JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
JarJarJedi
11d ago
I didn't claim the whole continent, my forefathers did, and then asserted that claim. They, and I, are native sons of this land.
You, of course, realize that these two sentences are contradictory. You can not "claim" territory that you are the native of. "Claiming" only applies to territories you previously did not inhabit. Irish never "claimed" Ireland - they just lived there. Chinese never "claimed" China - they are Chinese because they are in China, and had been there since forever. There's no need for "claiming".
And, you seem to have a mighty broad ancestry if your ancestors claimed all the territories of the continent, including Mexico and Canada. The only problem that "claiming" them does not do anything - Mexico and Canada are still there. Are you going to war with them to liberate your ancestral territories anytime soon?
but if you have 0 ancestors in the british colonies in 1776, or no ancestors in the United States in 1789, when that document was written, then I don't consider you American in any way.
Too bad for you almost every American - or at least vast majority of them, by now - is not American for you. Good thing is nobody cares. America just had elected a non-American president and he's doing a decent job so far, and it will continue going in the same vein, without regard to weird pureblood claims. As I said, your worst case scenario had long past happened, so you need a new one now.
ADOS and the Indian tribes are also native, but they are not American.
ADOS are definitely not native - they were brought in against their will and this process is well documented. People that were by hilarious mistake named Indians are natives, and if they are not American natives, then what they are natives of I wonder? Narnia?
JarJarJedi
11d ago
So, the current theory is the DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin was lying and he wasn't actually arrested for suspicion of assault? Or you are ready to admin that your example has nothing to do with ICE errors and you are 0:2 as far as supporting your claims with evidence goes?
JarJarJedi
11d ago
A lot of people, when asked for example of when something happened, do not immediately reach for an example where there's no information available whether something happened or not, and present it as their example of something happening. Because if they do it, other people might conclude they really do not have any better examples.
since ICE hasn't commented at all on it
I guess this report from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/cannabis-farm-worker-in-california-dies-day-after-chaotic-federal-immigration-raid.html saying:
George Retes complied with federal officers when he arrived to check on friends and colleagues who might have been affected by the raids, but instead he was arrested on suspicion of assault, according to immigration officials.
is just my hallucination? Or they lied claiming immigration officials told him that? Why, in your opinion, CNBC would lie about something like that, and what is your source for accusing them of lying in this case? How do you know ICE hasn't actually commented even though CNBC claims they did?
JarJarJedi
11d ago
we descendants are native to this continent
You aren't, that's not what the word "native" means (and awfully bold of you to claim the whole continent, I think Mexicans and Canadians would disagree but screw them, right?). But at least I can see what you mean now. OK, so Trump is not a "white native". Too bad for him I guess, but that's at least some solid foundation to start with. A bit of a problem you'd have is not only Trump ends up out of the game - you'd end up with about 10% of population of purebloods, and the rest of the populations would be mudbloods - descendants of people who immigrated after 1776. Since you are further qualifying it as "white" the percentage is probably even less - you will need to eliminate anyone who had non-white blood - and mixed marriages, while not common, weren't exactly out of the question. Since anybody who came in after 1776 must be deemed irreversibly insidious and affected with inborn desire to plot to overthrow the "white natives", which can not be overcome - I don't think your case is looking good. The "demographic replacement" that you are so afraid of happened long, long ago, and you are not the American people anymore. I don't know how to call this group other than "purebloods" but being such a tiny minority it certainly can not pretend to represent "we the people" as a whole. The best you could hope for is a protected minority status.
And, of course, I am not aware of any intent for the Founders to adopt this stance - that only purebloods are considered true Americans (or "natives"). Otherwise there wouldn't be such thing as "naturalization" which confers the same legal status on an insidious mudblood as previously was available only for purebloods. Why put such things in the Constitution if they thought like you are? There's no reason. Because they did not. They saw it as a political and social project, which anybody who identifies with the goals of the new nation, its laws and its customs, is welcome to join, not some breeding exercise. And they certainly did not think anybody who didn't jump in by the time the United States was formed is forever an insidious enemy of every American.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
Even when mostly assimilated, foreigners remain very, very foreign in ways you can't always see.
Yes, I must admit, I never understood Trump's love for greasy fast food. Those Germans and their Teutonic ways...
JarJarJedi
11d ago
The concern about CPC influence is not racist and is reasonable, but that wasn't @NYTReader's claim. His claim was about "Asians" - which covers the whole continent (in UK, Pakistanis are called "Asians", and why not - Pakistan is in Asia), or, more charitably, everybody who looks certain way - whether they are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Kazakh, Uzbek or none of the above, and ignoring when and under which circumstances they came into the country. I can't see it but as pure racism. And it never made any sense.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
Not in all cases, certainly, but in enough to matter.
