site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35169 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

33
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More developments in DeSantis' political stunt of sending some migrants to Martha's Vineyard.

If you didn't already know the migrants were not even in Florida when they got on the flight. The migrants started in San Antonio, Texas. The Bexar County Sheriff (which covers San Antonio) has announced a criminal investigation into the matter. They do not currently have the names of any suspects or particular statutes in mind that may have been violated but they have started an investigation. I'm not an expert on Texas law but it seems to me their law on unlawful restraint may be applicable. The law provides:

(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:

(A) force, intimidation, or deception;

...

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.

Did DeSantis' agents move a person from one place to another by deception such that the persons so moved did not consent? Seems like it to me! If any of the people so moved were children under the age of 17 the offense is a state jail felony otherwise it is a Class A misdemeanor.

On the civil front some of those same migrants have filed a class action lawsuit against DeSantis (maybe flying them to the island full of rich lawyers was unwise.) There are 12 listed causes of action in the complaint (starting on page 23 in the pdf). These range from violations of constitutional rights (since this was ostensibly done under color of law, using state government funds) to regular torts like false imprisonment, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress (intentional and negligent).

If agents of the state are going to start being prosecuted for using force or intimidation to substantially interfere with liberty, I am here for it. In my ideal world, every governor that imposed a stay-at-home order for Covid will be prosecuted for millions of counts of false imprisonment and sentenced for however many tens of millions of years in prison that should entail.

Of course, the obvious holes in such a plan are... well, obvious. It turns out that we don't actually prosecute political actors for doing things that are just bad ideas and that eventually have legal correctives for the aggrieved parties.

Eh, I mean, you're arguing tendentious technicalities against a charge of comical hypocrisy.

Martha's Vineyard called out the national guard to deal with fifty migrants and deported them to a military base within 36 hours. No amount of whining about "manipulation" or long-shot lawsuits is going to change the optics of that, because the optics are real.

Jimmy Dore's take:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZmObSU3gRa4

I like Jimmy Dore. He has heterodox takes. He calls out the left for TDS from the left.

He's also been thoroughly excommunicated from the The Party. He's no longer the party member in good standing which he was when he was at The Young Turks. So Jimmy Dore noticing isn't really indicative of much.

I don't know if this is a reputable source or not: https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/16/migrants-desantis-vineyard-massachusetts/

This is a publicity stunt, and a dumb one too. It will go nowhere.

But suppose it did? The concern here is that Abbott and De Santis did not follow the law. That they offered migrants a plane ride to a location, and perhaps took them to a different location instead, and that this is a crime that needs to be dealt with. After all, following the law is essential. We are a nation of laws. No one is above the law.

We have laws about who is allowed to enter the country. Those laws have been ignored for decades. Enforcement of those laws has been deliberately sabotaged by Federal, state and local officials, and by private organizations receiving funding on the taxpayer's dime, for decades. No one who matters has ever given the slightest fuck about enforcing those laws, for decades. Concessions to the hardships faced by migrants have been openly abused, for decades. Attempts at reform and compromise have been capitalized upon, and then betrayed, for decades. At no point in this story has anyone on the other side of this given the slightest fuck about the law. They do not give a fuck about the law now, and they will not give a fuck in the future, except on those occasions where foolish, blind adherence to the law by people like myself can be used to enable our abuse.

[Bile Removed]

...Suppose Abbott and De Santis did break the law. Why should I give even the slightest fuck? Why should I care about a system of law that primarily appears to exist to be used against people like me, while denying us any protection under its provisions? We are far, far past the point where a claim of impartial enforcement could be credibly made. What's the lesson we're supposed to draw, here? What's the argument that we Reds should even be attempting to follow Blue law, as opposed to openly defying the law and degrading Blue capacity for enforcement?

This is a publicity stunt, and a dumb one too. It will go nowhere.

Tell that to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

As an Arizona resident, I will note that Arpaio was voted out in the same year that Trump was elected.

I would like to register a prediction that absolutely nothing will come out of any of these suits. At best, they will all be dismissed due to qualified immunity. But, more likely, today is the last time we are hearing about them.

I saw the narrative moving towards whether DeSantis had true spending authority from the state of Florida, and if that is the current mood than all the more serious things are already off the table.

