I'm not american but I remember marines being mobilized for hurricane Katrina in New Orleans too. Funny that if it's so bad to deploy them, why is it OK to deploy them in other countries?
Yes. The American President is supposed to look out for Americans. First. That's what Trump was elected to do. Not trash out economy at the global and local levels.
Trump is doing exactly what his voters wanted. They wanted exactly these economic policies, exactly these anti-democratic policies, exactly these anti-science policies, exactly this harm to everyone who is being harmed except themselves.
It is not just Trump. he represents what conservatives, republicans and their voters are. And this is enabled by consistent pretension that Trump is an secretly opposed aberration. No, he is admired both publicly and secretly.
Looking out for Americans is precisely what he's doing by deporting illegals. Of course people who are in a position of wealth are not affected by their existence so they think there’s no issue.
> They're deployed because of the riots, not illegal immigration
The riots got worse after they were deployed. Obviously. They're being deployed because we have a drunk for SecDef, a basket case in Stephen Miller and flagging illegal-immigrant arrest numbers that are making Homan look incompetent. So we get theatrics. Sort of like the tariffs.
The elites have been stealing the surplus wealth from offshoring for decades under the Republican party's fake refrain of "fiscal responsibility", and now that the jig is up after our country's industrial base has been hollowed out you fall right for their ploy to blame a scapegoat instead. smh
> The Insurrection Act of 1807 [...] empowers the president [...] to nationally deploy the U.S. military [...] in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder [...]
How will any outside observe be able to tell the difference between them 'guarding federal buildings' and them being deployed to attack political enemies of the regime?
Will a useful idiot throwing a rock at a federal building be sufficient casus belli for the latter?
You're being disingenuous. The Marines are guarding federal buildings from protesters? The protestors wouldn't be there if federal agents weren't surrounding, blocking, and frankly terrorizing communities. Of course that will fire up a community to protest! But that's all part of the plan isn't it?
The deportation isn't the problem. It's how they're being done. Due process is core to our democracy and must be respected and followed, regardless of who. Court orders are being ignored.
I have zero problem with deporting people that are here illegally. I have plenty of problems with how it's currently being done.
Kinda seems like they're randomly grabbing people and shipping them to Mexico right now. Their MO so far has been to round up people, including people who are here legally, and deport them without due process.
ICE is deporting folks before due process - a right guaranteed to all persons on US soil by amendment to the US Constitution. That is against the laws of the USA.
I would note they aren’t guilty of a crime - it’s a civil infraction. “Illegal” is a pejorative used to imply criminality, being an undocumented immigrant is not in fact criminal or a crime.
The issue however that prompted the protests was the way they are pursuing deportations with militarized tactics, brutality, and snatching people off the streets as abductions. They do not declare themselves, do not present their civil warrant, do not produce identification, and subsequently frequently do not follow laws, regulation, or the constitutional requirements of due process.
There is no reason that their neighbors, family, and friends need to be happy with what’s happening. They are afforded protection in our society to be angry and disclaim the government without fear of persecution or prosecution. When they’re then persecuted and prosecuted for doing that, people are pissed by the injustice. Then when their governments responsible is to fly in the military, you should expect an explosive situation.
Indeed it seems pretty clear the explosive situation was premeditated and planned - using armored vehicles and riot armored police to invade immigrant neighborhoods and abduct service workers and day laborers in broad daylight when a simple standard ICE operation was clearly designed to provoke strong response in those neighborhoods. Everything after that has been pretty deductively arrived at to create this precise situation. Even the language of insurrection and rebellion - laughably absurd claims for even a riot - which hadn’t happened until the national guard were deployed - are carefully chosen words to provide pretext for what comes next.
I desperate miss the states rights individual freedoms libertarian leaning republicans. They would never have done these things.
> The issue however that prompted the protests was the way they are pursuing deportations with militarized tactics, brutality, and snatching people off the streets as abductions.
Also that they’re going after many people who are actually attempting to comply with the law, because those are the easiest to find. Meanwhile tens of millions of undocumented immigrants are still here, and the lesson they’re being taught is don’t trust the legal process, stay under the radar. In the end the Trump administration is unlikely to make a large dent in the undocumented population - they certainly haven’t so far. It’s mostly theater. They’ll just end up discovering how unintended consequences work.
ICE agents are also deporting a lot of people here legally. Just last week: they attempted to deport and ban the wife of a U.S. soldier visiting her husband on leave with a valid tourist visa ; several U.S. citizens working for at the Westlake Home Depot despite being shown proof of citizenship; a U.S. Marshall of Mexican descent who was born in the country to legal residents.
That doesn't include the hundreds of students legally here on student visas.