Enough to matter for what? The claim was they form interests group which are detrimental to "native whites" (whoever that be). There's a big difference between kvetching about overbearing mothers (certainly no "native white" ever had one of those) and conspiring to take down the whites.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
A citizen spent 3 days in immigration detention after a raid
I notice both you and the article you referring to use a very peculiar way of describing it. They never say he was accused of being an illegal immigrant or sent to detention center for illegal immigrants. They only say he was arrested "during" or "after" raid. And he was working as a security guard at a company employing a lot of illegals, where a huge clash between ICE agents and pro-open-border rioters happened. Want to hear my guess of what happened? He tried to be a big tough man and mess with law enforcement. He got arrested and spent a weekend in a jail downtown LA. Nobody ever thought he is an illegal immigrant - but guess what, being a citizen does not allow you to mess with law enforcement without consequences. At least not that time.
I can not prove this - because the article you quoted, in full agreement with modern journalistic standards, neglected to ask the other side for a comment. Other sources say he was "arrested on suspicion of assault" - but no charges were brought, likely because proving any of it in court would be tough, given the chaotic nature of the riots. It very well could be that they went overboard with detaining him for 3 days without access to attorney (most likely boring reason being it was a weekend) - if so, he has a valid claim against them, and would likely prevail in extracting some compensation (it's LA after all, pretty much every judge there would be his friend) - but it has absolutely nothing to do with ICE errors misidentifying citizens or legal workers as illegals. ICE never claimed he's an illegal. They detained him at the scene of a riot, and they may have acted ham-fistedly doing that - either because they were pissed by something he did, or because they were pissed in general by the riot - and in both cases they were wrong to deny him access to the attorney. I have heard about a number of cases like that over the years. They are infuriating and completely wrong, but they have nothing to do with immigration errors.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
Abrego Garcia got sent to El Salvador despite a ruling saying he shouldn't be.
You are seriously claimin the case of Garcia is the case of legal immigrant who has been mistakenly deported because of data error? Or you just bringing him around because "ICE man bad"? If I were to defend the cause of less ICE enforcement, Garcia is not a good example for you. He's absolutely, without any doubt, an illegal immigrant and a criminal, and unless your goal is to prove "the open borderers would absolutely make no distinction and would demand not to deport anyone, in any case, for any reason, and all their insistence on due process is just a smoke screen to make law enforcement effectively impossible because they just don't want any immigration law enforced at all" - unless that's what you are about to prove, you should really not mention Garcia. He definitely is not an "error", and the only reason he is in the headlines is because Democrat open-borderers made him a showcase for blocking any deportation attempt, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. Their current claim is it's impossible to deport him because the whole Western hemisphere is itching to imprison and torture him. This is just ridiculous.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
They would be competing with every other company in the country that wants to bring in foreign workers.
Good. That's how it should be. And given how much hype was about that project, they probably would have not much trouble carving out some quota for this - it's several hundreds people, compared to Big Tech companies who get thousands and tens of thousands of slots. They could even make a special allocation, it's Biden admin after all, it's not like they'd say no to anyone. They just din't bother to because why bother if the law is dead anyway and anything goes.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
Given that in this case they just came in and deported 300+ people, it's not a "spot check" where you check the papers from random people. They knew this factory uses illegal workers, and they knew exactly who those were. And the reason they knew likely was exactly because all the docs were there, it's not the situation where people sneak over the border and have to be caught when they climb on the river bank - it was an organized effort that was blatantly ignoring immigration law out in the open, because that's how it had been done for the last 4 years. And this raid was a signal it's not how it's done anymore. As Democrats used to say before Trump, nobody is above the law.
JarJarJedi
11d ago
I don't think you can compare the accuracy of database that had to be manually checked at least by three independent sources (the government, the employer and the employee - each one would alert if the name in the work permit, for example, would not match the passport name) to the raw data entry accuracy. Could the typist make an error? Sure. But the error would be corrected way before the ICE raid. And even if it weren't - the employee could easily show the work permit they were issued!
But even easier - if the error rate would be so high, we'd hear by now about legal Korean workers being deported for nothing. Did we hear about that? If not - why not?