I would like to register a prediction that absolutely nothing will come out of any of these suits.

Honestly, this. If there's evidence of actual deception, maybe not ("want a flight to Massachusetts, near Boston?" is not technically wrong although misleading). If being dropped in Martha's Vinyard (not even in winter) is deemed a harm worthy of civil liability, surely some wiseass is going to cite that precedent on behalf of migrants claiming asylum who the feds dropped in (shudders) South Texas.

Seconded. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything and lawsuits are filed all the time; that doesn't mean they'll succeed. Most often a lawsuit is filed just for one to look like they are Doing Something and Taking Action, regardless of whether that something or action will have any actual effect.

I will lodge the prediction that this will prove to be a self-own. The optics here are already horrendous. 53 migrants dead in the back of a truck is a statistic, 50 getting a free vacation to Martha's Vineyard is a human rights violation. Whose rights? Why, the right of rich, progressive Sanctuary Citizens to not have to look at poor brown people, of course.

And now they're keeping this disaster in the news for months to come with the prospect of bilking thousands of billable hours from leftist billionaires and money laundered NGOs to engage in blatant lawfare over a free plane ticket to a sanctuary city, after refusing to pay for a single hotel room for a single migrant? The "Democrats want illegals to have more rights than you, and then charge you for making them look at a poor person" ads practically write themselves. This is "Umbridge as a comic book villain" territory.

And now they're keeping this disaster in the news for months to come with the prospect of bilking thousands of billable hours from leftist billionaires and money laundered NGOs to engage in blatant lawfare over a free plane ticket to a sanctuary city, after refusing to pay for a single hotel room for a single migrant? The "Democrats want illegals to have more rights than you, and then charge you for making them look at a poor person" ads practically write themselves. This is "Umbridge as a comic book villain" territory.

Well that's the Trick isn't it? The Texas and Florida Republican State Committees are explicitly banking on the DoJ and Democratic party establishment being too mind-killed by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and their own racism to recognize what this looks like from the outside.

Whose rights?

How about the constitutional rights of people on US soil to not be arbitrarily seized and transported by agents of the state? The asylum seekers themselves have rights, which are the ones that were violated.

  • -28

I think Desantis' stunt here was stupid and may be a marker for the end of the Republican Party based on them cheering for a clear waste of taxpayer dollars.

But seized?

That's just as gross an exageration as the fools saying that Martha's Vineyard "kicked out" the 50 immigrants. Shame on them, and shame on you.

Bringing attention to the subject has the potential to save taxpayer dollars in the long run.

And with that logic you excuse every dollar spent ever.

Congratulations.

Unfortunately “don’t spend taxpayer dollars” is a losing proposition, especially when many voters don’t even contribute any taxpayer dollars.

We are well past the point where penny pinching made even the slightest sense. Biden just executed a unilateral handout to his base worth billions, plural. The money is getting looted regardless; it might as well serve our interests rather than our enemies'.

What do you think is required for you to be "seized" within the meaning of the fourth amendment? From the complaint:

Particularly after the individual Plaintiffs had boarded the airplanes and were in mid-air, Plaintiffs were not free to leave, and were induced into that condition through false promises and misrepresentations. This constitutes a governmental termination of Plaintiffs’ freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.

  • -18

After the individual Plaintiffs had boarded the airplanes and were in mid-air, Plaintiffs were not free to leave

Oh no! DeSantis did not provide them all with parachutes so they could jump out of the plane if they changed their minds!

This is bonkers. Of course you can't be "free to leave" a plane in mid-air, not unless you are planning to commit suicide. Who wrote this complaint, the scriptwriters for Rings of Power?

deleted

What did you want the aircraft to do, pull over at the nearest truck stop so the passengers could get a fountain drink and a bag of skittles?

...Is that not what other airports can act as? Granted, that's mostly an emergency thing, from what little I know, but theoretically, if the law allowed for/required it, a hypothetical plane carrying people in an illegal manner could be compelled to divert and land.

If you think delays and cancellations are anoying, just wait until every airport ever has to plan for an unlimited number of unexpected pitstops from an unlimited number or airplanes in a given day. The Airlines would cease to exist before the end of the week.

Then I suppose the protocols around putting undocumented immigrants on planes will be tightened up to avoid large-scale emergency diversions.

More comments

I think it will be extraordinarily tough to prove they were deceived without some sort of contract or audio recording of exactly what they were told. All DeSantis has to say is that he gave them a brochure about Asylee benefits for if they get approved and that Boston is a major city in MA and a good place to head towards once they land.

arbitrarily seized and transported by agents of the state? Offered a free plane ticket to a rich sanctuary city.

Your phrasing here is histrionic to the point of derangement.

Fraudulently induced to take a free plane ride to a rich city. Which, can still be a tort. Defrauding someone to travel somewhere is still a tort even if the place you're defrauded to go is really nice.

  • -19

So Massachusetts isn't willing to help refugees? Because they're not legal migrants? It's a novel form of fraud, tricking someone into receiving a valuable service for free with no strings attached or expectations. And it's fraud because MA lawyers and politicians are hilarious hypocrites about illegal immigrants to Texas vs illegal immigrants to MA?

Fun fact, "Defrauding someone to travel somewhere" appears to be a newly coined phrase. Google has no record of it ever appearing anywhere on the internet before.

The win for the left here was to house the migrants for a while, refuse to raise a fuss about it, quietly find new accommodations for them and send them along, meanwhile make certain changes to ensure that no more migrants flights could land without forewarning.

The actions they're taking seem to be revealing that they REALLY take it personally when the GOP manages to slip a trick by them that doesn't get leaked in advance and so puts them on the defensive. As well it should, since this indicates that Desantis has REALLY solid OpSec, unlike Trump. This is also keeping the issue of illegal immigration on the forefront of the national discourse, which may be preferable to them to avoid talking about the economy but also makes the issues at the border more salient for voters.

This is free publicity keeping Desantis in the national spotlight. He doesn't really need it to win his election this year, that's all but a foregone conclusion.

But they're absolutely helping him build his legend for 'future endeavors' and they're insane if they think he didn't account for this particular reaction and doesn't have a countermove already prepped.

But as we have seen, the left's rule these days is that they NEVER have to take an L, even when doing so is the sensible route. Doubling and tripling down to prove they're not owned is the tactic du jour.

See also: the Supreme Court handing down a ruling that strengthens 2A protections and New York and California immediately implementing more firearms restrictions which are mostly going to be struck down (and strengthen the legal precedent) and do little but piss in the eye of the pro-gunners who might otherwise vote Blue. Not to mention Biden talking up an assault weapons ban.

The win for the left here was to house the migrants for a while, refuse to raise a fuss about it, quietly find new accommodations for them and send them along

I've seen progressives in my facebook feed saying that the left did just that. I don't think it was specifically the people in Martha's Vineyard, but maybe other people from MA mainland. I see leftists on facebook saying that this just proves that republicans suck and are cruel, and leftists are compassionate. So if you're saying the opposite came to pass, clearly there are two different worlds happening, and that means that no one is going to learn anything, and everyone is just going to stick to/create their own narratives to satisfy their own worldviews.

For the record, I haven't followed this story at all, so I have no clue if your account or the progressive account is closer to the truth (and I also don't trust very much the specific progressives on my facebook who said this, I know them personally and they're brainwashed people). But what exact actions are you referring to when you say this:

The actions they're taking seem to be revealing that they REALLY take it personally when the GOP manages to slip a trick by them that doesn't get leaked in advance and so puts them on the defensive.

So if you're saying the opposite came to pass, clearly there are two different worlds happening, and that means that no one is going to learn anything, and everyone is just going to stick to/create their own narratives to satisfy their own worldviews.

Same as it ever was.

Although I think Desantis and Co. have learned something about pulling off covert political stunts and maximizing the outrage received for effort input. Just impose a little discomfort and inconvenience on the wealthiest communities in the country!

But what exact actions are you referring to when you say this:

The attempts to smear Desantis as a 'human trafficker,' to the point of opening up a criminal investigation in Texas? That's in the OP's comment. There's also a lawsuit in Federal Court now.

Oh, also the decision to unironically refer to the situation as a 'Humanitarian Crisis', which certainly implies that the situation at the U.S. border must be at least a couple orders of magnitudes worse as a crisis.

So if you're saying the opposite came to pass, clearly there are two different worlds happening,

AIUI, the migrants were given cots in meeting room in a church for 1-2 evenings, then escorted off the island by the national guard to a military dormitory. At no point did any one of the compassionate, rich progressives offer to put someone up in a hotel room, much less let a family use an empty beach house for the weekend.

But what exact actions are you referring to when you say this:

The aid given and compassion shown was more or less the absolute bare minimum needed to calmly make the poor brown people go away ASAP. Conversely, we've seen much more effort put into flattering themselves in the media, and launching furious legal and PR attacks back at DeSantis for making them look bad. When, remember, there are probably 5 figures worth of residents who could have each put the entire group up in a resort hotel for a week for pocket change.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Desantis's campaign coordinator said they were all given brochures of Massachusetts and info on Martha's Vineyard. Seems like if that's true then your points are completely moot. Hard to argue that you tricked somebody if you gave them a pamphlet of their destination in advance.

"Not only that, they all signed consent forms to go. And then the vendor that is doing this for Florida provided them with a packet that had a map of Martha's Vineyard," said DeSantis.

"It had the numbers for different services on Martha's Vineyard. And then it had numbers for the overall agencies in Massachusetts that handle things involving immigration and refugees. So it was clearly voluntary."

If true, this doesn't cover any and all accusation of deception but it does cover the ones you listed above.

So, from my newly conservative POV, I have to say that this looks like lawfare, which has become a favorite tactic of blue team in the last five years. The point being that it doesn't matter if the investigation is grounded on any kind of probably cause so long as it can be used in media stories as part of the "wrap up smear" technique explained by Nancy Pelosi.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Desantis's campaign coordinator said they were all given brochures of Massachusetts and info on Martha's Vineyard. Seems like if that's true then your points are completely moot. Hard to argue that you tricked somebody if you gave them a pamphlet of their destination in advance.

What if the pamphlet contained information that was false?

From the complaint:

On information and belief, the brochure was manufactured by Defendants. The brochure echoed the type of false representation that had been given orally, including statements such as: “During the first 90 days after a refugee’s arrival in Massachusetts, resettlement agencies provide basic needs support including...assistance with housing...furnishings, food, and other basic necessities...clothing, and transportation to job interviews and job training...assistance in applying for Social Security cards...registering children for school....” The brochure had a separate section entitled “Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA),” which stated: “Provides up to 8 months of cash assistance for income-eligible refugees without dependent children, who reside in Massachusetts.” It had other sections that described “targeted services for . . . employment.”

On information and belief, this brochure was not prepared by the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants, or any other Massachusetts agency or immigration services organization.

On information and belief, Defendants manufactured the official-looking brochure— lifting language from the Massachusetts Refugee Resettlement Program, a governmental program with highly specific eligibility requirements for which no members of the putative class are eligible—in order to buttress their false oral representations to Plaintiffs in furtherance of the conspiracy described throughout this complaint.

The complaint also alleges that the migrants were told they were going to Boston and only learned they were going to Martha's Vineyard after boarding the plane:

Before the flight, class members were told they were heading to Boston, Massachusetts or Washington, D.C. But right before landing, they were informed they were in fact going to Martha’s Vineyard, an isolated Massachusetts island just south of Cape Cod, reachable only by plane or boat.

So DeSantis' agents lied to the migrants about where they were going and what would be available to them when they got to their destination. The migrants relied on these false representations for their "consent" to go.

"Not only that, they all signed consent forms to go. And then the vendor that is doing this for Florida provided them with a packet that had a map of Martha's Vineyard," said DeSantis.

"It had the numbers for different services on Martha's Vineyard. And then it had numbers for the overall agencies in Massachusetts that handle things involving immigration and refugees. So it was clearly voluntary."

The fact of signing a consent inform is irrelevant if the reason you signed is because someone deceived you about what you were consenting to. Similarly the fact that the packet had a map or certain phone numbers does not establish that their consent to being transported was not based on lies.

Well, if this is false representation, then they should be suing the coyotes who got them to cross the border illegally. "Oh yes, the USA is a rich country that will provide you with great jobs and welfare, all you have to say is that you are a refugee!"

Ok, sounds like a good plan.

I'm sure such a plaintiff would win on the merits. Assuming, of course, that a case involving no US citizens or entities somehow made it into the courts at all.

The fact of signing a consent inform is irrelevant if the reason you signed is because someone deceived you about what you were consenting to.

