The Democrat Party Hates America

[henry quirk]

Garcia...is now said to be in a lower security prison/jail or holding center.

As a prelude to his return? Possible. If so: what, oh what, will the RMD haters glom onto next?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That I doubt. But it’s all political soap opera …

[Immanuel Can]

Due process was denied, the situation must be remedied.

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

Due process was denied,

To A-G? He's gone. Give it up. You can't fix it.

Now, if you want to allege that due process is being denied universally, I'll see your evidence for that. If not, you're done.

[Immanuel Can]

"your goods put not to usury" is a biblical commandment, particularly referenced in Psalm 15:5 and Deuteronomy 23:19, advocating against charging interest on loans, especially to fellow Israelites.

So far, so good.

But Immanuel Can says capitalism was invented by socialists:
The whole idea of "capitalism" was "developed" by Marxists during the last century, during the Industrial Revolution. It had no existence before. Before that, you had things like feudalism and aristocracy.

You are mixing up two different concepts: "capitalism" and "usury." They're not at all the same, even in Marxist thought.

Capitalism is basically charging interest...

No, those things are distinct. Capital is (in Marxist terms) "surplus value" derived from labour. "Interest" is a premium charged on the borrowing of money. I can't imagine how you got those two mixed up.

Immanuel, you can't see that because we all do it.

No, I see what a market is, and what a free market is, and what a restricted market and a closed market are. What we are doing is far from invisible, but it's not an "ism," an ideology: it's just a pragmatic arrangement, unlike Marxism, which is an ideology.

The modern world economy is built on capitalism.

Free market economics are so overwhelmingly successful that they dominate the world economies, it's true. Meanwhile, Socialist economics are such a disaster that they've collapsed every economy that's tried to practice them, and they can't even be practiced in China: they've had to opt for "Red Capitalism," as they call what they're doing. But then, they're Marxists, so they imagine that anything contrary to or different from Communism must be another kind of "ism." That's an indoctrinated way to think. It's also pure projection: they think everybody else is immersed in indoctrination, because that's all they know themselves.

There is no "capital-ism." There is such a thing as "capital," but it's just a feature of the creation of value, and not necessarily sinister at all. When Bill Gates takes a bunch of electronic parts and turns them into a computer, he creates something that is much more valuable than just computer parts. More value, "surplus" value, then comes into existence as a result of his inventiveness and entrepreneurial vision. And you and I buy his product, and type to each other on it, so we recognize the added value Gates has created.

Value is not zero-sum. Only Marxists are stupid enough to insist it is. Capital can be created and expanded, because value can be added. You're mixing up usury, exploitation and capital, as if they were the same thing, or somehow coordinated. They don't have to be, even if some people are guilty of abuses. There's nothing inherently wicked about capital.

[Immanuel Can]

But did anyone check to see if these detailed accounts included any convictions by US courts?

Convictions of what? If you're an illegal migrant, you've already violated federal law. You're convicted; case closed. There isn't even a possible defense for that. Why didn't you come in at a legal port of entry, if you had a case?

Good question. Should be answered in court.

No, should be answered at a legal port of entry -- to the immigration authorities, by the applicant. And he has the choice to do that, or to sneak in. If he doesn't come in the legal way, he automatically becomes a violator of federal law and an illegal alien.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean, being done? Are you saying it’s NOT HAPPENING?

You say that people are being deported on no more than the appearance of a tattoo. You'll need to show that's so, because it defies common sense, so it will be hard for anybody to believe.

Yes, it defies common sense, but it has happened.

Proof?

[Immanuel Can]

It's perhaps obnoxious to say she has "already violated federal law".

She hasn't. She didn't exist, at the time. It's her parents that have violated federal law.

[Alexiev]

It's perhaps obnoxious to say she has "already violated federal law".

She hasn't. She didn't exist, at the time. It's her parents that have violated federal law.

She did exist, and I assume she's violating federal law now. What is she supposed to do? Abandon the only life she's known by being deported (with or without her children who are U.S. citizens).?

P.s. Her kids are 3 and 5 years old.

[henry quirk]

That I doubt. But it’s all political soap opera …

Yes sir: it is...all of it.

[henry quirk]

What is she supposed to do? Abandon the only life she's known by being deported (with or without her children who are U.S. citizens).?

As an infant she's helpless. As an adult, she bears some responsibility for her status. At the least, she *should have quietly looked to secure herself against a shifting political climate and The Powers That Be, current and future.

