@Lewis2's banner p

Lewis2


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 February 14 21:42:42 UTC

				

User ID: 2877

Lewis2


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2024 February 14 21:42:42 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2877

Update: an estimated 50,000–60,000 migrants illegally crossed the Ceuta border over the last 24 hours. For comparison, Ceuta has less than 85,000 inhabitants.

The existence of Spain’s small African enclaves is usually the sort of fact that shows up in a trivia contest, but two of them—Ceuta and Melilla—have been in the news this week. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Spain ruled (1) (2) that Spain’s immigration law, which allows border security to turn away illegal immigrants who climb over the border fences between Morocco and those two enclaves, doesn’t allow the state to immediately turn away illegal immigrants who cross the border via the water. This has naturally led to a massive increase in illegal crossings, with hundreds of Moroccans, Algerians, and other North Africans swarming the border over the last few weeks. Earlier today, the border “totally collapsed” as thousands more migrants—mostly young men—began dismantling and passing through the border fences. The local authorities asked the national government to declare a state of emergency, which they declined to do, instead opting to send 60 additional soldiers to secure the border. Despite the pretty obvious link between the Supreme Court decision and the sudden increase in illegal crossings, Spanish authorities have declared themselves mystified as to the cause of the crisis.

In additional international impacts, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni has threatened to suspend Italy’s open-border agreement with Spain “to defend our borders and ensure the safety of our citizens,” and the White House has publicly criticized Spain’s handling of the issue.

As always, I appreciate your legal expertise and your detailed response.

But why? This seems to me like a pretty open-and-shut case of freedom of expression to me. She called the child a nigger (for which she was acquitted), then she repeated it to the bystander on camera after he explicitly asked her to,* for which she was convicted. I’m struggling to see how her conviction wasn’t clearly inappropriate given the circumstances.

*”Why don't you have the balls to say it right now again so that the world can see?”