need other people to make your point for you, as you wouldn't know relevant evidence if it slapped you in the face.

About using XXXXXX? No, i do it proudly, i recommend you do it too.

As a mod, you might want to know that providing guidance on how to pirate is against the rules, especially if you encourage it. But apparently you never read those either before becoming one. It matches up with your knowledge of US law, so it's to be expected.

 

[Marduk]

Both parties are those suing and those being sued, not the judge. The judge saying "No" to a settlement is incredibly rare. It's rarer than them refusing a plea bargain, and that's very rare also.

See, this is common knowledge to people who actually know the bare basics of the US justice system, something you don't know (as you've consistently shown). That's fine, it would be weird if you did, you aren't American, there's no big issue. The issue comes from you insisting that you do when you keep getting basic facts (like this) wrong.

And it is uncommon knowledge to people that instead of playing smartass like that, a judge unsympathetic to the progressive cause would probably rule against this in this case ongoing since friggin 2018, and saying no to settlements being rare would also not stop such from saying no regardless.

Given the above, I have actual reason to be smug. You don't. This is just another in a long line of "Marduk arguing by google".

Keep believing whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Every argument you come back with is more and more wrong. Almost all such funding comes from the federal government. If you know how the US government works, you might know that. Usually US Government funds are separate from the State funds.

State government is also government, and the linked figures do not separate.
Here you have State of California throwing money at the "undocumented", not mere legal aid, to a sum of 75m, under Trump still.

Second, 'debate larp'? I'm sorry, I was hoping the person I was talking to was engaging with a modicum of honesty. But if you want to declare to the world that you aren't, and that the only way you continue to debate me is by knowingly using lies and fallacies, feel free too.

Your reading comprehension astounds. Again, you don't cut there funding, like I've said the past 5 or so times. You threaten to. If you threaten, they don't look for workarounds, as you've provided them with a work around: don't do X, and you get to do Y with federal money.

That's a big pile of wishful thinking, yeah, sure, it would be great if merely threatening it would get them to stop, but i won't believe it until i see it, and i absolutely won't believe that they aren't looking for workarounds to not promote migration by playing some sort of shell games with various types of funding, money, organizations, excuses etc.
Yeah, if political slapfights against leftists were that easy and they just releted for good when someone merely threatens to take their government money, they would be long gone, but as you can see, they aren't.

Hilariously, you weren't able to prove your point until I literally handed you the proof. You need other people to make your point for you, as you wouldn't know relevant evidence if it slapped you in the face.

If only i cared about what you consider the right form to demonstrate proofs to you...
Sorry, we're not doing academic math.

As a mod, you might want to know that providing guidance on how to pirate is against the rules, especially if you encourage it. But apparently you never read those either before becoming one. It matches up with your knowledge of US law, so it's to be expected.

As a proud self-certified amateur lawyer you should know that using noscript, adblock (which is much more aggressive in circumventing access control and thus more legally controversial, yet still not de facto illegal), or a sufficiently obsolete browser (which has similar effects in practice) is not even piracy, and speaking of it is not against forum rules either.

 

[Abhorsen]

And it is uncommon knowledge to people that instead of playing smartass like that, a judge unsympathetic to the progressive cause would probably rule against this in this case ongoing since friggin 2018, and saying no to settlements being rare would also not stop such from saying no regardless.

Literally no they wouldn't. You don't understand what a judge can and can't do. But then you don't seem to understand anything. In short, I'm

Keep believing whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

Why I feel good about myself right now: I'm arguing with a clown.

> Be Marduk, claim to know about the US legal system

Here's a well known enough for even me to have heard of example of courts helping with detail based obstructionism in immigration enforcement:

U.S. Government Reaches Settlement in Class Action Family Separation Case Seeking Injunctive Relief

On Oct. 16, the United States reached a settlement in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., a class action litigation filed in 2018 seeking injunctive relief relating to the separation of parents and children at the southwest border. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the...

www.justice.gov

> Think that a settlement means a judge did something, and not the US Department of Justice cucking.

How is that not the judge's fault too? As you said, it takes both parties.

> Think that the two parties in a litigation are the judge and the prosecutor.
> Show everyone that you don't understand US law.
> Continue to do so:

And it is uncommon knowledge to people that instead of playing smartass like that, a judge unsympathetic to the progressive cause would probably rule against this in this case ongoing since friggin 2018, and saying no to settlements being rare would also not stop such from saying no regardless.