I think what happened is that they brought in workers - maybe on legal visas, but without work permits - without bothering with all necessary documentation, because under the previous administration, even people who just walked across the Mexican border without documents were not deported, who would think about deporting actual Korean workers with documents working in highly advertised project? Open borders, baby! Then the administration changed, but the approach to documentation did not. Now, it's time for consequences.
Asians form their own ethnic interests groups
Some do, sure. But there's no such thing as "Asian ethnic interests" - why Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Sikh and Indonesians would have the same interests? I've met many people of different Asian descent, and they had very varied interests - I can't imagine how a single group would be able to represent them.
These ethnic interest groups agitate to the disadvantage of the native population
Do they? Any substantiation of that? I am sure some particular group of, say, Indians may agitate to the disadvantage some particular group of, say, Norwegians (of course, when I say Indian, I mean American person of Indian descent, and so on). But (leaving aside the definition of "native population", which I am sure you will provide me with in the other branch) claiming every Asian group always would advocate a policy that is contrary to the interest of every single "native" group seems to need a very extraordinary proof. At least it is not at all obvious why it would happen, so if you want somebody to believe it it makes sense to try and prove it.
When the native population protests they are called racist.
I am pretty sure if you think that every Asian by their mere genetic buildup has interests that are all the same and are always opposed to the interests of all people who are not Asian, that is the textbook definition of racism. In fact, if I needed to define the set of ideas that are based on this assumption, I would think "racism" is the best term that would describe it. I mean, if the race is the sole criteria you are looking at, how else would one call it?
JarJarJedi
12d ago
What "native white population"? USA is formed by people who came from outside the territory, the native population is not "white". Is Trump "native"? Who qualifies as "native"?
If ICE has an error rate of 1%
And where does this number come from? Given that all records are computerized and South Korea is not some shithole where people are not expected to have documents, 1% error rate would be staggeringly high. I would say one in a million could be, maybe, explained away as a computer glitch or something (though computer glitches don't really work this way, but maybe) but 1% is a horribly high rate of error when all you need to do is to look up a record in the database. Nobody in their sane mind would let a database into production that has lookup error rate of 1%. And these data are duplicated - if you are a legal worker, who signed all necessary forms, and somehow, by some unexplained glitch, your record got erased, you'd still possess your copy of documents, and so would your employer. Who has enough money to hire the best lawyers, it's Hyundai, not some mom-and-pop corner bakery. So even if that error - which can not be as frequent as 1% - happened, it would be easily corrected. And of course, any instance of such error would be immediately published on the frontpage of NYT, WaPo etc. Since I do not observe anything like that on those frontpages - I must conclude it did not happen, and ICE rate of error in this case was effectively zero. I don't claim it is always equal to zero - they are humans and use computers, and those both are always unreliable - but in this particular case, I'd like to see some proof.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
Assimilation is largely a myth
Doesn't match my experience. I've seen a ton of assimilated second-generation Asians, for example - most of them don't even speak the language of their parents (somewhat inconvenient when you need to translate something in Chinese and you know this guy whose parents are definitely from China but turns out he at best knows Chinese at kindergarten level, or less), don't associate exclusively with their ethnic community, don't keep any old customs (maybe except occasional family holidays or such). And of course I know many, many assimilated Jews. And, Trump himself is an assimilated second-generation German - we don't see him speaking German or donning lederhosen on Oktoberfest, do we? (I'm not sure that's what real un-assimilated Germans actually do, but whatever they do, Trump doesn't do that).
JarJarJedi
12d ago
What am I missing here is let's assume they want to import a lot of Koreans and put them to work in a factory. Maybe Americans are dumb and can't work or something. I'm not saying it's true but let's assume every reason you can think of is actually true. Why couldn't they make all those workers legal? With all the fanfare about the project it's certain they could make all the papers in order if they wanted to. ICE couldn't do a thing if you have legal workers with proper documentation. I can see only one reason: illegals are cheaper and easier to control. They wanted easier exploitable workers. If that's true, they need to be punished for this, very hard. If they are feeling "betrayed" by the fact they can't violate the laws of the country they're doing business in, maybe some hard and painful reality check is due.
Others said they believe that improperly documented workers have brought undue scrutiny upon those who are here legally.
If they are here legally (and working legally), what is the problem with scrutiny? No scrutiny could have done anything to them, if their status is in order, ICE could check it a thousand times and still couldn't do anything.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
If you stand outside a convicted rapists house and yell over and over Bob Smith is a rapist for days on end
But that's not what is happening. I mean yes, if you stand near someone house and yell anything for days on end, that'd be harassment, even if you yell the multiplication table. But nobody camps under trans people homes and yells for days. At least not any of the prominent prosecuted cases did that. The prosecution clearly is done for the contents of the message, not for the form it's expressed in. People get arrested for tweets, and not even for directed tweets. That's about the easiest form of speech to ignore of all possible forms. You can't say it's about "how" - it's all about precluding the possibility of discussing certain topics.
