"In a sane world, such "enforcement" actions are a combined effort, between federal, state and local officials. They would all be present to assist one another."

Not under Federalism.

During COVID, there were state and federal mandates regarding COVID. If the Federal or state government issued the mandate, it would be up to federal or state LEOs to enforce is. City and county LEOs were not obligated to do so. During COVID, Arizona had stae-wide COVID mandates, but in Mojave county, the Sherriff refused to enforce them. That Sherriff was under no obligation to do so.

Just like the Police in Minneapolis are under no obligation to support federal law enforcement operations. FEDGOV cannot make them do that.

As does the term "illegal alien."

Nope. That just means the individuals lack the valid credentials to be in the country. It could be they snuck into the country, overstayed a visa, whatever. But it's not a crime in the US, or Germany. It may be in some other countries, I don't know.

"ICE is detaining citizens. Where do you find their authority to detain, not arrest, citizens?"

I'm not totally familiar with ICE, but US Military Police cannot arrest anyone. But they can detain them. The military has a very small group of individuals who can arrest people though, and they can arrest anyone. OSI for the USAF, CDI for the Army, and NCIS for the Navy. As far as I know, every US government agency has groups like this. BLM, the Forest Service, Department of Energy...all of them.

"Hold up, are you trying to die on the hill that separates "Detain" and "Arrest?"

Being in the US illegally is not a crime, unless you've previously been deported and re-enter illegally. You can't be charged with being in the US illegally...you just get deported. No different than any other country.

"Hold up, are you trying to die on the hill that separates "Detain" and "Arrest?"

Yes. Those who are in the country illegally will not be placed in front of a criminal court. They have committed no crime. The term "arrest" implies that a crime has been committed.

"Hold up, are you trying to die on the hill that separates "Detain" and "Arrest?"

Being in the US illegally is not a crime, unless you've previously been deported and re-enter illegally. You can't be charged with being in the US illegally...you just get deported. No different than any other country.

"Hold up, are you trying to die on the hill that separates "Detain" and "Arrest?"

Yes. Those who are in the country illegally will not be placed in front of a criminal court. They have committed no crime. The term "arrest" implies that a crime has been committed.

"Behold, slobbering MAGAts have their new Kyle Rittenhouse."

And progressives now have their own Ashli Babbitt.

"What job were they doing when they made contact with Good?"

Removing people from the US who didn't have the credentials to be there. She was interfering with immigration enforcement operations.

I initially thought maybe she had taken a wrong turn and was just having a bad day. It seems that wasn't the case. She was there with intention. Just like Ashli had been at the Capitol building when she got shot.

"ICE arrests non-citizens."

I don't think they do. They detain and deport people who are in the US illegally.

To show up in the US without valid entry credentials is not a crime, which is why those who are here illegally don't go to jail.

It is a crime to re-enter the US after being deported. You can go to jail for that.

This was Ashli Babbitt 2.0. FAFO.

ICE is doing their job. I'm not sure why people feel the need to interfere with it.

Are they going to protest CBP agents for turning away arrivals into the US who do not have valid entry credentials? Or should CBP be told to make a decision whether those people are cool or not, and let the cool ones in?

"But did little to reduce taxes on workers."

First, what is a "worker?" In my mind, it's anyone earning labor income. So...that's most of us.

So I assume you mean low-income workers. Yet there is not much left the government could do to reduce taxes for them, and would it really matter all that much. You could exclude them from having to pay FICA taxes, but then would they lose the benefits if someone else didn't? Should FEDGOV reimburse them for state taxes they've paid?

Also, virtually all of us started out as low-income workers. Most of us move beyond that. I'm not sure my 20-year daughter in college needs SNAP or Medicaid, which makes me wonder why so many people claim to need them.

Trump looks a lot like Jeff Dunham's "Walter."

Yes or no.

"And now you get it! Trump is Putin's Beach, and destruction of NATO / weakening the US is exactly what our Putin/Trump presidency is all about."

I don't think so. If that were the case, JSOC would not have stormed the Russian flagged shadow ship off of Norway a few days ago.

Trump seems to be after clicks. Which as a media personality, it's understandable. Mo clicks, mo betta.

Weapons-grade stupid doesn't even come close. The US already has (or did have) bi-lateral agreements with Denmark regarding the stationing of troops in Greenland for the defense of the north. That's in addition to NATO arrangements for the same purpose.

And there's also this. If the US were to attack Greenland, would NATO declare article 5? Potentially, you would have US service members on NATO staff defending against US service members invading Greenland.

I don't think it would come to that. I think NATO would kick out all US service members first. Which would likely result in shuttering all US military installations in Europe.

Trump is shoving his dick down the Republican Congress's mouth, and they're thanking him for it.

"The first question should be if they'd prosecute him for telling soldiers to Go Ahead and Follow Illegal Orders."

Kelly was just reiterating what was in the LOAC courses I was required to complete each year while on active duty.

Apparently, those courses were discontinued in the 1st trump admin.

#72

You forgot to add in something about trans rights, abortion, racism, and income inequality.

Please do better next time.

"And yes, I have no doubt Russia and China looked on gleefully while that heavy lidded eyed creeper impotently raged at the camera."

I think it goes beyond that. It sent a message to everyone, include allies, close allies like Poland and South Korea. Not to mention peripheral allies like Saudi Arabia.

Nuclear proliferation in the west has been kept in check under the notion that it was not necessary. That the US would provide that capability.

I wonder what the Germans are thinking right now about Miller's speech?

"I keep asking the people I know who support this if they'll still want to take credit for it when civil war/strife breaks out as the power vacuum is filled."

That's a pretty obvious question.

My question would be, what happens when Delcy Rodriguez or Vladimir Padrino requests the Russians or Chinese move a couple of divisions into Venezuela to defend their sovereignty. I wonder if Trump would still claim to be in charge under those circumstances.

And honestly, unless the US has flipped some high-level Venezuelan government officials, I would expect this. Not sure if anyone saw Stephen Miller's speech with Jake Tapper, about how we live in a world that is governed by strength, force, and power.

You don't think the rest of the world heard the same speech I did?

This idiot, BTW, makes Dimitry Peskov sound articulate.

"You clearly answered your own question, so what was the point of asking that?"

Technically, I didn't answer my own question. I went and looked up AUMF after the fact, and it is the justification the Trump admin is using as to why they did not notify congress.

"Your "both sides" posts are crap. Shame on you, you should know better."

Objectivity is crap and I should be ashamed of it?

Should I just let you tell me how to think?

And I looked it up. Trump is using AUMF as the justification for why he did not notify congress.

"Congress had approval for Obama's Bin laden Kill."

You didn't read #37, did you.

"More accurately, the problem is with almost half the American people."

I think the polling suggests about 30% of the US population supports the operation to capture Maduro.

And this is the period where the nation is usually experiencing euphoria. The blowback from this has yet to be seen, but from my vantage point this thing has the potential to be the dumpster fire of all dumpster fires.

"Brave stand you've taken, as usual."

You have no idea what stand I've taken. And it wouldn't matter one way or another.

"We had a coalition and congressional and/or NATO approval for those attacks."

I don't think there was a coalition for Panama. And congress was not notified of the attacks on bin Laden and or/other individuals who had been designated as terrorists.

The big difference is that attacks on Islamic terrorists took place under the auspices of the 2001 AUMF, which was authorized by congress and granted the president the authority to conduct operations without notifying congress. I don't think the AUMF applies here since this was, on paper, an LE operation.