And of course, if ICE is going to deport people in the country illegally: it's well establish by now that Musk and Melania violated the terms of their nonresident visas when they first came to the U.S., rendering their U.S. citizenship null and void (Musk worked in violation of his student visa; Melania both worked in violation of her tourist visa and overstayed her visa by several years; if she hadn't married Trump she would have been deported and banned from the U.S. for 10 years).
Are they? What about the ones that aren't here illegally? Trump told the Supreme Court that Kilmar Garcia was wrongfully deported, but they had no obligation to bring him back anyway. Is that what you are talking about?
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Note that this affords the freedom to relocate within, leave, and return to one’s country, not the freedom to enter into other countries in violation of their immigration laws.
Lol at Katrina the police and guard were going door to door confiscating arms of occupied homes in blatant violation of the second amendment. There is a video if a guardsman bragging about something to the effect 'hoping he doesn't have to smoke someone coming around a corner."
As it turns out when you send a force trained only to kill and subjugate, that's what they do. A few guardsman stood down but most did not.
Most people here in CA who aren’t Democrats believe that Newsom is a partisan hack and that he and his policies are completely ineffective at keeping Californians safe from dangerous criminals, so his lack of requesting help is mostly being viewed as his typical “agenda over reality” orientation.
> his lack of requesting help is mostly being viewed as his typical “agenda over reality” orientation
Most people don't understand why we have the system of laws that we do. Most Americans couldn't design a stable republic the way our founders did. (Most of their contemporaries couldn't either.)
Nothing about deporting illegal immigrants requires calling in the Marines. Nothing about this situation makes their deployment in Los Angeles legal. Performative hackery is practiced by both sides. Desecrating the honour of our armed forces used to be bipartisan, but I guess that's no longer the case.
The marines were deployed in New Orleans to help in hospitals, distribute food and water, and specialists in search and rescue. That is a very different context.
National Guard and Army Corps of Engineers are often deployed in disasters to help. This is the opposite and the governor of California specifically did not request this so Trump usurped his authority.
I’m willing to defer to mods on this one, but Aussie slang is full of warm put downs for ‘mericans, but I would hesitate to call the comment in question derogatory in nature.
tl;dr: it’s rhyming slang, Yank (USA person who may/may not also be one of the two Australian stereotypes of Americans, the other one being Texans) rhymes with (septic) tank, shortened to the euphemism used by OP
Thanks, I’m an American who is related to Australians and has lived in Australia. Since we both have standing to speak and both know how it’s used, I think it’s fair to say that I said this for the rest of the class, as I am a regular here and had an inkling you’re Australian.
Words like that have a complicated past. They may be have been used with a veneer of friendliness but in truth they’re diminutive or derisive. The person I replied to here has used it repeatedly in a derisive way on HN. We wouldn’t tolerate equivalent words being used for Asian people or others of different origins. I haven’t heard the word used in ordinary conversation for decades, hence it’s jarring to see it here.
> The person I replied to here has used it repeatedly in a derisive way on HN.
I think this is kind of an interesting point, because you mention Asian people, but "American" isn't a race. To certain readings, racism is prejudice plus power. In this setup, America is a hegemon establishment power. To dismiss someone or their views just because they're from the US doesn't sound nice, and I don't see how using the term would improve the tenor or tempo of the discussion, but as you surely know, cheekiness is a common trait of Australians. That's why I brought it up, as it's well and good and arguably just to be direct and to the point about not using that kind of talk on HN, because that's what your mod hat is for. I acknowledge and respect that you're doing what you're supposed to do. I simply wanted to gently acknowledge that whatever point that they were making, however poorly it might be phrased, was part and parcel to the derision that you're speaking of. I don't know if it's a very interesting or compelling point when stripped of its emotional language, but our words perhaps say more about ourselves than that which we speak of. I think it's good to be clear about what it is that is bad, not simply that it is bad.
You know better than I what is bad posting for HN, as what might be within the norms of acceptable speech down under would make many English-speaking people blush. I think the post was more heat than light myself, but if they'd said it any other way, we wouldn't be having this interaction, which is arguably what HN is for, interacting with each other in a way that encourages curiosity about the topic and about each other.
Then again, most people aren't super curious about HN metacommentary, so I better wrap this up. Appreciate the context.
HN isn’t a platform for expressing hatred, and that’s an unqualified good thing. I’m reminded of some writer, who wrote about how happy families are all alike, and how unhappy families are unhappy in their own unique way. There are so few things it takes to make it go right, and there are so many ways that good things can go wrong.
If tone policing limits the Overton Window of acceptable speech because it is not sufficiently positive, that becomes a kind of expectation for self-censorship, which is contrary to the HN guidelines which promote curious, free expression. Negative expressions can inflame the passions and can be antithetical to building a healthy community, but if the only acceptable negative expressions must be clinical in tone at worst, many legitimate expressions of content will be disqualified due to unauthorized discontent.
Thanks for the reference, by the way. I should collect a list of them. My current favorite is in my bio on here.