Yes and no. While there can be exceptional circumstances, the presumption usually is that any signed document would take precedence over verbal discussions. If I sign a bill of sale, I can not allege fraud because I thought we had agreed on a different price.

So DeSantis' agents lied to the migrants about where they were going and what would be available to them when they got to their destination.

Or they told the truth, and the non English speaking migrants didn't understand, so they said something like "you're going to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. You know, near Boston?" and the immigrants only got 'Boston' out of it.

You should learn from the other side's mistakes here - when you are so upset you try to find a way to sue someone without any suspects or statutes in mind, just the burning desire to sue, you need to take a step back, because you are going to make mistakes.

It was written in Spanish.

This is a blue politician in a red state trying to get a lucrative gig to run for higher office and lose.

Yes if the brochures had intentional lies then that would call it into question. But merely false information might not, since the false information could have simply been copied from MA website.

What doesn't make sense is why they are claiming they were told they were going to D.C. after being given pamphlets to Massachusetts. That sounds like somebody not getting their story straight of the kind that happens with lies, or when the truth is being twisted into a narrative. IF the brochure had a map of Martha's Vineyard, it doesn't add up to say that you weren't told about Martha's vineyard and thought you were going to D.C.

If I had to guess, this is informational warfare from team blue. Prima facie, if I give you a map and a plane ticket to Martha's vineyard and you sign a consent form, it seems ridiculous to claim that you thought you were going to DC. However it does make sense to me that DNC political operatives are repeatedly asking for and incentivizing such answers to their questions until they hear what they want. A kind of after-the-fact 3rd party Smolletting.

Just to add one of my usual tangential comments: for what it's worth, my first exposure to the existence of Martha's Vineyard was in X-Files, and it was where either Mulder or Scully's parents lived. Remember, those two characters live and work in D.C.. and they visited MV semi-frequently in the show. Now, my geographically-naive ass just assumed it really wasn't far from D.C., so perhaps a bunch of Venezuelans who've probably never really looked at a detailed map of the US might make a similar mistake.

What if I told you the brochures were only received after they had already boarded the flight?

Specifically, while on the plane, right before landing in Martha’s Vineyard, Defendants provided the individual Plaintiffs each with a shiny, red folder that included other official-looking materials, including: a brochure entitled “Massachusetts Refugee Benefits” and instructions for how to change an address with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a federal agency which oversees immigration, including USCIS Form AR-11, “Alien’s Change of Address Card.”

Here's what the order of events wasn't: DeSantis' agents gave the group of people physical documents about where they would be going and what services would be available when they got there and made sure this group of people understood what was in such documents.

Here's what did happen: DeSantis' agents made verbal promises to people about where they would be going (potentially giving different people different locations) and about what would be available when they got there. Then, after the people were on a plane and at their destination, gave them inaccurate information about where they were and what services would be available.

Prima facie, if I give you a map and a plane ticket to Martha's vineyard and you sign a consent form, it seems ridiculous to claim that you thought you were going to DC.

Lawsuit looks like a joke, but I doubt that these people were given tickets listing "MVY" for their chartered jet. Maybe don't attack straw.

Massachusetts Refugee Resettlement Program

One of the qualifiers is "Asylees".

An asylee is a person who meets the definition of refugee and is already present in the United States or is seeking admission at a port of entry.

So, were they falsely applying for asylum, or do they count?

"They used all direct quotes from our official government resources, but put it together into their own pamphlet so we'll pretend I just proved they lied" is some absolutely amazing logic. Here, try this one:

Another qualifier is "victims of human trafficking", which means that even if DeSantis criminally trafficked them, that makes them such victims, which post-facto justifies the claims!

Seriously, just take the L on this one.

The Massachusetts program doesn't apply to all asylum seekers though, only those that have been granted refugee status by the Department of Homeland Security. If I give you information about a real government program, which I know does not apply to you, but I present the information to you as if it does, for the purpose of inducing you to take some action, is that fraud? It sounds like it to me!

The Massachusetts program doesn't apply to all asylum seekers though, only those that have been granted refugee status by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Massachusetts programs include, by statute:

Individuals with the following statuses may be eligible for services and benefits under the MA Refugee Resettlement Program. For purposes of the program, "refugee" is used to describe anyone who falls within the following statuses. Also see 45 CFR § 400.43(a)(1) through (6):

(a) Individuals paroled as refugees or asylees under § 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

(b) Refugees admitted under § 207 of the INA.

