The purpose of ICE is what it does. It doesn't stop Somali fraud; it doesn't stop employers from hiring illegals; it doesn't make the country even 1% whiter. It creates violence in the streets for the Schadenfreude of MAGA. That is its purpose.
The right-wing believes that it is the left which is throwing a temper tantrum in response to ICE. But the ICE deployment is, itself, a temper tantrum. As you note, a combination of e-verify, welfare reform, and high-tech border patrol would result in millions of cheaper self-deportations.
But MAGA doesn't want that. They aren't mad at Trump for ignoring those *logical* policies, because being anti-immigrant is just an excuse to slam people on the ground and shoot protestors in the face. That's the real goal.
Hating immigrants is just a justification for a wider all-inclusive underlying sadism directed at "elites" and "public school teachers" and "lesbians" and "rich women." It's circular reasoning: they hate immigrants because immigrants vote Democrat; they hate Democrats because they let in the immigrants. The rationality of a 5 year old biting and kicking at his mom, but with the adult danger of a loaded gun.
I’m convinced that 90% of MAGA motivation is ‘Becky didn’t go to the prom with men and now that bitch in HR says I can’t talk about the intern’s tits anymore.’ It really is just that stupid
I think you are right. And I think that several MAGA leaders (e.g. Miller and Vance) were bullied as kids and are now living their revenge fantasies the cool kids who mocked and teased them.
Vietnamese and Cubans voted for Republican's pretty much the moment they got here and no prominent Democrat ever campaigned on restricting Vietnamese or Cuban refugees. At worst, there were arguments of normal relations with Cuba, but nothing about ending one dry foot rules.
"As you note, a combination of e-verify, welfare reform, and high-tech border patrol would result in millions of cheaper self-deportations" - when people bring up constructive ideas like this it makes me shake my head at the Trump presidency that could have been.
Because Trump isn't married to certain typical Republican ideas and conceits, he has more freedom and flexibility in his policies. He also given perhaps 10 times the slack of other politicians by voters. His failures are shrugged off by voters, conservative media is full-on devoted to him as if they were his state media, and any bullshit utterance of his is believed by his side 100%.
Can you imagine if he actually had good intentions? Can you imagine what he could have accomplished? Can you imagine how generations of talented politicians would have longed for the situation he has?
But he's too much of a self-absorbed immoral low-IQ moron. So instead we get Infantry deployed in Minnesota and the Invasion of Greenland!
It's such a shame. He could have gone down in history as the greatest president of the 21st century - all he had to do was not be a moron! The bar for him is that low!
That is certainly the intended appeal, and it might work for core MAGA but not all Republicans and moderates. According to polls, most Americans find ICE to be "too forceful", and have soured on it despite wanting deportations.
Most Americans didn’t want mass deportations. They wanted to deport the immigrants who were actual criminals and they wanted to dramatically reduce the influx of new immigrants.
Half of the populace obtain most of the political information from MSM, and with MSM wall-to-wall against deportations... The other two points are economical and political usefulness. Lots see them as politically useful, as "current" or future blocks of D voters. Beyond that, there is economical usefulness of a disciplined, low wage workforce.
The economic uselessness of (1) the hugely negative tax balance (using up more welfare than paying taxes and other dues, even if one removes the school costs) and (2) taking away jobs from the low-productivity natural born citizens is swept under the carpet.
There is evidence for the prosecution and there is evidence for the defense. This is what is called the adversarial process. All you have to do is state the contrary evidence and let the readers decide.
Years ago my libertarian mentor argued that forcing races together via mass immigration often creates friction and this is what we see. To be clear, I’m not arguing it’s remotely as bad as many conservatives claim (i.e., we do not see Balkanization), but the fact that it’s an important political issue across the West proves his point well enough. Woke folks react to this racial friction by declaring that racism is “immoral” and commit to endless social engineering and moral browbeating to (finally!) bring it to an end. In this regard they are like conservatives who want to stamp out porn.
Hanania says he’s fine with “personal” racism but, oddly, also argues, like many woke folks, that racism is stupid because it’s based on “superficial” physical traits; yet, he will also defend women who choose mates based on “superficial” traits like height, so his argument is plainly contradictory. He probably doesnt see the contradiction because he likely thinks personal choices are different from banning immigrants; therefore, elites need to enforce their preferences as a form of paternalism in the name of immigrant rights. However, this ignores the fundamental question: Who owns the streets/roads?
Although Hanania is libertarian adjacent, he tends to think in collectivist terms when it comes to what national policies should be pursued under statism. Therefore, the question of who owns the streets is neither here nor there for him, as “liberal” values/anti-racism supersede such concerns when you are not fully libertarian. This opens the door to imposing one’s own policy preferences in the name of “liberalism” without regard for property rights. In this sense, he is like liberals who talk about a “right” to healthcare, state-enforced equal opportunity, etc. without seeking to square it with a coherent view of liberty overall.
Hanania will no doubt argue that of course you can control who enters your home/yard (in order to exercise your superficial and stupid personal racism), but doesn’t explain why property rights don’t include the streets/roads. Being a statist (even a neoliberal one) means you can bypass such concerns to impose your own preferences while morally browbeating others.
This is no defense of ICE but the anti-immigration cause is not without merit within a libertarian framework.
Was your mentor Hans-Hermann Hoppe? He seems to be one of the few libertarian thinkers who isn't so engulfed by a liberal framework that he actually accepts a communitarian conception of people who are not interchangeable, atomistic entities unshaped by their own societies.
He was instrumental along with Marie rothbard writing a essay right before he died called Nations by consent, which led to me abandoning libertarianism all together eventually
I don't think I know all the relevant facts, but Richard always seems to think he knows, and I don't know how he would know. What seems clear is that another Democratically-run city thinks they should flout the law. They are not protesting the ICE means of arrest, which might have some validity. They are protesting every single premise and act of ICE. The Dems create these problems, provide sanctuary for illegals, explicitly denounce the rule of law, support protestors who interfere with the rule of law, side with those who interfere with the law, and cultivate an atmosphere that is hostile to the rule of law, and will inspire more leftist crazies to commit violence and assassination in the name of "values" as they say. The left manipulates all reality, including language to undermine the law. If the left were silent and lawful there would be nothing to see.
Where was support for Trump expressed? craig even said: "They are not protesting the ICE means of arrest, *which might have some validity*." (emphasis mine)
Whenever leftists are criticized for their failure to adhere to rule-of-law, the response is always the same: "What about orange man?"
This is why I believe Richard's statement from the OP: "modern liberals adhere closer to the rule of law and democratic norms of fairness than perhaps any other group of elites in human history" is a wild exaggeration. If Richard's statement were true, you would not see whataboutist rhetoric from individuals like alfinpogform. Yet it's everywhere on the left.
Many on the left seem to believe it is fine to ignore rule-of-law as long as Trump is worse. Not only is this approach immoral, it's also a great way to lose the voters that you need to win.
I do know that—but it appears you're too intellectually limited to realize your entire diatribe applies to Trump and the GOP, who proactively PARDONED the people exhibiting the very type of behavior you denounce. Not a single Dem went that far lmaooooo
Over 300 people were prosecuted for crimes committed during the 2020 protests. More than 120 were convicted and three quarters of them were sentenced to hard time.
If you're so concerned about the law, you should better inform yourself about what the law actually is.
Because Democrats and liberals do not "explicitly denounce the rule of law". What we don't go for is breaking the law and violating people's rights on the premise of enforcing the law. And that's exactly what the Trump administration is doing.
The influx of immigrants over the last several years is not because we had an "open border" policy, a standard lie repeated ad infinitum by an intellectually bankrupt American right and many of their "libertarian" defenders. It is due to increasingly adverse conditions in Latin America (to which, incidentally, the Trump Administration is presently contributing) causing an influx of northward migrants.
This means any President who feels compelled to follow the law—which, ironically enough, included Trump 1.0, who was clamoring for new laws before COVID—understands that our asylum laws compelled us to provide hearings for those who sought asylum. Our courts had been emphatically clear on that point over the years.
Of course, that simply requires the laws to be changed, which is exactly what Congress attempted to do in 2024, only to have Trump, upon wrapping up the Republican nomination, threaten Senators into killing a Republican negotiated, conservative's wet-dream of an immigration bill so that he would still have an issue to run on. And he openly admitted it.
Trump also claimed that we didn't need new laws to enforce the border, because he shut down the border with the existing laws. The second part was a misleading truth—he was able to shut down the border only through Title 42 because of COVID. The first part was a lie unless you reject the premise that you actually need to follow the law, and your party in Congress refuses to insist that you do—which is exactly what has happened as Trump is utterly ignoring our asylum laws, while credulous people give him credit for stopping the migrant flow.
Furthermore, sanctuary cities exist for one reason: because using local police to remove immigrants undermines the effectiveness of the police. It discourages undocumented immigrants from going to the police and that makes it harder to combat crime. The job of the city police force is to keep the city safe, not to enforce immigration law.
Contrary to what many seem to believe, sanctuary cities don't protect illegal immigrants from deportation—they simply refuse to allow their police forces to be exploited and their cities to become less safe because of the Federal government's failure to police its border. These aren't anti-law enforcement policies; they are pro law enforcement policies that understand and respect the concepts of jurisdiction and responsibility.
Of course, you could argue that these cities could solve the problem by working with the Feds to keep illegal immigrants out of their cities in the first place, and some go that route. But that hasn't make those cities free of illegal immigrants either, so it's entirely reasonable for the police to say that they've got enough of their own problems dealing with people who commit serious crimes (which doesn't include the mere fact of being in the country illegally, which is actually not even a crime but a civil infraction so long as you entered legally).
In fact, most people would likely agree that it is far more reasonable to expect Congress to get their act together and fix the border. And to that end, the Democrats have tried and failed to advance border legislation *three times* in the last 15 years, only for Republicans to torpedo their efforts for entirely political reasons every single time.
So the bottom line is that Richard is correct—it's actually Democrats and liberals in general who have far more respect for law and order. We understand that the existence of a law does not guarantee the ability to enforce it. It doesn't waive other laws and rights aside in the interest of enforcing the law in question, and that the solution to an unenforceable or difficult to enforce law is to change the law, not flout it.
The Republicans, on the other hand, and those who laughably call themselves "conservatives" these days, obsess over their already shallow and incomplete understanding of border law and its nuances, insisting that no other law or right of the people should stand in the way of them enforcing this law. And accordingly they care nothing about limiting the cruelty visited upon those legitimately guilty of violating the law, or the use of excessive force against people who they perceive as being in the way.
And this isn't even addressing the obvious fact that what's going on in Minnesota now has nothing to do with immigration and is a quite transparent attempt to establish an executive police force answerable ultimately to Trump.
To selectively enforce the law is to prioritize according to your values. And liberals value life, happiness, and prosperity for the American people. MAGA, on the other hand, along with much of the right these days, values paranoid nationalism masquerading as security—but only for those they consider to be the correct people.
Start with the premise that Trump is fascist, confirm your biases as everything he does to be fascist and invalid, make no concession to the vailidity of the law, and construct a house of cards built on premises of nonsense. Did you notice that the left is waging an all-out war on human cognition? It's not that complicated. The left defies the rule of law, and expects the response to its lawlessness to be perfect behavior from the right.
Adverse conditions in Latin America incentivized northward migration, but it was ultimately a policy choice to allow them into the country. Unless those adverse conditions changed drastically in the last two years, it does not follow that illegal border crossings declined so much by coincidence right when the Biden administration changed its asylum policies, followed directly by the transition to the second Trump administration. Everything you are saying is essentially rationalizing, equivocating, and obfuscating that obvious, observable distinction in enforcement policies between the administrations, just for you to conclude that selectively enforcing border policies is fine anyway.
Your assertions ["sanctuary cities ... refuse to allow ... their cities to become less safe"] are demonstrably and empirically false.
To examine the dynamic relationship between immigration enforcement, community trust, and public safety, we can use a Python script to model two competing sociological theories.
The Deterrence Model (User's Logic): This assumes that local enforcement reduces the undocumented population, thereby reducing total crime and freeing up police resources.
The Community Trust Model (Sanctuary Logic): This assumes that local enforcement creates a "chilling effect," reducing crime reporting and community cooperation, which makes it harder for police to solve serious crimes.
To accurately model the dynamic you described—where active enforcement reduces the population of a specific group, thereby reducing the crimes associated with them and freeing up police resources—we need a simulation that tracks populations and crime rates over discrete time steps.
This script compares two scenarios: City A (Active Enforcement) and City B (Sanctuary/Passive). It explicitly uses population counts as operands for crime calculations and shows how resources are reallocated over time.
code Python
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# 1. DEFINE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES AND INITIAL CONSTANTS
time_steps = 20 # Months or Quarters
initial_pop_illegal_aliens = 1000
initial_pop_other_democrats = 5000
total_police_resources = 1000 # Total man-hours/units available
# Crime rates (Crimes per person per time step)
crime_rate_illegal_aliens = 0.03 # Includes crimes committed by and against
crime_rate_others = 0.02
# Enforcement Impact
# The "Deterrence Factor" represents how many people leave/don't enter per unit of enforcement
enforcement_effectiveness = 0.05
resource_cost_per_arrest_report = 0.5
def run_simulation(active_enforcement=False):
# Initialize dynamic populations
pop_illegal = initial_pop_illegal_aliens
pop_others = initial_pop_other_democrats
history = []
for t in range(time_steps):
# Calculate crimes based on current population operands
The script demonstrates the logic of the "City A" scenario through the following mathematical relationships:
Population as a Crime Multiplier:
By defining crimes_illegal = pop_illegal * crime_rate, the total crime in the city is directly tied to the number of illegal aliens present. As the population is reduced via enforcement, the absolute number of crimes involving that group drops toward zero.
Resource Liberation:
The Resources_For_Others variable shows a dual-phase shift.
Initially: Active enforcement requires a heavy investment of resources to "detect and report."
Over Time: As the population of illegal aliens decreases (the Deterrence Effect), the total effort required to police them also decreases. This allows the police resources to return to—and eventually exceed—the levels seen in a sanctuary city, specifically for the purpose of addressing crimes committed by the rest of the population ("Other Democrats").
The Comparison Table:
The output table shows the "Step 0" (Before Policy) and "Step 19" (After Sustained Policy). It highlights the reduction in Total_Crime and the subsequent increase in Resources_For_Others once the population has been successfully reduced.
The script simulates these dynamics and provides a comparison of their predicted outcomes.
One sided biased opinion piece. 77 MILLION CITIZENS VOTED TO REMOVE EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL. Now the fraud of our taxpayer money is more of a reason to deport even legal migrants committing fraud against the voters.
You are NOT one of millions that believe in following the laws of this nation.
If they truly voted to remove every single illegal (they did not), then why are you wasting resources shooting white women to death in states with low numbers of illegal immigrants, rather than focusing on border states like Texas with high numbers of illegal immigrants working in agriculture?
Because he is low human capital, intellectually dishonest, and driven by anger and petty jealousies rather than a productive, value-creating worldview.
That creature is probably a woman and a Hispanic given its name. Which shows that these tendencies go beyond gender and a lot of Hispanics are white supremacists now.
And? Where does this nonsense deal with what I said? Why put ICE in Minneapolis, where they a) aren't wanted, and b) there are few illegals, rather than focus on Texas where they a) are wanted, and b) there are lots of illegals?
They were not wasting resources on shooting white women who were going along with their daily life. Renee Good wilfully endangered an ICE officer who was working in a semi-seditious city. There are no sanctuary cities in Texas.
Ms. Good was not shot by ICE officers BECAUSE she was a "white women" nor because of the "numbers of illegal immigrants" in that place. Rather, Ms. Good was shot because she went with her vehicle to street where ICE operations were occurring and she litterally parked that vehicle illegally crosswise in the street to obstruct ICE vehicles, then when ICE officers engaged with her illegal-operation, she recklessly drove the vehical directly towards the ICE officer, who reacted only by drawing and pointing his gun directly at Ms. Good who instead of just stopping, drove her vehical forward and then STRUCK the ICE officer body with the Vehicle, prompting the ICE officer to fire the weapon three times to try to stop the vehicular battery that Ms. Good was committing. Ms. Good did these things to increase the population and polical power of Somoli Muslims in that place. When we apply the Sharia Law of the Somoli Muslims to the conduct of Ms. Good, we find that 1) Ms. Good and her Husband/Wife were engaged in Zinna, punishable by being stoned to death and/or thrown off of a high building or mountain; 2) Ms. Good was obstructing a highway for purposes of mischief, which is punishable under Holy Quran 5:33 by "behead of slaughter"; and 3) Ms. Good was not paying Jizya Tax, nor did she deliver up any of her three children to the Mosque pursuant to the islamic Blood Tax ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme ), and thus Ms Good and her whole family was liable to enslaved and sold pursuant to holy Sharia law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
Good for Renee Good. But I strongly suspect no ICE activity was in progress, based on Noem’s comments and how long Good was left alone in the middle of the street. But since the administration will do all it can to prevent any investigation, we’ll probably never know.
Ms. Good was not shot by ICE officers BECAUSE she was a "white women" nor because of the "numbers of illegal immigrants" in that place. Rather, Ms. Good was shot because she went with her vehicle to street where ICE operations were occurring and she litterally parked that vehicle illegally crosswise in the street to obstruct ICE vehicles, then when ICE officers engaged with her illegal-operation, she recklessly drove the vehical directly towards the ICE officer, who reacted only by drawing and pointing his gun directly at Ms. Good who instead of just stopping, drove her vehical forward and then STRUCK the ICE officer body with the Vehicle, prompting the ICE officer to fire the weapon three times to try to stop the vehicular battery that Ms. Good was committing. Ms. Good did these things to increase the population and polical power of Somoli Muslims in that place. When we apply the Sharia Law of the Somoli Muslims to the conduct of Ms. Good, we find that 1) Ms. Good and her Husband/Wife were engaged in Zinna, punishable by being stoned to death and/or thrown off of a high building or mountain; 2) Ms. Good was obstructing a highway for purposes of mischief, which is punishable under Holy Quran 5:33 by "behead of slaughter"; and 3) Ms. Good was not paying Jizya Tax, nor did she deliver up any of her three children to the Mosque pursuant to the islamic Blood Tax ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme ), and thus Ms Good and her whole family was liable to enslaved and sold pursuant to holy Sharia law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
Did 77 million also vote to pardon the thousands of insurrectionists who definitely violated countless federal laws and assaulted hundreds of officers? Maybe, maybe not. But feeling morally superior with this backdrop would be amusing if the consequences weren’t appallingly immoral.
The lies and hysteria began almost immediately— Trump declaring the ICE agent was in the hospital, Vance declaring it was self-defense, Noem declaring ICE has complete immunity and media pretending the videos didn’t show what they obviously did show.
But we have a significant segment of the country primed for this justification of violence and glorification of vigilante justice. Punishment for “not following orders” and men dressed in riot gear with faces masked has been normalized. Does no one remember the draconian, irrational rules during covid and the public shaming, violence (in some cases) and complete intolerance for disagreement?
It’s the same playbook but now directed at anyone who dares question the methods employed to enforce immigration laws without losing their mind and shooting someone.
Do not obstruct LEOs. Protest peacefully and lawfully. That's literally all you have to do to prevent future incidents like this one. Why can't you manage that? You seem to want death, insurrection, and civil war. It is awful to watch leftists spinning out of control like this. Seek and teach temperance.
Most people are protesting legally. However Trump, as never before in our lifetimes, has created dozens of reasons for people to resist authority. What you decry is the inevitable outcome of Trump and MAGA words and actions. They have stated their goals, and they are illegal. Their unstated goals are worse. I don't endorse illegal acts. But it's the Right that is indicating only raw power, and not law is what matters.
No. Dems do not care about law. We spent recent years watching leftists openly encouraging rioting and disorder and open borders, rejoicing shamelessly over political assassinations, making up lies to pursue impeachment, and salivating for more of all the above. Please. Just stop. TDS is a terrible disease. Most MAGA voters would have been considered centrists or moderately conservative 10 years ago. Many MAGA voters used to be liberals but were alienated as the left veered into revolutionary Marxism. Left wing extremism is out of control. Due to ideological capture and indoctrination people on the left can not even see it any more, it is just the air you breathe. From the outside, your side's platform looks bonkers.
Rubbish. These are not the same protests as occupy wall street or even George Floyd. These protestors are average people not leftists or marxists. This isn't about any agenda other than Trumps lawlessness and subversion of democracy.
now, THAT is illegal. Anyone looking into that story sees that MN is corrupt as hell and has devolved into red-green lawlessness and treachery. Absolute horror show stuff, socially and politically.
Please try to open your eyes to the reality that sane, non-leftist people are looking on gobsmacked at the scale of corruption and theft Dems accommodate.
And now, we just recently heard several MN leaders calling out for insurrectionist activity!
The Dems who rule MN spent the past decade presiding over billions in obvious, glaring tax fraud perpetrated largely (more than 80% of perpetrators) by one immigrant community, whose members are quite clearly disposed to being ungrateful, anti-American criminals.
I sure hope you agree that many thousands of immigrants colluding to steal billions from their fellow citizens is anti-American treachery. Do you agree?
Of course ICE should prioritize removing illegal aliens from thieving immigrant communities and jurisdictions. That is called protecting Americans. Give your head a shake for thinking otherwise. This is not rocket science.
Perhaps bc the media is on your side, you have become incapable of seeing what non-indoctrinated, sane people see.
This is a great example of why Dems have been bleeding voters, and why Trump won the last election. Millions of you are now severely detached from reality.
If Dems want to win back the electorate, Islamo-leftism ain't it. Truly.
I’m against all lawlessness. I am somewhere in the middle. As are most people appalled by Trump and his politics. Trump will never ever lead to a better politics. Nor will his administration. Although we are not talking about this now, How about his demand for the delivery of Greenland? How much more evidence do you need that he is willing and able to burn down everything. He is not on your side. I get the left isn’t for everyone. But we must at least agree to somebody who has basic respect for decency and humanity.
I still come back to this being a race issue—white privilege, a term I normally hate, applies. All the other commentary falls from this. You’ve obstructed and taunted and are now being approached by armed law enforcement. If you are a POC (another term I hate but works here) you know what to do. Freeze and hands on the dashboard. It’s only from the sense of entitlement that make you think you can drive away with an armed officer anywhere near your path. Regardless of how you feel about the overall ICE actions or protesters what she did was terminally dumb.
It's entitlement to think you can peacefully drive away from lCE thugs without being shot?!? Do you think it's an "entitlement" to want to live in a non-Fascist country?
It's entitlement to think you can drive through a group of law enforcement officers mobilizing in the street and then put your vehicle across their path and suffer no consequences. The officer who demanded she get out of the car (not the one who shot her) was well within his authority. Instead, she tried to drive away, moving toward another officer standing in front of the vehicle. Not a very good move. Not a move punishable by death, but not a good move.
Obama gave Tom Homan top honours and a medal in 2015 for the same work. Now Dems call Homan and his dept evil cuz he now has a boss they hate. Terrible hypocrisy. Radicals cycling through positions trying to take down Trump are neurotic and destructive.
People protested ICE back in the day under Obama; yes, it was harder to get people to protest them because it was a Dem President, and Dems are perceived as "better" on immigration. However, the people who protested ICE under Obama did not get shot in the head, so he had that going for him.
Obstruction, threats, incitement, and violence are not protest. Anti-ICE criminality is obviously a problem. This is just your new anti-racism hysteria. Dem strategy of open borders insanity as a base-building method is treachery. Left wing extremist activity and systemic indoctrination into anti-western ideologies have both skyrocketed since 2015. You all got wayyyy too radical for the majority to stomach.
Multiple polls show the majority of people think that Renee Good was an unjustified shooting - and 70-80+% of the population have seen the video! - but just repeat your talking points I guess.
If it is ruled an unjustified shooting, so be it. I understand and accept arguments from both sides on that. I feel badly for both the officer and Renée's loved ones. It was a terrible incident that she initiated by making bad decisions. Maybe he made bad decisions, too. I am not in law enforcement and so I don't try to make that judgement.
My points are still 100% valid.
Try to restrain yourself and your loved ones from obstructing and resisting arrest. Stay safe and protest peacefully.
LOL, you're not in law enforcement so you don't know when a masked thug commits murder and then runs away?!? If you're so ignorant on what proper law enforcement protocols are, why are you commenting?
It is interesting that there is so much emphasis on being manly and masculine, because I consider MAGA to be perhaps the least manly movement in modern history, up to and including movements that primarily consist of and are led by women. The thin-skinned bellicosity that Trump and his supporters display doesn't remind me of a real man, it reminds me of a childish bully. They think they are the Man With No Name, but they are actually Yosemite Sam. Yosemite Sam is not masculine or manly, no matter how often he threatens to shoot people.
Maybe the reason MAGA emphasizes masculinity is that left-wing activism is often very female coded, and they see "man" as the opposite of "woman." But the real opposite of man isn't "woman," it's "boy." Trump and his followers do not act like men, they act like spoiled little boys who have not learned to control their violent emotions.
Rhetorical trends in some conservative spaces where policy disagreement is met with accusations of effeminacy, disloyalty, or bad faith rather than substantive engagement. This represents a departure from conservative intellectual traditions that valued prudential reasoning, cost-benefit analysis, and constitutional constraints on executive power.
I think Ben Shapiro, as a MAGA type, still relatively adheres to "conservative intellectual traditions," although sometimes his animosity toward transgender people causes him to fall short of being sufficiently rigorous and honest when discussing those issues.
Yep, and Shapiro will be marginalized/cast out of the Right-wing MAGA world pretty soon as well. As Hanania points out, the arc of the Right/GOP/MAGA leans towards Groyperism.
You may see this as an insult, but you strike me as someone for whom racism is not a deal-breaker. I am almost the same way. For the first three years of Trump 1.0, I could make a case for why people voted for him. And then COVID happened, or as I call it, Trump Virus. No one in his right mind could vote for Trump in 2016, and no one in his right mind could vote for him after 2020, yet they did. Because they didn't vote Trump to lower the price of eggs, they voted for him to beat up darkies and make liberals cry. Not that there aren't some things that a hypothetical Republican wouldn't do better than a Democrat, but this is Trump. And unlike you, I never voted for him, because I'm Las Vegas, and he's Atlantic City, and I have watched this guy be an obnoxious failure for decades.
Back in the 90s Somalis were deliberately placed in the most Scandinavian state of the union-Minnesota by the bipartisan system. In Europe they've been admitted in their 100s of thousands and cost their countries of residence from 500k to million over their lifespan.
A population explosion has taken place in Somalia itself through remittances and free grain from Putin etc.
But that's really great for the grand plan that unites the US, the EU, British commonwealth and even Putin himself...the eradication of whiteness.
The white woman problem is real regardless of whether it was the woman who tried to run over an ICE agent after she repeatedly blocked agents who were continuing to arrest criminal illegal aliens or Nancy Pelosi who admitted she was responsible for the riot initiated by FBI agents and other government assets. While the Jan 6 Committee illegally destroyed much of the evidence, there are enough snippets available to see that most of the crowd were welcomed in with open doors by Capitol Police as FBI agitators donned MAGA hats inside the Capitol before the doors were opened and finally the identity of the mysterious bomber has been revealed as a loyal Democrat after the FBI sat on the evidence for 4 years until the new FBI leadership came in. The white woman who lost the election in 2016 paid millions to fabricate the "Russian collusion" story at a cost of millions while her husband complained to his mistresses that same wife woman ate a lot more pussy than he ever did.
The obvious answer is to have white women wear the rags on their heads like those obedient Somali women do as they send billions of taxpayer dollars to their homeland and ICE will no longer be needed.
Excellent post, although I'm unconvinced by the last sentence. I would change: "Whoever is coming next will be, by necessity, smarter than Trump" to "Whoever is coming next will *likely* be, by *default*, smarter than Trump"
And I'm not trying to be funny/petty! I think it is both unnecessary for the successor to be smart (as pathos is the defining feature of the movement) AND that the successor will probably be smarter given the baseline. In a perverse way, we were lucky Trump is such a shallow thinker. He's not as dangerous as a calculating dictator like Putin or Assad would have been in the same scenario.
Hanania asks why Minneapolis makes no sense as immigration enforcement. It doesn't—over 90% of Somalis in Minnesota are citizens. But it makes perfect sense as something else.
The Border Patrol was founded in 1924 by Klansmen. The Klan's tools were always spectacle violence and terror deployed against noncompliance. The target was never just Black Americans—it was anyone who broke racial solidarity. "Race traitors."
Look at the comments here. The "AWFL" rhetoric isn't random misogyny—it's that same framework. White women supporting immigrants are race traitors in the alt-right playbook. Some commenters are saying it explicitly.
Renee Good wasn't killed because she was blocking an arrest. She was killed because she was a white woman holding a camera in solidarity with her immigrant neighbors. The spectacle is the point. The terror is the policy.
To "C.C. Harvey" and others defending this: the agent who shot her said "fucking bitch" over her body, then fled the scene. That's not protocol. That's not self-defense. That's exactly what the Klan did—and said—100 years ago.
The purpose of ICE is what it does. It doesn't stop Somali fraud; it doesn't stop employers from hiring illegals; it doesn't make the country even 1% whiter. It creates violence in the streets for the Schadenfreude of MAGA. That is its purpose.
The right-wing believes that it is the left which is throwing a temper tantrum in response to ICE. But the ICE deployment is, itself, a temper tantrum. As you note, a combination of e-verify, welfare reform, and high-tech border patrol would result in millions of cheaper self-deportations.
But MAGA doesn't want that. They aren't mad at Trump for ignoring those *logical* policies, because being anti-immigrant is just an excuse to slam people on the ground and shoot protestors in the face. That's the real goal.
Hating immigrants is just a justification for a wider all-inclusive underlying sadism directed at "elites" and "public school teachers" and "lesbians" and "rich women." It's circular reasoning: they hate immigrants because immigrants vote Democrat; they hate Democrats because they let in the immigrants. The rationality of a 5 year old biting and kicking at his mom, but with the adult danger of a loaded gun.
I’m convinced that 90% of MAGA motivation is ‘Becky didn’t go to the prom with men and now that bitch in HR says I can’t talk about the intern’s tits anymore.’ It really is just that stupid
I think you are right. And I think that several MAGA leaders (e.g. Miller and Vance) were bullied as kids and are now living their revenge fantasies the cool kids who mocked and teased them.
Yep. Miller was loathed by his classmates in high school and college — his classmates have said so — because he was such a jerk to everyone.
I rarely read him and don’t subscribe.
If immigrants voted majority Republican, Democrats would have never let them in.
Vietnamese and Cubans voted for Republican's pretty much the moment they got here and no prominent Democrat ever campaigned on restricting Vietnamese or Cuban refugees. At worst, there were arguments of normal relations with Cuba, but nothing about ending one dry foot rules.
Both parties have always courted different groups of immigrants. That is how a two party system works.
"As you note, a combination of e-verify, welfare reform, and high-tech border patrol would result in millions of cheaper self-deportations" - when people bring up constructive ideas like this it makes me shake my head at the Trump presidency that could have been.
Because Trump isn't married to certain typical Republican ideas and conceits, he has more freedom and flexibility in his policies. He also given perhaps 10 times the slack of other politicians by voters. His failures are shrugged off by voters, conservative media is full-on devoted to him as if they were his state media, and any bullshit utterance of his is believed by his side 100%.
Can you imagine if he actually had good intentions? Can you imagine what he could have accomplished? Can you imagine how generations of talented politicians would have longed for the situation he has?
But he's too much of a self-absorbed immoral low-IQ moron. So instead we get Infantry deployed in Minnesota and the Invasion of Greenland!
It's such a shame. He could have gone down in history as the greatest president of the 21st century - all he had to do was not be a moron! The bar for him is that low!
That is certainly the intended appeal, and it might work for core MAGA but not all Republicans and moderates. According to polls, most Americans find ICE to be "too forceful", and have soured on it despite wanting deportations.
Most Americans didn’t want mass deportations. They wanted to deport the immigrants who were actual criminals and they wanted to dramatically reduce the influx of new immigrants.
Half of the populace obtain most of the political information from MSM, and with MSM wall-to-wall against deportations... The other two points are economical and political usefulness. Lots see them as politically useful, as "current" or future blocks of D voters. Beyond that, there is economical usefulness of a disciplined, low wage workforce.
The economic uselessness of (1) the hugely negative tax balance (using up more welfare than paying taxes and other dues, even if one removes the school costs) and (2) taking away jobs from the low-productivity natural born citizens is swept under the carpet.
This doesn't reflect the evidence. It's populist motivated reasoning.
There is evidence for the prosecution and there is evidence for the defense. This is what is called the adversarial process. All you have to do is state the contrary evidence and let the readers decide.
Years ago my libertarian mentor argued that forcing races together via mass immigration often creates friction and this is what we see. To be clear, I’m not arguing it’s remotely as bad as many conservatives claim (i.e., we do not see Balkanization), but the fact that it’s an important political issue across the West proves his point well enough. Woke folks react to this racial friction by declaring that racism is “immoral” and commit to endless social engineering and moral browbeating to (finally!) bring it to an end. In this regard they are like conservatives who want to stamp out porn.
Hanania says he’s fine with “personal” racism but, oddly, also argues, like many woke folks, that racism is stupid because it’s based on “superficial” physical traits; yet, he will also defend women who choose mates based on “superficial” traits like height, so his argument is plainly contradictory. He probably doesnt see the contradiction because he likely thinks personal choices are different from banning immigrants; therefore, elites need to enforce their preferences as a form of paternalism in the name of immigrant rights. However, this ignores the fundamental question: Who owns the streets/roads?
Although Hanania is libertarian adjacent, he tends to think in collectivist terms when it comes to what national policies should be pursued under statism. Therefore, the question of who owns the streets is neither here nor there for him, as “liberal” values/anti-racism supersede such concerns when you are not fully libertarian. This opens the door to imposing one’s own policy preferences in the name of “liberalism” without regard for property rights. In this sense, he is like liberals who talk about a “right” to healthcare, state-enforced equal opportunity, etc. without seeking to square it with a coherent view of liberty overall.
Hanania will no doubt argue that of course you can control who enters your home/yard (in order to exercise your superficial and stupid personal racism), but doesn’t explain why property rights don’t include the streets/roads. Being a statist (even a neoliberal one) means you can bypass such concerns to impose your own preferences while morally browbeating others.
This is no defense of ICE but the anti-immigration cause is not without merit within a libertarian framework.
Was your mentor Hans-Hermann Hoppe? He seems to be one of the few libertarian thinkers who isn't so engulfed by a liberal framework that he actually accepts a communitarian conception of people who are not interchangeable, atomistic entities unshaped by their own societies.
He was instrumental along with Marie rothbard writing a essay right before he died called Nations by consent, which led to me abandoning libertarianism all together eventually
I don't think I know all the relevant facts, but Richard always seems to think he knows, and I don't know how he would know. What seems clear is that another Democratically-run city thinks they should flout the law. They are not protesting the ICE means of arrest, which might have some validity. They are protesting every single premise and act of ICE. The Dems create these problems, provide sanctuary for illegals, explicitly denounce the rule of law, support protestors who interfere with the rule of law, side with those who interfere with the law, and cultivate an atmosphere that is hostile to the rule of law, and will inspire more leftist crazies to commit violence and assassination in the name of "values" as they say. The left manipulates all reality, including language to undermine the law. If the left were silent and lawful there would be nothing to see.
imagine supporting trump and still appealing to the rule of law
Where was support for Trump expressed? craig even said: "They are not protesting the ICE means of arrest, *which might have some validity*." (emphasis mine)
Whenever leftists are criticized for their failure to adhere to rule-of-law, the response is always the same: "What about orange man?"
This is why I believe Richard's statement from the OP: "modern liberals adhere closer to the rule of law and democratic norms of fairness than perhaps any other group of elites in human history" is a wild exaggeration. If Richard's statement were true, you would not see whataboutist rhetoric from individuals like alfinpogform. Yet it's everywhere on the left.
Many on the left seem to believe it is fine to ignore rule-of-law as long as Trump is worse. Not only is this approach immoral, it's also a great way to lose the voters that you need to win.
two can play the "I'm stupid" game
Sort of like pardoning over a thousand violent rioters?
I hope you know that no violent protestors should ever be permitted. Stay on topic.
I do know that—but it appears you're too intellectually limited to realize your entire diatribe applies to Trump and the GOP, who proactively PARDONED the people exhibiting the very type of behavior you denounce. Not a single Dem went that far lmaooooo
As if a leftist rioter would ever do hard time. Those rascals are "fiery but mostly peaceful" remember?