Look, no one here actually expects you to understand US law anymore that I understand Polish government. But acting like you do when you clearly don't makes you a clown.

Own your positions, and admit when you've made a mistake, and people might actually respect you. Instead, you prefer to Reeeee about Ukraine/Russia and shout legal gibberish.

Here's a few more times you were wrong this thread, then decided to act like a loon instead of being a man.

Delusional wishful thinking, if it was mostly government it would be easy to starve the hydra.

Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services (LIRS) - InfluenceWatch

Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services is a non-profit that works with the United States government to assist in the placement, settlement, and integration of refugees. It was founded in 1939 and has assisted in resettling hundreds of thousands of refugees. LIRS is also active on the southern...

www.influencewatch.org

This is one of big such NGOs, most of its funding is not government, at least not directly.

Here, you tried to prove that LIRS isn't funded by government, but your own citation proves it wrong

>work with US government
Obviously. But how much of its funding comes from US government?
Those are separate questions, don't play these games with me...

Then tried to claim that I was playing games, when games are all you know, as I showed you that it was in fact, 80% funded by government:

NGOs use American tax dollars to relocate migrants

Nongovernmental organizations, like charities or religiously affiliated nonprofits, are under scrutiny by DHS for misspent funds.

www.newsnationnow.com

Spoiler, 80% is what commonly known as 'most'.

Then you try to change the topic to "But what about state governments", while openly acknowledging that you are moving the goal posts, engaging in dishonest debate tactics. I could prove you wrong here. But then you'd have some other stupid wrong statement about something else, and we'd be here forever.

Oh, here's my favorite:
> Be Broken Clock, and be correct for once about illegal immigration amounts under Trump.
> Still a moron who doesn't know about how political realities in the US work.
> Find chart that Marduk think shows Trump is bad.
> Chart actually shows Trump is good to anyone who knows anything about how illegal immigration works in the US.
> Then cite paywalled source.
> Abhorsen literally hands you the info you needed to prove your point, because he's done with your flailing about.
> Claim victory.
> Proceed to break the rules of the board as a mod.
> Continues to show they can't parse a rules system correctly. Spoiler: a link to a paywall, plus a method to dodge a paywall, adds up to "detailed guidance to pirate copyrighted material", even when separate they wouldn't.

And yes, dodging a paywall is legally, probably piracy (hasn't been legally tested yet, I don't think, but it's a "probably yes").

Yes, It's Illegal to Cheat a Paywall - NYU Law Review

Access Rights and the DMCA’s Anticircumvention Provision Traditional media companies, such as newspapers, have struggled to adjust their profit models to the Internet economy. Some newspapers have instituted “paywalls,” digital locks that limit access to online articles with varying degrees of...

www.nyulawreview.org

Circumventing Copyright Controls | Digital Media Law Project

www.dmlp.org

 

[Marduk]

Literally no they wouldn't. You don't understand what a judge can and can't do. But then you don't seem to understand anything. In short, I'm


Why I feel good about myself right now: I'm arguing with a clown.

Likewise.

> Be Marduk, claim to know about the US legal system

> Think that a settlement means a judge did something, and not the US Department of Justice cucking.

Why was a case from 2018 waiting for a Biden DoJ to cuck, and why was this cucking accepted by the judge even though you admit it's just rare for it not to be?

> Think that the two parties in a litigation are the judge and the prosecutor.

Guess i need to speak in lawyerspeak to you because any imprecisions in language you will consider owns against me.

> Show everyone that you don't understand US law.
> Continue to do so:


Look, no one here actually expects you to understand US law anymore that I understand Polish government. But acting like you do when you clearly don't makes you a clown.

Own your positions, and admit when you've made a mistake, and people might actually respect you. Instead, you prefer to Reeeee about Ukraine/Russia and shout legal gibberish.

Go reeee about your amateur lawyer gibberish and lolbertarian pseudomoralizing yourself.

Here's a few more times you were wrong this thread, then decided to act like a loon instead of being a man.


Here, you tried to prove that LIRS isn't funded by government, but your own citation proves it wrong

State or federal government? ;D

Then tried to claim that I was playing games, when games are all you know, as I showed you that it was in fact, 80% funded by government:

Spoiler, 80% is what commonly known as 'most'.

Then you try to change the topic to "But what about state governments", while openly acknowledging that you are moving the goal posts, engaging in dishonest debate tactics. I could prove you wrong here. But then you'd have some other stupid wrong statement about something else, and we'd be here forever.

