"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
01/29/2018 at 14:41 • Filed to: None
1
9|
"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin)
01/29/2018 at 14:41 • Filed to: None | 1
| 9 |
It’s going to be an interesting week.
1) 2nd in command at the FBI is taking a three month vacation prior to his retirement. Announced in December that he would be retiring in March, the retirement is nothing new. The timing is what’s shining a spotlight on the situation. McCabe’s boss stopped by capital Hill yesterday to review the Nunes memo, and today McCabe’s pushed out the door. Could be coincidence, not likely.
2) Speaking of the Nunes memo... #releasethe memo has been a trending hashtag over the last week or two. The jist is that the house intelligence committee has had access to highly classified material for a while now and has been conducting their own investigation. Using source material from the FBI, Nunes completed a 4 page chronology of events that supposedly proves something went seriously wrong with actions taken by key parties at the FBI. Now, Nunes is a known partisan, and Democrats are already attempting to spin the memo as baseless talking points. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. As with anything, there will be some underlying truth beneath the partisan veneer, so take it with a grain of salt. The house may vote this week to release the memo. Sit back and watch for the fireworks. It’ll be almost as good as the upcoming DOJ IG report.
3) Yeah, there’s also an upcoming DOJ Inspector General report about the same topic. The IG report should be a lot harder to spin in either direction. Stay tuned.
4) State of the union is coming up. Some Dems are planning to skip it altogether. Others plan to pack the gallery with illegal immigrants. I saw one proposal for Republicans to pack the gallery with ICE agents in response... possibly a little extreme, but the thought of the resulting political theatre made me laugh nonetheless. Likewise I had seen a theory the day of the shutdown that the Democrats just needed to hold out long enough to force a SOTU speech under a closed government. Clearly that didn’t pan out, but an interesting thought. The speech itself will be nothing special, the special interest theatre surrounding it may be fun to watch.
5) Clinton pumped out one video talking about “activist bitches, supporting bitches” and another reading fantasy fiction for the Grammys tthe Bitches vid had delivery akin to Michael Scott in the office. Some things just don’t work, so don’t force it. The Grammy vid was equally forced. Also, given that a powerful message throughout the Grammys was tied to #metoo, perhaps Clinton was not the ideal poster child for a feature spot, given her closeness to Weinstein, Clinton’s history of rape/assault and/or known Lolita Express flights, and of course the news that Clinton actively provided protection to an abuser during her campaign. Stay classy Clinton.
Lots to watch this week!
My bird IS the word
> mkbruin, Atlas VP
01/29/2018 at 15:52 |
|
Ok, politics aside, this is getting pretty stupid right? I mean dems packing the gallery with
illegal
immigrants? Instead of legal ones? Do they want to make immigration easier or just pointless? We have the FBI investigating Trump, Trump investigating the FBI, (Trump getting through the primaries is old news, but I will include it) weed is being legalized, smoking is being banned. This is like some fucked up upside-down land.
Textured Soy Protein
> My bird IS the word
01/29/2018 at 17:20 |
|
They’re not sending regular illegal immigrants, they’re sending DREAMers. So there’s that.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
|
My bird IS the word
> Textured Soy Protein
01/29/2018 at 17:26 |
|
That makes more sense. I legitimately feel bad for those people.
Audistein
> mkbruin, Atlas VP
01/29/2018 at 20:16 |
|
DREAMers aren’t illegal immigrants. They haven’t committed any crimes so aren’t illegal.
They’re only undocumented.
nermal
> Audistein
01/29/2018 at 22:27 |
|
No, they are illegal.
If they aren’t here by legal means (ranging from a temporary visa to a permanent resident), that means that they are illegal. Just because they haven’t committed a crime that will get them deported, that doesn’t mean that they are legal. Just because their parents brought them here also doesn’t mean that they are legal.
The term “undocumented” is merely a marketing term used to minimize the perception that they are breaking the law.
|
nermal
> mkbruin, Atlas VP
01/29/2018 at 22:32 |
|
The McCabe deal doesn’t really sound like that much of a deal. From my understanding, he is taking “terminal leave”. This basically means that he has a bunch of unused vacation or other paid time off, which he is using prior to retirement.
I have difficulty believing that somebody capable or making it to #2 in the FBI wouldn’t plan that out. The timing of everything else is coincidence.
|
Audistein
> nermal
01/30/2018 at 01:10 |
|
What law are they breaking? There isn’t a single law dreamers are violating.
Overstaying a visa, even though it is grounds for deportation, is not illegal. People who overstayed visas are not criminals or illegals. It’s simply the truth by definition.
Crossing the border without a visa is illegal and is definitely grounds for deportation. This is much more severe than overstaying a visa because the government doesn’t know who these people are or that they are actually in the US.
Being brought here as a baby or toddler legally and then overstaying a visa is especially not illegal and most rational people on both sides of the aisle think it that case shouldn’t be grounds for deportation either.
Calling dreamers “illegal” is anti-immigrant scapegoating and totally masquerades the problem of actual illegal immigrants who are sneaking across the border. Regardless of how anyone feels about the situation, it’s simply not accurate to call them that.
|
nermal
> Audistein
01/30/2018 at 09:32 |
|
Overstaying a visa results in “unlawful presence”, which is against the law, and therefore by definition illegal. The actual law is here: Linky
I agree with you that border jumpers are in a different category than those that over stay visas. That doesn’t mean that both aren’t a problem, merely that they are different problems. My position also isn’t anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal-immigrant.
|
Audistein
> nermal
01/30/2018 at 17:42 |
|
Unlawful is
not
by definition illegal. The law was intentionally worded that way.
That law you linked, in terms of what is actually illegal, pertains to people who were previously deported illegally re-entering the country, not just people who overstay a visa the first time. The clarification of unlawful status lower down in that act specifically doesn’t make it illegal but rather unlawful. The use of this language in the legislation is intentional.
Illegal means to be in direct violate of a statute, such as a federal law.
Unlawful is a status for something not directly authorized by the government but not violating any statues. Unlawful is not the same as doing something specifically against the law.
Overstaying a visa is at most a civil violation, not a criminal offense, so illegal is still the incorrect term for people who didn’t sneak in.
If someone is or has not committing a criminal offense, then they are not illegal.
I would agree that both undocumented (unlawful) and illegal immigrants are a problem, calling DREAMers illegal isn’t going to solve it.