anti_dan
4hr ago
I’m asking what perceived tangible political risk is there in them parting ways with the Israel Lobby and refusing to yield to them anymore.
All the people with money and brains seem to still like Israel. Or at least understand that it is a significantly lesser evil than the regional alternatives.
anti_dan
6hr ago
How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them?
Just drop them off on the shore and??
anti_dan
7hr ago
Why are you bringing up American Indians? They are clearly not granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment, it had to be granted later by statute.
So whatever "subject to the jurisdiction" means clearly excluded them, even if they could be prosecuted for crimes committed off of the reservation.
anti_dan
7hr ago
Because they have power and can't afford to be that stupid.
Israel may be unpopular, but Palestine is genuinely run by an evil regime that would behead every American if they had the power to do so. And it's not just a bad regime, its popular. If you have power you can smile nicely at the "queers for Palestine" people, but you still have to keep the reality in your head that not only would those people be beheaded in Palestine, you probably would too
anti_dan
1d ago
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says that the host country can't prosecute an accredited foreign diplomat, an accredited member of the administrative and technical staff of a foreign embassy (except an host-country resident employed locally) or the accredited family members of those groups - and this absolutely applies to crimes committed outside the embassy.
Yes, but it can be ignored. Certainly if a defendant attempted to bring such a claim in the Southern District of New York no judge would entertain it (or perhaps some goofy one might, only to be swiftly overturned).
In any case, I only even bring up the diplomats because it highlights the absurdity of the proposed interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction" is by the parties suing the administration (the American Indian precedents are even more devastating and voluminous). Their sole legitimate claims are all statutory (which are actually strong). But the 14th Amendment can not mean what they are claiming it means, because then the children of diplomats would get birthright citizenship unless they are born in the embassy.
anti_dan
1d ago
The Georgian government waived Makharadze's immunity - which is within the rules. (The immunity belongs to the sending state, not the diplomat). But the US would not have had jurisdiction without Georgia's permission.
Its not like that. Governments get waivers and give them to avoid international incidents. But honoring sovereign immunity is entirely at the discretion of the host country. If you are a Swedish ambassador and rape a girl, then Sweden doesn't waive, and America tries you anyway, you won't have a colorable claim in court to assert sovereign immunity.
Like all international law, it is ultimately fake and boils down to power and a gentlemans agreement that is breached when the breach is worth the hassle.
anti_dan
3d ago
Nobody is trying to claim those they are US citizens though is what the case is about
They may be saying that, but their arguments taken at face value would mean the children of diplomats are US citizens unless they are born inside the embassy.
anti_dan
3d ago
We are talking about what happened on US territory (because that's where the births in question occur). If in 1866 an Indian stabs an American or another Indian in Iowa City, they would have faced the Iowa criminal courts. Thus they are at least somewhat under the jurisdiction of Iowa and the US.
However we know that does not mean they are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as stated in the 14th because if that same Indian gave birth in Iowa City the kid would not be a citizen.
anti_dan
3d ago
But see Gueorgui Makharadze (1997). Dui homicide. We held him in the country for years then prosecuted him.
Diplomatic immunity is like the pirates code in the Johnny Depp movies, "the code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."
anti_dan
3d ago
True but all this is irrelevant to my point that we can and have prosecuted foreign diplomats for crimes committed in the US while the diplomat was serving in that function.
anti_dan
3d ago
Diplomatic immunity is waived voluntarily by the host countries in major crimes to avoid an international incident. But we can prosecute without a waiver, and there is a specific US statute that says diplomats are not immune from state traffic laws and have to pay their traffic tickets.
Movie diplomatic immunity is fake.
anti_dan
4d ago
The children of diplomats exception doesn't make sense under the theories presented by the parties suing the Trump administration though. Its not like a diplomat (or their child) can commit a homicide and the US will just ignore it and not prosecute. The same is true of an Indian who wandered off a reservation in 1900 or a Canadian who drunkenly boats into American waters and rams another boat. All those people get prosecuted in American courts for said crimes. So that cannot mean what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
anti_dan
4d ago
The reason the native American matter is important is that foreigns also belong to a sovereign polity that is not the USA .
anti_dan
6d ago
A guy, as part of the conspiracy, shot at federal agents. That any still have their lives ahead of them in any respect shows the leniency baked into the system.
anti_dan
13d ago
It is the opinion of several commenters here that any extremely-left-wing person is automatically a "security risk" to Trump's right-wing government.
Why just Trump's? This kind of person appears (to me) to be a security risk to any org they are allowed to be a part of. I dont think, for example, it would be prudent to hire her for a legal position. This level of brainrot indicates they would be prone to break A-C privilege if they thought their client was transgressing some progressive dogmas.
anti_dan
20d ago
Perhaps, I just googled "IQ score SAT equivalent". I'd guess SAT % is not exactly correlated with IQ because a lot of the dumbest kids will not have taken it. Particularly in the South and Midwest where they make the ACT a mandatory test for juniors.
Still, even 1350 doesn't seem like a top level company talent to me. I had a score 200 point higher almost 2 decades ago and didn't get into Stanford or MIT, despite a solid GPA and being a 2 sport athlete and having won multiple academic competitions quite casually. And when I graduated from a T1 state school with an engineering degree I wasn't picking between dozens of offers from FAANG (or the then equivalent) companies, I was deciding between a mediocre private sector offer or law school, again despite not being average at the state school, but being a high performer.
But perhaps OpenAI is not an elite company so I shouldn't think much on it. Or perhaps it is and they have a bunch of 120 IQ people in the place, and maybe that is why AI cant stop regurgitating middling journalist takes and fake history thats part of the official middle school curriculum.
anti_dan
20d ago
There are also plenty of OpenAI researchers at that number.
Im not really that familiar with AI hiring but that would be surprising. 1200 is an average student at a 2nd tier state school. 1200 is U of I - Chicago, not flagship campus (1400+); Michigan tech, not MI (1400+) or State (1300); University of Southern Florida, not Miami, Florida (both 1400) or FSU (high 1300).
anti_dan
20d ago
120 is only moderately above average. There are still plenty of schoolteachers at that number (roughly translates to a 1200 SAT).
anti_dan
22d ago
This is the insane thing that Democrats seemingly cannot get through their heads. If you went to any politically inclined person in 2000 and described the 2020 election without telling them the country, they would have assumed it was Russia or Iran or Congo. If you told anyone about California today without telling them its California, they would tell you to send in the UN to monitor the election because its almost certainly being manipulated.
All illegals are already escorted around by people with guns as part of their removal. That's just a silly objection.
As to the host country, the hard way is just escorting people off a plane and leaving. There are also shipping containers and barges thanks can just be dropped off at a coast for very cheap (they can even be recovered after people leave, because what does a Somali know what to do with a barge?).
More options
Context Copy link