I, of course, exaggerated a bit when I pretended it makes no sense. It makes a lot of sense, if only you let go of the premise that the government is the representative of the people and wants to do what's best for them (or at least wants to align in the general direction of interests of the people). If you face the reality - that the government is a parasite which seeks control over the population and is hostile to anything that threatens this control - then it all makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter whether the government agrees with you or not on the truth value - the mere fact that it told you not to speak that and you did is what must be shut down (you rocked the boat!). That's why in Russia people who say Putin goes too easy on Ukrainians can get jailed as much as people who oppose the war - the problem with both is that they allow themselves to think something Putin didn't think first. That's the offense. UK is not there yet, but they are already on the rails that lead there.
the UK in general is less bothered about restrictions of free speech than the US
I know. UK never had freedom of speech, not even before the Great Awokening, though the abuses usually concentrated along the lines of sleazy lawyers exploiting the system, not governmental censorship per se. Now the government is leading it, hard. Of course they claim it's for "maintaining the peace", though how it makes more peaceful to allow Hamas banners but jail people for English banners, it's a bit hard to understand, unless in the terms of most base cowardice. It's not that rocking the boat is not allowed, it's that some people are allowed to rock the boat, and some aren't.
JarJarJedi
12d ago
OK, I see your point. I guess there is some turning afoot. Makes me feel doubly weird though - first time because I'm not used to UK policies being less insane than US ones, usually it goes the other way in my experience. The second time because the stance of "trans women are men, but you go to jail if you say it without government approval" is still completely insane, just in a different way - now we have a choice between the clown would where a man can become a woman just by saying it, and the clown world where a man can force you to say he's a woman, under the threat of government prosecution, even though the same government does not think it's true - so you are officially forced to lie.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
Note to self: if you are using your phone to deal drugs, set up privacy settings so that messages do not show up when the phone is locked. Which actually is the setting on all my phones anyway even though I don't deal drugs.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
I like closets because I need a lot of storage (I have trouble throwing away things) and built-in storage means I don't have to pay for it separately. Of course, no house so far had enough built-in storage for everything, so I have some wardrobes and bookcases and so on. Would I consider a house that has no closets? If it's perfect otherwise, than probably yes, but discounting it by the price of the storage furniture I'd have to buy and install, and also the effort to find them (took me months to find decent bookcases that don't cost like I'm building a taxpayer-funded Presidential Library). And, alternatively, the house with ample built-in storage would get valued more for the same price.
JarJarJedi
14d ago
The tide has turned on the trans issue
Do you mean in the US or in the UK? Because I don't see any tide turning anywhere in the UK. Maybe I'm ignorant but I see they are merrily arresting people for tweets as they did before, and show no signs of wanting to stop. Yes, media talks about it, so what. Media talks about a lot of things. Is something actually changing?
JarJarJedi
14d ago
That's easy. When those bad people do it, it's bad, when our good people do it, it's not bad. Nazis are bad, so punching them is laudable. Trans people in women's bathrooms are good, so punching them is genocide. It's easy!
JarJarJedi
14d ago
one could in theory argue that it constitutes incitement to violence
Not in the US, it has to be imminent specific threat. "If X does Y, then you have to do Z, and if that fails, punch him" is not a specific imminent threat. Now, by UK laws, anything goes, whatever they want to het you for they can get you for, they don't have a robust concept of freedom of speech left, so there's nothing do discuss on principle here - they'll arrest you for whatever they want to arrest you for. But in the country where the concept is still alive - US - it is not illegal.
There's a huge difference between somebody being a legal alien worker and being mistakenly deported as illegal and somebody being definitely an illegal with a final removal order who gets their lawyer to declare the entire Western hemisphere is itching to torture him, activist judges playing along because nobody can ever be deported no matter why, and ICE needing to find some country that is not on the list lawyers managed to push through. I mean, we have to follow the law, and that at times includes tolerating lawyer tricks that everybody knows are tricks, because that's the only way to make the process work at scale, but conflating these two situations is bullshit. There's nothing in common between Garcia - who is definitely illegal alien and no court doubts that - and some hypothetical situation where ICE thinks a legal alien or a citizen is illegal. These are two completely different things.
More options
Context Copy link