*and perhaps still could

[Immanuel Can]

It's perhaps obnoxious to say she has "already violated federal law".

She hasn't. She didn't exist, at the time. It's her parents that have violated federal law.

She did exist...

Oh, I see...yes, you wrote: "His live-in girlfiend is a "dreamer"; her parents immigrated illegally when she was one year old."

That makes her not culpable. A one-year-old cannot be charged, and can't legally be responsible for a decision made by the adults. But her parents broke federal law, and theoretically, they could be indicted.

It seems unlikely, anyway. They aren't part of the recent migration wave, and I doubt their case will come up.

[Alexiev]

She hasn't. She didn't exist, at the time. It's her parents that have violated federal law.

She did exist...

Oh, I see...yes, you wrote: "His live-in girlfiend is a "dreamer"; her parents immigrated illegally when she was one year old."

That makes her not culpable. A one-year-old cannot be charged, and can't legally be responsible for a decision made by the adults. But her parents broke federal law, and theoretically, they could be indicted.

It seems unlikely, anyway. They aren't part of the recent migration wave, and I doubt their case will come up.

She can't be "charged". But she's in danger of being deported, despite the fact that her two young children are U.S. citizens. Doesn't this contradict family values, "love your neighbor" and "do unto others"? How could a Christian support this policy?

[FlashDangerpants]

"Due process" applies to citizens only. Those that are illegal immigrants already are not owed any particular "process" by the country they invaded. They aren't its citizens.

Due process was denied,

To A-G? He's gone. Give it up. You can't fix it.

Now, if you want to allege that due process is being denied universally, I'll see your evidence for that. If not, you're done.

What about your claim that

"Due process" applies to citizens only.

Just confess you erred.

[Walker]

Infinity Process

"It isn't due process - this is called infinity process, to keep you here forever! That's what this is. No American citizen charged, with a crime, with a serious crime inside the United States, a US-born American citizen, receives this kind of process! Millions of dollars in free legal services, representation at every single level!"

"You think that there is any, for example, any American citizen who was persecuted, who was innocent related to January 6th, do you think they could just get this kind of relief, this kind of process? It was never available to them. The whole system was rigged against them, just like it's rigged in favor of illegal alien invaders."- Stephen Miller, political advisor

[Belinda]

So far, so good.

You are mixing up two different concepts: "capitalism" and "usury." They're not at all the same, even in Marxist thought.

Capitalism is basically charging interest...

No, those things are distinct. Capital is (in Marxist terms) "surplus value" derived from labour. "Interest" is a premium charged on the borrowing of money. I can't imagine how you got those two mixed up.

Immanuel, you can't see that because we all do it.

No, I see what a market is, and what a free market is, and what a restricted market and a closed market are. What we are doing is far from invisible, but it's not an "ism," an ideology: it's just a pragmatic arrangement, unlike Marxism, which is an ideology.

The modern world economy is built on capitalism.

Free market economics are so overwhelmingly successful that they dominate the world economies, it's true. Meanwhile, Socialist economics are such a disaster that they've collapsed every economy that's tried to practice them, and they can't even be practiced in China: they've had to opt for "Red Capitalism," as they call what they're doing. But then, they're Marxists, so they imagine that anything contrary to or different from Communism must be another kind of "ism." That's an indoctrinated way to think. It's also pure projection: they think everybody else is immersed in indoctrination, because that's all they know themselves.

There is no "capital-ism." There is such a thing as "capital," but it's just a feature of the creation of value, and not necessarily sinister at all. When Bill Gates takes a bunch of electronic parts and turns them into a computer, he creates something that is much more valuable than just computer parts. More value, "surplus" value, then comes into existence as a result of his inventiveness and entrepreneurial vision. And you and I buy his product, and type to each other on it, so we recognize the added value Gates has created.

Value is not zero-sum. Only Marxists are stupid enough to insist it is. Capital can be created and expanded, because value can be added. You're mixing up usury, exploitation and capital, as if they were the same thing, or somehow coordinated. They don't have to be, even if some people are guilty of abuses. There's nothing inherently wicked about capital.

I agree in principle. But capitalist economy should be ameliorated by social welfare. Social welfare actually aids profits with a healthier, more law-abiding work force.

The Mosaic law against usury is intellectually reasonable. Rule of law is more efficient than might makes right. Some other Mosaic laws pertain to health and hygiene. Social welfare in 2025 also devotes laws to public and personal health and hygiene