Is the West in decline

[not2big]

Umm when did the Canuks and the rest of the western world become enemies of the US?

On January 20, 2025 after Trump was inaugurated.

 

[not2big]

Garcia’s wife requested a restraining order order; however, she subsequently rescinded the request. Also, being suspected of human trafficking is is not even being close to being charged.


Per the Prince Georges County Police Gang Unit, ABREGO-Garcia was validated as “a member of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) Gang. Garcia was identified as a member of the Mara Salvatrucha MS-13, "Chequeo" from the Western Clique a transnational criminal street gang. This information was provided by tested source who has provided truthful accurate information in the past.“ However, Garcia was suspected of being a member of the NYC MS-13 gang, not a west coast gang. And Chequeo is not a level of gang membership, but refers to a potential recruit.

As previously pointed out, if after due process, Garcia is convicted of being an illegal immigrant, he should be deported, but a court has already ruled he can not be deported to ElSalvidor.



County P

 

[Ccb]

What you're getting wrong is your world view - that everyone outside of your borders is an enemy.

(And we haven't even ventured into what constitutes "critical supplies" yet)

Quite presumptive of you. Not everyone outside our border is an enemy. But if they try to take advantage of this nation with unfair trade practices, then they are at least temporarily.
China is definitely not on our side. That’s where we get a lot of our critical supplies. Things like electronics (military), power grid equipment, antibiotics, medical equipment, etc, etc.
Critical supplies are NOT coffee and wine.
Go back and read the statement I wrote very carefully because I think you have a reading comprehension problem.
I feel you’re just arguing to argue.

 

[Ccb]

Garcia’s wife requested a restraining order order; however, she subsequently rescinded the request. Also, being suspected of human trafficking is is not even being close to being charged.


Per the Prince Georges County Police Gang Unit, ABREGO-Garcia was validated as “a member of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) Gang. Garcia was identified as a member of the Mara Salvatrucha MS-13, "Chequeo" from the Western Clique a transnational criminal street gang. This information was provided by tested source who has provided truthful accurate information in the past.“ However, Garcia was suspected of being a member of the NYC MS-13 gang, not a west coast gang. And Chequeo is not a level of gang membership, but refers to a potential recruit.

As previously pointed out, if after due process, Garcia is convicted of being an illegal immigrant, he should be deported, but a court has already ruled he can not be deported to ElSalvidor.



County P

Due process is only a right of American citizens. If they are illegals, then they don’t have those rights and will be immediately deported.
You guys are trying to defend the indefensible. It’s astonishing.

 

[Ccb]

So then you agree that tariffs aren't actually good for the country as we were told and that it's better to negotiate them

The negotiation is decreasing other countries tariffs against us, resulting in more fair trade.
The US is no longer going to subsidize the world. So, the increased tariffs did their job. We will save trillions over the years.

 

[Johnny D]

Quite presumptive of you. Not everyone outside our border is an enemy. But if they try to take advantage of this nation with unfair trade practices, then they are at least temporarily.
China is definitely not on our side. That’s where we get a lot of our critical supplies. Things like electronics (military), power grid equipment, antibiotics, medical equipment, etc, etc.
Critical supplies are NOT coffee and wine.
Go back and read the statement I wrote very carefully because I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

Perhaps it's you who needs to go back and read. I went back and it seems that my comprehension is pretty good. Here's your quote (italics mine):
"You are making the point for why we should produce these things here. So we aren't reliant on any other country for materials, supplies and parts. It's a national security issue."
That was a response to a discussion about car production. Are you saying that cars are critical supplies and that's all that you were referring to? It certainly doesn't appear so since your first comment on the tariff topic was this:
"The ultimate goal is to get the US to produce the worlds goods again."
So you tell me how I'm supposed to infer otherwise. You tell me where I presumed wrong.

And, again, it's a complete misunderstanding of trade and economics to say that a trade deficit or that disproportionate tariffs are an unfair practice, taking advantage of a country. Explain to me what the effect is that makes it unfair. Especially given the fact that the US has been a world leader in production for decades, tell me exactly how it's being taken advantage of.

I feel you’re just arguing to argue.

Since I'm the one who's been offering economic information with historical context and providing sources to support my argument, rather than just saying how I feel, I can say with 100% conviction that I'm the one attempting to have an intellectually honest discussion in good faith.

The negotiation is decreasing other countries tariffs against us, resulting in more fair trade.
The US is no longer going to subsidize the world. So, the increased tariffs did their job. We will save trillions over the years.

So then we agree that the ultimate goal is free trade, right? We were originally told that tariffs are good. That tariffs will raise a bunch of revenue and will bring a bunch of jobs into the country. Now we're being told that, in fact, tariffs are to be negotiated. Clearly if tariffs are an economic win, we shouldn't be negotiating them - in fact we should be raising them. So the original premise was wrong. Correct? Now we're saying that tariffs should be reduced and the more they can be reduced, the better. Correct?

 

[Johnny D]

Due process is only a right of American citizens.

Where do you get this information? The Constitution and numerous rulings by the court have said otherwise. If that's how you want it to be - that it should only apply to citizens - that's your thing to reconcile. Because for now, all people are entitled to due process under the law.

If they are illegals, then they don’t have those rights

The courts disagree with you and have said so numerous times so I'm not sure where you're coming up with this other than that it's just the way that you'd like it to be.

and will be immediately deported.
You guys are trying to defend the indefensible. It’s astonishing.

And in the case of Garcia, he was already granted the right to remain back in 2019 so even if we give you the "illegals don't have rights" argument, his case is actually pretty easy to defend on constitutional grounds.

 

[CUSP82]

How do you defend a man like Garcia? Gang member ( verified by 2 courts), human trafficker, wife beater ; he must be MS-13 employee of the month. Funny you defend braking the process ( illegal entry) in order to take advantage of it.

 

[Ccb]

Perhaps it's you who needs to go back and read. I went back and it seems that my comprehension is pretty good. Here's your quote (italics mine):
"You are making the point for why we should produce these things here. So we aren't reliant on any other country for materials, supplies and parts. It's a national security issue."
That was a response to a discussion about car production. Are you saying that cars are critical supplies and that's all that you were referring to? It certainly doesn't appear so since your first comment on the tariff topic was this:
"The ultimate goal is to get the US to produce the worlds goods again."
So you tell me how I'm supposed to infer otherwise. You tell me where I presumed wrong.

And, again, it's a complete misunderstanding of trade and economics to say that a trade deficit or that disproportionate tariffs are an unfair practice, taking advantage of a country. Explain to me what the effect is that makes it unfair. Especially given the fact that the US has been a world leader in production for decades, tell me exactly how it's being taken advantage of.

Since I'm the one who's been offering economic information with historical context and providing sources to support my argument, rather than just saying how I feel, I can say with 100% conviction that I'm the one attempting to have an intellectually honest discussion in good faith.

So then we agree that the ultimate goal is free trade, right? We were originally told that tariffs are good. That tariffs will raise a bunch of revenue and will bring a bunch of jobs into the country. Now we're being told that, in fact, tariffs are to be negotiated. Clearly if tariffs are an economic win, we shouldn't be negotiating them - in fact we should be raising them. So the original premise was wrong. Correct? Now we're saying that tariffs should be reduced and the more they can be reduced, the better. Correct?

You are jumping all over the place. T

Perhaps it's you who needs to go back and read. I went back and it seems that my comprehension is pretty good. Here's your quote (italics mine):
"You are making the point for why we should produce these things here. So we aren't reliant on any other country for materials, supplies and parts. It's a national security issue."
That was a response to a discussion about car production. Are you saying that cars are critical supplies and that's all that you were referring to? It certainly doesn't appear so since your first comment on the tariff topic was this:
"The ultimate goal is to get the US to produce the worlds goods again."
So you tell me how I'm supposed to infer otherwise. You tell me where I presumed wrong.

And, again, it's a complete misunderstanding of trade and economics to say that a trade deficit or that disproportionate tariffs are an unfair practice, taking advantage of a country. Explain to me what the effect is that makes it unfair. Especially given the fact that the US has been a world leader in production for decades, tell me exactly how it's being taken advantage of.

Since I'm the one who's been offering economic information with historical context and providing sources to support my argument, rather than just saying how I feel, I can say with 100% conviction that I'm the one attempting to have an intellectually honest discussion in good faith.

So then we agree that the ultimate goal is free trade, right? We were originally told that tariffs are good. That tariffs will raise a bunch of revenue and will bring a bunch of jobs into the country. Now we're being told that, in fact, tariffs are to be negotiated. Clearly if tariffs are an economic win, we shouldn't be negotiating them - in fact we should be raising them. So the original premise was wrong. Correct? Now we're saying that tariffs should be reduced and the more they can be reduced, the better. Correct?