Are you trying to take your goalpost whining to argue that for purposes of determining what federal government and executive can do to stop funding the NGOs the separation between how much of "government funding" is federal and how much is state is unimportant?
Yeah, sure, more clownery from you right here, because your wishful thinking has to be conveniently facilitated by ignoring problem details like that. Sorry, no can do.

Oh, here's my favorite:
> Be Broken Clock, and be correct for once about illegal immigration amounts under Trump.
> Still a moron who doesn't know about how political realities in the US work.
> Find chart that Marduk think shows Trump is bad.
> Chart actually shows Trump is good to anyone who knows anything about how illegal immigration works in the US.
> Then cite paywalled source.
> Abhorsen literally hands you the info you needed to prove your point, because he's done with your flailing about.
> Claim victory.
> Proceed to break the rules of the board as a mod.
> Continues to show they can't parse a rules system correctly. Spoiler: a link to a paywall, plus a method to dodge a paywall, adds up to "detailed guidance to pirate copyrighted material", even when separate they wouldn't.

And yes, dodging a paywall is legally, probably piracy (hasn't been legally tested yet, I don't think, but it's a "probably yes").

Yes, It's Illegal to Cheat a Paywall - NYU Law Review

Access Rights and the DMCA’s Anticircumvention Provision Traditional media companies, such as newspapers, have struggled to adjust their profit models to the Internet economy. Some newspapers have instituted “paywalls,” digital locks that limit access to online articles with varying degrees of...

www.nyulawreview.org

Circumventing Copyright Controls | Digital Media Law Project

www.dmlp.org

Again you are absolutely sure about what you read, yet have no fucking idea about the details.
Stuff like adblock and similar advanced anti ad software *may* be interpreted as a circumvention technology, this explains it.
Using a browser that fails to execute javascript (deliberately like noscript or by being obsolete or crappy, doesn't matter) isn't.
Regardless, US based company Google offers both noscript and adblock on its chrome webstore, so i think we can settle our amateur lawyer derail here.

 

[Abhorsen]

Why was a case from 2018 waiting for a Biden DoJ to cuck, and why was this cucking accepted by the judge even though you admit it's just rare for it not to be?

I said it's vanishingly rare for a judge to not accept stuff. There has to be something crazy wrong for that to happen, not just a side being stupid on purpose.

Guess i need to speak in lawyerspeak to you because any imprecisions in language you will consider owns against me.

Imprecision? Try basic facts of how the US justice system works. There are two sides to every case. The judge is never one of those sides.

Go reeee about your amateur lawyer gibberish and lolbertarian pseudomoralizing yourself.

Lol. You steal insults I've used against you because you can't think of your own ones. That you think honesty and owning what you say is psuedomorality says a lot about your morality, much more than you copied insults say about mine.

State or federal government? ;D
Are you trying to take your goalpost whining to argue that for purposes of determining what federal government and executive can do to stop funding the NGOs the separation between how much of "government funding" is federal and how much is state is unimportant?
Yeah, sure, more clownery from you right here, because your wishful thinking has to be conveniently facilitated by ignoring problem details like that. Sorry, no can do.

See, let's say I prove this detail, like I proved all the other nonsense you gave wrong. You'll come up with more nonsense. You are a person who doesn't care about the truth, but instead cares about winning.

Again you are absolutely sure about what you read, yet have no fucking idea about the details.
Stuff like adblock and similar advanced anti ad software *may* be interpreted as a circumvention technology, this explains it.
Using a browser that fails to execute javascript (deliberately like noscript or by being obsolete or crappy, doesn't matter) isn't.
Regardless, US based company Google offers both noscript and adblock on its chrome webstore, so i think we can settle our amateur lawyer derail here.

Marduk doesn't understand US law, part infinity. It doesn't really matter how you do something, but that you did it, and why you did it. You did do it, and you shared it for the purpose of circumventing copyright. Now had you shared it for another reason, you might have had an argument, but as always, you failed before you began.

 

[Marduk]

I said it's vanishingly rare for a judge to not accept stuff. There has to be something crazy wrong for that to happen, not just a side being stupid on purpose.



Imprecision? Try basic facts of how the US justice system works. There are two sides to every case. The judge is never one of those sides.

I'll take it as a yes.

Lol. You steal insults I've used against you because you can't think of your own ones.

I could, but i would get reported for those.

That you think honesty and owning what you say is psuedomorality says a lot about your morality, much more than you copied insults say about mine.

I couldn't care less about your advertising of your fringe views, believe what you will, but don't expect me or most people in general to share those beliefs.

See, let's say I prove this detail, like I proved all the other nonsense you gave wrong. You'll come up with more nonsense. You are a person who doesn't care about the truth, but instead cares about winning.

What truth? About trying to argue if your basic and in my opinion naively insufficient theoretical plan to stop mass immigration would work? I don't think we have the alternate dimension travel technology to determine THE TRUTH of this matter.

Marduk doesn't understand US law, part infinity. It doesn't really matter how you do something, but that you did it, and why you did it. You did do it, and you shared it for the purpose of circumventing copyright. Now had you shared it for another reason, you might have had an argument, but as always, you failed before you began.

I don't think you understood the article i linked, writing the word "noscript" in wrong context is not illegal, nor even distributing the software itself, for any reason, which is why even Google does it, while for the legal reasons you think apply here it generally frowns upon spreading actually illegal by DMCA to distribute things like videogame cracks.

As i said, there's a bloody good reason why people take legal opinions on the internet that start with "i'm not a lawyer but" with a shovel of salt.

 

[Abhorsen]

I couldn't care less about your advertising of your fringe views, believe what you will, but don't expect me or most people in general to share those beliefs.

No, I never should have expected you to be an honest person. Thanks for admitting it. I am shocked you consider honesty to be a fringe view though.

What truth? About trying to argue if your basic and in my opinion naively insufficient theoretical plan to stop mass immigration would work? I don't think we have the alternate dimension travel technology to determine THE TRUTH of this matter.

See above, where you constantly deride things like debating honestly, or owning statements you said before. That sorta truth.


Anyway, on relevant matters:

Raised fees for legal immigration ‘incentivizes’ illegal crossings: expert

A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services fee increase for legal immigration could only serve to further incentivize illegal immigration and border crossings.

www.foxnews.com

Biden actively wants illegal immigrants, not legal ones. Meanwhile, tossing a fee on the Asylum form would actually disincentivize this bullshit. Make it a bond if you have too.

 

[Marduk]

No, I never should have expected you to be an honest person. Thanks for admitting it. I am shocked you consider honesty to be a fringe view though.

See above, where you constantly deride things like debating honestly, or owning statements you said before. That sorta truth.

Yeah, i couldn't care less what amateur e-lawyers call honesty, nevermind adhering to it.

Anyway, on relevant matters:

Raised fees for legal immigration ‘incentivizes’ illegal crossings: expert

A U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services fee increase for legal immigration could only serve to further incentivize illegal immigration and border crossings.

www.foxnews.com

Biden actively wants illegal immigrants, not legal ones. Meanwhile, tossing a fee on the Asylum form would actually disincentivize this bullshit. Make it a bond if you have too.

Not news at all, it is long known that as far as far left is concerned, illegals, especially those who never would nor should have a chance of legal immigration, make most loyal supporters, as their continued toleration, not to mention potential future legalization, depend on the far left being in power and granting them such questionable favors against all reason, with both knowing that no one more sensible would give them such favor, so they are set to stick together. Meanwhile legal immigrants (or citizens) have no need for such favors.

I would not bet on fee on asylum claims surviving the political and lawfare challenges on the grounds of being inhumane and shit.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

>Enjoying the show

 

[strunkenwhite]

I don't think you understood the article i linked, writing the word "noscript" in wrong context is not illegal, nor even distributing the software itself, for any reason, which is why even Google does it, while for the legal reasons you think apply here it generally frowns upon spreading actually illegal by DMCA to distribute things like videogame cracks.

As i said, there's a bloody good reason why people take legal opinions on the internet that start with "i'm not a lawyer but" with a shovel of salt.

I am not sure where I stand on the issue myself, but I am sure it's not as cut and dried as you are presenting it as being.

Imagine a building with two doors. At one, a fee is collected for people who wish to enter and take stuff. What stuff? Maybe it's an all you can eat buffet; who cares. The other door is labeled "Please do not enter" but, foolishly, it is left unlocked. Now, opening doors is not illegal. And clearly this place is a public establishment. But opening the "do not enter" door and taking the stuff is more than likely an illegal act. Same if it was a movie theater and you weren't actually "taking" any physical object but merely consuming information.