(c) Asylees whose status was granted under § 208 of the INA.

For kinda stupid reasons, nearly all parolees from federal immigration services fall under 212(d)(5), including those who've submitted asylum requests but have not been processed.

Oh no! So help the people you've lured through 4000 miles of death traps and cartels to work through the process and qualify! Again, it is insanely rich logic to throw a hissy fit over a single plane load of refugees who don't meet a strict set of requirements when they're illegal immigrants falsely claiming asylum as cover for economic migration in the first place. The sheer audacity to try that line! Should we start charging the NGOs and immigration lawyers who are coaching people on what to say on asylum applications with human trafficking, too?

They do not currently have the names of any suspects or particular statutes in mind that may have been violated but they have started an investigation.

This does not seem like a healthy use of prosecutorial power. This is fully into "I'll find you the crime" territory, if we are opening investigations without even an articulable belief that a specific crime was committed.

I mean, I think they have a belief that a crime was committed, just not an awareness of exactly what statute it violated.

Imagine the police find a dead body. They probably form a belief that a crime has been committed but exactly what statute will be applicable can depend on as-yet-unknown factors (like the perpetrators state of mind). I do not think the police in such a case are "fully into 'I'll find you the crime' territory."

But your example is highly disanalogous: in your example, the police have a probable general type of crime (unlawful killing) but not a suspect, whereas in this case the investigators have a suspect, but not a probable general type of crime.

I mean, I think they have a belief that a crime was committed, just not an awareness of exactly what statute it violated.

I'll just point to the definition of Probable Cause.

Cops are allowed to go on 'fishing expeditions' in the attempt to find evidence of a crime they think happened, but searches, seizures, and arrests require them to actually have reason to believe a specific crime has happened, and usually they have to be able to articulate precisely what information/evidence leads them to believe that.

So fine, if they want to 'investigate' by asking questions and collecting testimony they can try. But making an arrest, conducting a search, and seizing evidence is going to require a bit more than that.

Is there anything stopping Abbot from just pardoning DeSantis in the event they actually try to charge him with anything relating to Texas state law?

This lawfare crap is getting really old. I’ve lost most all respect I had for “the law” in the past half decade (I already had none for lawyers).

Is there anything stopping Abbot from just pardoning

Ding ding ding. This is why any Texas criminal investigation is irrelevant.

Dollars to donuts that plan was already established before anything else was done.

Indeed, they may have been hoping that this was the response.

I'm not sure if Abbot has the authority to remove a Sheriff or other LEO unilaterally, but this is a solid way to identify problematic ones.

No, he does not. The Texas government has one of the weakest executives anywhere, ever. The state comptroller- a partisan elected Republican- can use a bureaucratic process to change the county’s tax rates(as he is doing to Houston) and the attorney general- also a partisan elected Republican- also has a few things he can do, but Abbott’s powers are limited to an after the fact pardon.

Explains why the LEOs are willing to put their neck out like this. No direct retaliation.

The promise of an after-the-fact pardon, though, would render any prosecution purely symbolic.

There’s also a lot of money in it for progressives willing to lose statewide elections over being too progressive.

There are things the state can do to make life unpleasant for uncooperative local officials. They go through partisan republicans other than the governor and I suspect that the list of things will expand rather than contract. But, as yet, Texas cannot remove a local official without evidence of real malfeasance.

This time next year, the attorney general/comptroller/governor might have the power to levy real and direct consequences up to and including removing uncooperative officials(and that power would almost certainly be used against the Bexar county sheriff to begin with), but there’s currently not much the state can do to remove him.

IMNAL but how do constitutional rights apply to illegal immigrants?

The simple version is that wherever the constitution uses the phrase "people" or "person" (which is most places) it applies to all people physically in the territory of the United States of America. This goes all the way back to 1896 and Wong Win v. United States.

You appear to have missed the 1990 case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, which explicitly denied this for the Fourth Amendment in particular.

For a non-resident alien concerning a search that happened outside the country, not denying the fourth amendment generally applies to non-citizens in the US.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats