235
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fubo@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago

Given that people have been killed by this, wouldn't a federal murder charge be more appropriate?

By way of comparison, if a private homeowner sets a booby trap for burglars and a burglar is killed by it, the homeowner is guilty of murder.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Generally not murder, but some lesser yet still serious crime. But the sentiment is there.

[-] CileTheSane@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago

If I design a trap that will kill someone climbing thorough my window there's an argument for that to be 1st degree murder: it was pre-planned even if I didn't have a specific target.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] TwoGems@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] kokiriflute@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's a class issue. Rich people are allowed to break almost any law they want with few (if any) repercussions.

The Republicans do break more laws than Dems, but Dems break laws and get away with it as well. There are many well-documented cases of both sides using Insider Trading for their personal gain despite it being against the law.

[-] gerbler@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The only time rich people get burned by breaking the law is when it fucks over other rich people.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

No, they made insider trading legal for themselves.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] PoopSpiderman@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

Greg Abbot is a fucking scumbag.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

No, say it how it is. Greg Abbott is a white supremacist murderer

[-] BlackPenguins@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

He's also a little piss baby

[-] Speculater@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And most Texans love this fact.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Maybe we should try calling him a liberal commie socialist anarchist? Just some good ole word vomit that might hurt him? Cause yeah I feel like calling him a white supremacist boosts his appeal to most of those cretins.

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I, for one, am on Team Tree.

[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not sure why the commander in chief can't just order them removed and let Texas deal with the US military if they don't like it.

[-] BaroqueInMind@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Those buoys are deployed by the Texas National Guard who answer to the governor of the state of Texas and is property of the state.

The commander in chief could hypothetically commandeer their property and dispose it but requires a lot of legal hurdles and time to write warning orders, operational orders and fragmentary orders to deploy the US military to get it done.

It's cheaper and easier to get the SCOTUS to order it illegal and force them to do it themselves with their own state money instead of federal money. Rather than burdening US taxpayers, lets burden Texan taxpayers to fix the problem they themselves created.

Your neighbor parked his pickup truck in your driveway to deliberately block you in and said he can't move it because it's broken down. Are you going to pay for a tow truck to haul it away or make him pay for it?

[-] invno1@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Texas "National" Guard. lol

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Couldn't the feds do all that then sue to recoup the cost after? Hell take parallel paths and just let the quickest win.

[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

National Guards are commanded by Federal gov, otherwise they could be seen as a militia with insurrection abilities.

[-] bibliotectress@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They do actually have their own state military. IIRC, they're called state defense forces, and multiple states currently have them.

(Edited to fix my weird link)

[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I don't think removing unauthorized barriers from a US border would qualify as domestic policing.

Sending in the military to enforce legal guidelines is literally that but okay?

[-] stanleytweedle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Sending the military to remove an obstruction at the border is not policing.

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your right, but OP was incorrect in using the word policing when the Act passed by congress actually uses the words "domestic" law enforcement; (imo) arguably this includes any action that stems from edit: ACTING ~~enforcing laws~~ on domestic, as opposed to foreign, soil. Further the exceptions allow for military to "provide" resources that support domestic enforcement officer which (again imo) would not extend to 'not providing/actually removing' resources that domestic enforcement officers do already have..

All that to say what the act does do is create a grey area that can be argued either way and which does force the federal government to have to think twice about using the military for such matters.. for better or for worse

Edit for clarity

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] dreadgoat@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Oh no, one of our states is unilaterally performing acts of war, but pOSsE cOmITatUS, guess our hands are tied, aw shucks

[-] Methylman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yes - same way Trump couldn't send in the military and had to rely on states' national guards to clear protesters before that infamous photo-op in front of the church

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

how are buoy's supposed to stop anyone?

[-] Vlhacs@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

I don't understand how they think this will stop immigrants crossing the border. They were already willing to deal with predatory coyotes, miles of scorching deserts, border control officers, and whatever variety of wildlife they encounter along the way, to reach the US. All in order to escape the hellhole situation they were in. These barbed wires and asshole "tactics" like dumping water onto the ground won't stop them from attempting, and all it does is add additional cruelty and death to the situation.

I am for border control, but we need to do it in a smarter way and also fix the asylum process for these kinds of situations.

[-] Jah348@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

additional cruelty and death to the situation.

That's the point.

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Good. Make the bastard go broke paying legal fees. The less Governor Hot Wheels and his Cavalcade of Corruption have, the less they can pull this kind of shit.

[-] Jah348@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Thats not how any of this works. It's not like he is personally in civil court. He will incur exactly zero personal cost in this matter, and if anything with gain traction with his supporters.

The outcome will either be nothing happening or the barrier is taken down at the cost of taxpayers

[-] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I hate that you’re right.

[-] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Are they dying on the Mexico side or the west side? Perhaps it’s actually an act of war

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
235 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2554 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS