Can't tell if this is serious or a joke? This site he launched is literally like Groupon for drugs, for people who don't have health insurance. It's mostly nothing, but if anything it is a step toward normalizing not having health insurance.
Yeah, "theoretically" is doing a lot of work there. Removal requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate, which is absolutely neverfuckinghappening in a 2-party system.
Border enforcement is only the excuse to build a paramilitary force akin to the Blackshirts or the Sturmabteilung that will do whatever violence is asked of them.
Dude, every country has borders and most take it seriously. In many countries, such as Poland, they shoot at people crossing the border illegally. A country with no enforced borders is no country at all.
If you want to revise your assessment to include the creation of this problem by having a lax border, I can agree with you somewhat. We should not require border police far away from the borders. But we do require it now, because certain malicious politicians let in a bunch of people illegally.
You're responding under the presumption that the official story about ICE's mission is accurate and sincere. I'm suggesting that it's a ruse to dupe people into accepting paramilitary enforcement of an authoritarian state. If so, arguments about border enforcement are just playing by the terms set by the propaganda.
If you read the second paragraph of the comment you just responded to, I alluded to a potential problem-reaction-solution scheme to create the situation (excessive illegal immigration through unenforced borders) to the final conclusion of expanding federal authority all over the place. It is subtle, so I don't blame you for not connecting the dots.
Despite the fact that I suspect this scheme is in play, we do actually need to get these illegals out. I believe they have let welfare leeches, common criminals, foreign military, and terrorists all through the border to make sure that we would need federal help to get them out. Rejecting federal solutions now is not the answer. The answer is to let them solve the problem and insist that things go back to normal afterward.
> Rejecting federal solutions now is not the answer. The answer is to let them solve the problem and insist that things go back to normal afterward.
If those federal solutions are not intended to solve unauthorized residency but instead to put us in a permanent authoritarian state where we don't have an afterward where we have the power to insist on things?
That's the greater threat than "illegals" at the moment IMHO.
I think it's more of a gradual creep of federal authority and insider deals for government money than an instant authoritarian state. There was a lot of money lost in the housing of illegal aliens and asylum seekers for example. Thousands were put up in LUXURY hotels for hundreds per night, for months or years. They had free everything provided by sketchy government contractors. Many government actions turn out to be fraud or grossly overpriced. Look at the billions lost in the daycare scandals. They're paying for fake daycare and Medicaid for illegals, and cutting benefits for poor US citizens such as my parents.
Federal authority is in fact required to evict people who were allowed to enter in bad faith. There's no getting around that. You either let them stay and suffer higher crime, worse job market, and worse government benefits, or you make them leave. Many Democrats have come out and said that they will not comply with federal law. Now there are Republicans at the top so maybe the law can finally be enforced.
This is another theory as to why the massive illegal and fraudulent legal immigration under pretense of asylum was allowed: https://www.conservapedia.com/Cloward_and_Piven_Strategy Another one is the mere fact that in a democracy, there is always an incentive to expand the voter rolls. There is even this motive on a state level, because seats in Congress are apportioned according to census data that includes all people residing in each district/state. It's very easy to understand that importing millions of people and trying by any means to legalize them and defeat immigration enforcement is one way to try to steal a country. It's treasonous and if we allow this threat then we will not have a country few years from now.
At the university level, this is patently false. Professors have wide latitude to pick the texts for their classes except in lower division classes that might be taught by a TA.
This is more nuanced than “controlled by the administration or not”.
Universities that have accreditation (typically regional accreditation for nonprofit and private research universities) have to meet certain standards for certain curriculum design. Within those requirements there is wide latitude.
That doesn't seem more nuanced between controlled by administrators or not.. An accreditation may have a minimum number of hours for Greek Classics and could expect the topic of Classical Greek Cultural norms to be compared/contrasted with modernity or it may not be mandatory to cover. That's a bit short of an accreditation telling an administration to ensure the topic is never covered or to police every unlisted topic a professor may cover.
reply