You are jumping all over the place. The statement I made that you have been arguing against is this:
We HAVE to manufacture our critical supplies in THIS country and not be dependent on other countries who may or may not want to destroy us. FULL STOP
The key word in this statement is critical.
You have provided ZERO information to refute that statement.
Of course free trade is the goal. Tariffs are the tool to get there.

 

[Ccb]

Where do you get this information? The Constitution and numerous rulings by the court have said otherwise. If that's how you want it to be - that it should only apply to citizens - that's your thing to reconcile. Because for now, all people are entitled to due process under the law.

The courts disagree with you and have said so numerous times so I'm not sure where you're coming up with this other than that it's just the way that you'd like it to be.

And in the case of Garcia, he was already granted the right to remain back in 2019 so even if we give you the "illegals don't have rights" argument, his case is actually pretty easy to defend on constitutional grounds.

That was in 2019. He now has a deportation order that was fulfilled. And because he is now out of US territory, he has no rights that would be afforded to him if he were in US territory, even illegally.

 

[Johnny D]

You are jumping all over the place.

It's you who moved the goal post. You went from "any country" and "materials, parts, and supplies" to "enemies" and "critical only". You never once said that you're backing off the original claim that the US should be the provider of the world's goods and not dependent on any country, and changing your stance to critical goods only and limited to allies.

The statement I made that you have been arguing against is this:
We HAVE to manufacture our critical supplies in THIS country and not be dependent on other countries who may or may not want to destroy us. FULL STOP
The key word in this statement is critical.

If you're narrowing your argument to this, I think that's a fair discussion to have. I also think that it puts a huge onus on us to define what's critical and then to figure out how much of those critical goods we're even capable of providing. I think there's a lot to discuss in that debate, including the need to have amicable international relationships that don't put the supply chain in jeopardy, but I'll give you that it's worthy of consideration. "FULL STOP" is not convincing to me, though. Just because you said so, doesn't make it so. It's far more complicated.

You have provided ZERO information to refute that statement.

I provided plenty of information on the topic of comparative advantage and each country's capabilities and capacity. All the same applies even to critical goods. I refute the critical goods argument off the cuff with the same rationale - not only do we lack the capability and capacity, our total cost of inputs (especially labor) just make it economically unsustainable. Prices will go up considerably.

Of course free trade is the goal. Tariffs are the tool to get there.

OK. You say, "of course" but that hasn't been clear in the tariffs discussion. Quoting from Trump: "I always say 'tariffs' is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary. Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It's going to bring our country's businesses back that left us." So you part ways with Trump on that point, which is good to know. We can debate how effective tariffs are as a tool toward the goal of free trade but I think that's really of lesser importance. Ultimately, free trade agreements are to everyone's benefit and we can definitely agree on that.

How do you defend a man like Garcia?

I'm not defending him but he's been convicted of nothing.

Gang member ( verified by 2 courts), human trafficker, wife beater ; he must be MS-13 employee of the month.

That's patently false. Two documents filed in court have alleged that he is, yet they've never been substantiated, (In fact, the 2 documents contradict each other). What's known is that the allegation stemmed from double based on the word of a detective who was later deemed untrustworthy by the State's Attorney. In the US, we don't decide someone's fate on allegations - we have due process.

Funny you defend braking the process ( illegal entry) in order to take advantage of it.

I do not. I do not defend it one bit and never implied that I do. What I defend is everyone's Constitutional rights. Even people I disagree with. Even people whom I believe probably broke the law.

That was in 2019. He now has a deportation order that was fulfilled.

Doesn't matter when the right to stay was granted. It can't be rescinded without due process and that's what I'm arguing. Like the person or not, their rights have to be respected. That's how our constitution and rule of law works.

And because he is now out of US territory, he has no rights that would be afforded to him if he were in US territory, even illegally.

Well that's convenient. We just put people on a plane, send them to another country, and then say, "Well... You're in another country now so sorry you don't have rights anymore." Given the fact that legal citizens and illegal foreigners are afforded the same rights to due process, what's to stop the government from forcibly sending a US citizen to another country where they suddenly lose their rights to due process?

 

[CUSP82]

How many legal citizen have been deported?Very silly agument but it does sound noble. I will stand for this man's rights! Maybe standing for his wifes rights as he beat her up would have been better.
Yes put people on a plane to the country they are a citizen of; what's wrong with that?

 

[Johnny D]

How many legal citizen have been deported?Very silly agument but it does sound noble.

It's not a silly argument because, however unlikely, it's a hypothetical that actually exists if we're willing to allow it to happen to others. And if you take Trump at his word, "The homegrowns are next, the homegrowns. You've got to build about five more places," which I'm now willing to believe, it's not silly to ask the question.

I will stand for this man's rights! Maybe standing for his wifes rights as he beat her up would have been better.

100%! If that's the case - if he was beating her up - he should be judged and convicted for it. I've zero tolerance for that. In the meantime, while I will not defend him, I will defend his rights all day long.

Yes put people on a plane to the country they are a citizen of; what's wrong with that?

He was granted the right to stay. Until that right is rescinded it's a violation of his rights to do so. That's what's wrong with it.
I've said before that we have major issues to solve around immigration. We have to solve for the entry of legal immigration and we have to solve for the removal of illegal immigration. Nobody has come forth with a serious plan for either. All we've been presented with is one extreme or another.
In the meantime, the US Constitution provides rights and we don't just pick and choose when to honor them based on how we feel at the time.

 

[CUSP82]

What if-ism is a silly argument which never has a solution because there is always another what if. US citizens have never been deported from their country and will never be but what if? That's why we have courts.
Now with the scumbag who's rights you want to stand up for so a mistake was made. Hey it's not like he wasn't gonna get kicked out if he magically came back here. So now he resides in his country and the president of his country says that's where he's going to stay; what do you do? Go to war with El Salvador? Turn their president into a US puppet and he has to do what we say? People in this country sometimes go to jail for a long time because of a mistake because they happen. An innocent man spend 5 years in jail because of a mistake and you can't do a thing about it can you? Oh try to minimize mistakes but they will always happen.
Now you tell me what you'd do with this Garcia thug, He's in El Salvador and his president says he ain't coming back; so what is your solution?

 

[akaTrex]

Garcia's wife clammed up when asked about her Protective Order SHE filed against her husband.

Garcia's claim that he would be endangered by a rival Gang if deported to El Salvador is Proof that he is a GANG Member!

 

[Johnny D]

What if-ism is a silly argument which never has a solution because there is always another what if. US citizens have never been deported from their country and will never be but what if? That's why we have courts.

Well, then may I direct you to the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident.

Now with the scumbag who's rights you want to stand up for so a mistake was made.

If you would pick and choose who's rights are allowed to be violated, what's the point of prescribing rights to anyone at all?

Hey it's not like he wasn't gonna get kicked out if he magically came back here. So now he resides in his country and the president of his country says that's where he's going to stay; what do you do? Go to war with El Salvador? Turn their president into a US puppet and he has to do what we say? People in this country sometimes go to jail for a long time because of a mistake because they happen. An innocent man spend 5 years in jail because of a mistake and you can't do a thing about it can you? Oh try to minimize mistakes but they will always happen.

You're arguing from two different positions which, to me, illustrates my belief that you actually really just want him (and perhaps others? ) to be unlawfully deported. You first argued as though there was no defense entitled to him to prevent his deportation. Now you are arguing that it was an unfortunate mistake but sadly there's nothing that can be done about it. Sounds like a disingenuous argument to me.

Now you tell me what you'd do with this Garcia thug, He's in El Salvador and his president says he ain't coming back; so what is your solution?

As the president, I would request his return and make all necessary accommodations for that to happen. That doesn't mean it will happen, but I would request it to be done. That has not happened yet.

 

[akaTrex]

Ah Liberal Judges! Law Enforcement is arresting Judges for hiding illegal aliens.

FBI arrested a Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, for hiding a previously deported illegal immigrant in her jury room in order to stop him from being arrested by ICE.

A New Mexico Judge was arrested for harboring a suspected member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The suspect, Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, entered the US illegally and was found living in the Cano's guesthouse.

 

[CUSP82]

Khalil;I wondered when you were going to bring him up. Nice guy, here on a visa, doesn't like Jews and he behaved poorly enough to have his visa revoked. No loss there.

 

[CUSP82]

As for the other scumbag; no he has no defense against being deported. He came here illegally so he has no right to be here. Was it a mistake to send him to El Salvador where a judge said he couldn't be deported to; maybe. but I would like to see how a judge can prevent a person being deported to not be deported to his home country. Makes no sense

 

[Johnny D]

Got it. So it's pretty clear now that you're very comfortable violating and denying constitutional rights like the first and fifth amendments, provided you don't like that person. So just remember what I've said in the past. If you're okay with those decisions under this administration, you don't get to complain and object in the future when another administration does the same. If the Constitution can be waived to suit your whims and needs, then it can be waived to suit anyone else's as well.