Also there's this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/
Over 300 people were prosecuted for crimes committed during the 2020 protests. More than 120 were convicted and three quarters of them were sentenced to hard time.
None were pardoned.
If you're so concerned about the law, you should better inform yourself about what the law actually is.
Because Democrats and liberals do not "explicitly denounce the rule of law". What we don't go for is breaking the law and violating people's rights on the premise of enforcing the law. And that's exactly what the Trump administration is doing.
The influx of immigrants over the last several years is not because we had an "open border" policy, a standard lie repeated ad infinitum by an intellectually bankrupt American right and many of their "libertarian" defenders. It is due to increasingly adverse conditions in Latin America (to which, incidentally, the Trump Administration is presently contributing) causing an influx of northward migrants.
This means any President who feels compelled to follow the law—which, ironically enough, included Trump 1.0, who was clamoring for new laws before COVID—understands that our asylum laws compelled us to provide hearings for those who sought asylum. Our courts had been emphatically clear on that point over the years.
Of course, that simply requires the laws to be changed, which is exactly what Congress attempted to do in 2024, only to have Trump, upon wrapping up the Republican nomination, threaten Senators into killing a Republican negotiated, conservative's wet-dream of an immigration bill so that he would still have an issue to run on. And he openly admitted it.
Trump also claimed that we didn't need new laws to enforce the border, because he shut down the border with the existing laws. The second part was a misleading truth—he was able to shut down the border only through Title 42 because of COVID. The first part was a lie unless you reject the premise that you actually need to follow the law, and your party in Congress refuses to insist that you do—which is exactly what has happened as Trump is utterly ignoring our asylum laws, while credulous people give him credit for stopping the migrant flow.
Furthermore, sanctuary cities exist for one reason: because using local police to remove immigrants undermines the effectiveness of the police. It discourages undocumented immigrants from going to the police and that makes it harder to combat crime. The job of the city police force is to keep the city safe, not to enforce immigration law.
Contrary to what many seem to believe, sanctuary cities don't protect illegal immigrants from deportation—they simply refuse to allow their police forces to be exploited and their cities to become less safe because of the Federal government's failure to police its border. These aren't anti-law enforcement policies; they are pro law enforcement policies that understand and respect the concepts of jurisdiction and responsibility.
Of course, you could argue that these cities could solve the problem by working with the Feds to keep illegal immigrants out of their cities in the first place, and some go that route. But that hasn't make those cities free of illegal immigrants either, so it's entirely reasonable for the police to say that they've got enough of their own problems dealing with people who commit serious crimes (which doesn't include the mere fact of being in the country illegally, which is actually not even a crime but a civil infraction so long as you entered legally).
In fact, most people would likely agree that it is far more reasonable to expect Congress to get their act together and fix the border. And to that end, the Democrats have tried and failed to advance border legislation *three times* in the last 15 years, only for Republicans to torpedo their efforts for entirely political reasons every single time.
So the bottom line is that Richard is correct—it's actually Democrats and liberals in general who have far more respect for law and order. We understand that the existence of a law does not guarantee the ability to enforce it. It doesn't waive other laws and rights aside in the interest of enforcing the law in question, and that the solution to an unenforceable or difficult to enforce law is to change the law, not flout it.
The Republicans, on the other hand, and those who laughably call themselves "conservatives" these days, obsess over their already shallow and incomplete understanding of border law and its nuances, insisting that no other law or right of the people should stand in the way of them enforcing this law. And accordingly they care nothing about limiting the cruelty visited upon those legitimately guilty of violating the law, or the use of excessive force against people who they perceive as being in the way.
And this isn't even addressing the obvious fact that what's going on in Minnesota now has nothing to do with immigration and is a quite transparent attempt to establish an executive police force answerable ultimately to Trump.
To selectively enforce the law is to prioritize according to your values. And liberals value life, happiness, and prosperity for the American people. MAGA, on the other hand, along with much of the right these days, values paranoid nationalism masquerading as security—but only for those they consider to be the correct people.
Start with the premise that Trump is fascist, confirm your biases as everything he does to be fascist and invalid, make no concession to the vailidity of the law, and construct a house of cards built on premises of nonsense. Did you notice that the left is waging an all-out war on human cognition? It's not that complicated. The left defies the rule of law, and expects the response to its lawlessness to be perfect behavior from the right.
Adverse conditions in Latin America incentivized northward migration, but it was ultimately a policy choice to allow them into the country. Unless those adverse conditions changed drastically in the last two years, it does not follow that illegal border crossings declined so much by coincidence right when the Biden administration changed its asylum policies, followed directly by the transition to the second Trump administration. Everything you are saying is essentially rationalizing, equivocating, and obfuscating that obvious, observable distinction in enforcement policies between the administrations, just for you to conclude that selectively enforcing border policies is fine anyway.
Your assertions ["sanctuary cities ... refuse to allow ... their cities to become less safe"] are demonstrably and empirically false.
To examine the dynamic relationship between immigration enforcement, community trust, and public safety, we can use a Python script to model two competing sociological theories.
The Deterrence Model (User's Logic): This assumes that local enforcement reduces the undocumented population, thereby reducing total crime and freeing up police resources.
The Community Trust Model (Sanctuary Logic): This assumes that local enforcement creates a "chilling effect," reducing crime reporting and community cooperation, which makes it harder for police to solve serious crimes.
To accurately model the dynamic you described—where active enforcement reduces the population of a specific group, thereby reducing the crimes associated with them and freeing up police resources—we need a simulation that tracks populations and crime rates over discrete time steps.
This script compares two scenarios: City A (Active Enforcement) and City B (Sanctuary/Passive). It explicitly uses population counts as operands for crime calculations and shows how resources are reallocated over time.
code Python
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# 1. DEFINE DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES AND INITIAL CONSTANTS
time_steps = 20 # Months or Quarters
initial_pop_illegal_aliens = 1000
initial_pop_other_democrats = 5000
total_police_resources = 1000 # Total man-hours/units available
# Crime rates (Crimes per person per time step)
crime_rate_illegal_aliens = 0.03 # Includes crimes committed by and against
crime_rate_others = 0.02
# Enforcement Impact
# The "Deterrence Factor" represents how many people leave/don't enter per unit of enforcement
enforcement_effectiveness = 0.05
resource_cost_per_arrest_report = 0.5
def run_simulation(active_enforcement=False):
# Initialize dynamic populations
pop_illegal = initial_pop_illegal_aliens
pop_others = initial_pop_other_democrats
history = []
for t in range(time_steps):
# Calculate crimes based on current population operands
crimes_illegal = pop_illegal * crime_rate_illegal_aliens
crimes_others = pop_others * crime_rate_others
total_crimes = crimes_illegal + crimes_others
# Calculate Resource Allocation
# In Active Enforcement, resources are spent on detection and removal
if active_enforcement:
resources_spent_on_enforcement = pop_illegal * 0.2 # Effort to track/report
# The population decreases because of the enforcement
reduction = pop_illegal * enforcement_effectiveness
pop_illegal -= reduction
else:
resources_spent_on_enforcement = 0
# Population remains stable or grows slightly
pop_illegal += 5 # Natural migration without enforcement
# Resources remaining for dealing with crimes by "Other Democrats"
resources_available_for_others = total_police_resources - resources_spent_on_enforcement
history.append({
'Step': t,
'Pop_Illegal': round(pop_illegal),
'Pop_Others': pop_others,
'Crimes_Illegal_Related': round(crimes_illegal, 2),
'Crimes_Others': round(crimes_others, 2),
'Total_Crime': round(total_crimes, 2),
'Resources_For_Others': round(resources_available_for_others, 2)
})
return pd.DataFrame(history)
# 2. EXECUTE THE DYNAMICS
df_active = run_simulation(active_enforcement=True)
df_sanctuary = run_simulation(active_enforcement=False)
# 3. OUTPUT COMPARISON TABLE (Select snapshots)
print("--- COMPARISON TABLE: STEP 0 vs STEP 19 (ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT) ---")
comparison_table = df_active.iloc[[0, 19], :]
print(comparison_table.to_string(index=False))
# 4. VISUALIZATION
plt.figure(figsize=(12, 5))
# Graph 1: Population and Crime Reduction Dynamic
plt.subplot(1, 2, 1)
plt.plot(df_active['Step'], df_active['Pop_Illegal'], color='red', label='Illegal Alien Population')
plt.plot(df_active['Step'], df_active['Total_Crime'], color='black', linestyle='--', label='Total City Crime')
plt.title('City A: Effect of Detection & Removal')
plt.xlabel('Time Steps')
plt.ylabel('Count')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
# Graph 2: Resource Reallocation (The "Resource Curve")
plt.subplot(1, 2, 2)
plt.plot(df_active['Step'], df_active['Resources_For_Others'], color='green', label='Police Resources for Others')
plt.plot(df_sanctuary['Step'], df_sanctuary['Resources_For_Others'], color='blue', label='Sanctuary Resource Levels')
plt.title('Resources Available for Other Crimes')
plt.xlabel('Time Steps')
plt.ylabel('Available Resource Units')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()
Explanation of the Proved Dynamics
The script demonstrates the logic of the "City A" scenario through the following mathematical relationships:
Population as a Crime Multiplier:
By defining crimes_illegal = pop_illegal * crime_rate, the total crime in the city is directly tied to the number of illegal aliens present. As the population is reduced via enforcement, the absolute number of crimes involving that group drops toward zero.
Resource Liberation:
The Resources_For_Others variable shows a dual-phase shift.
Initially: Active enforcement requires a heavy investment of resources to "detect and report."
Over Time: As the population of illegal aliens decreases (the Deterrence Effect), the total effort required to police them also decreases. This allows the police resources to return to—and eventually exceed—the levels seen in a sanctuary city, specifically for the purpose of addressing crimes committed by the rest of the population ("Other Democrats").
The Comparison Table:
The output table shows the "Step 0" (Before Policy) and "Step 19" (After Sustained Policy). It highlights the reduction in Total_Crime and the subsequent increase in Resources_For_Others once the population has been successfully reduced.
The script simulates these dynamics and provides a comparison of their predicted outcomes.
One sided biased opinion piece. 77 MILLION CITIZENS VOTED TO REMOVE EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL. Now the fraud of our taxpayer money is more of a reason to deport even legal migrants committing fraud against the voters.
You are NOT one of millions that believe in following the laws of this nation.
If they truly voted to remove every single illegal (they did not), then why are you wasting resources shooting white women to death in states with low numbers of illegal immigrants, rather than focusing on border states like Texas with high numbers of illegal immigrants working in agriculture?
Because he is low human capital, intellectually dishonest, and driven by anger and petty jealousies rather than a productive, value-creating worldview.
That creature is probably a woman and a Hispanic given its name. Which shows that these tendencies go beyond gender and a lot of Hispanics are white supremacists now.
Right, because everyone uses their real name on Substack
lollll
Renee Good's explicit purpose was to obstruct lawful ICE activity. Besides, her lesbian partner egged her on as in "drive, baby, drive".
And? Where does this nonsense deal with what I said? Why put ICE in Minneapolis, where they a) aren't wanted, and b) there are few illegals, rather than focus on Texas where they a) are wanted, and b) there are lots of illegals?
They were not wasting resources on shooting white women who were going along with their daily life. Renee Good wilfully endangered an ICE officer who was working in a semi-seditious city. There are no sanctuary cities in Texas.
Not according to the video, and the officer’s disregard for Justice and DHS policy. You are a sick sadistic freak.
Ms. Good was not shot by ICE officers BECAUSE she was a "white women" nor because of the "numbers of illegal immigrants" in that place. Rather, Ms. Good was shot because she went with her vehicle to street where ICE operations were occurring and she litterally parked that vehicle illegally crosswise in the street to obstruct ICE vehicles, then when ICE officers engaged with her illegal-operation, she recklessly drove the vehical directly towards the ICE officer, who reacted only by drawing and pointing his gun directly at Ms. Good who instead of just stopping, drove her vehical forward and then STRUCK the ICE officer body with the Vehicle, prompting the ICE officer to fire the weapon three times to try to stop the vehicular battery that Ms. Good was committing. Ms. Good did these things to increase the population and polical power of Somoli Muslims in that place. When we apply the Sharia Law of the Somoli Muslims to the conduct of Ms. Good, we find that 1) Ms. Good and her Husband/Wife were engaged in Zinna, punishable by being stoned to death and/or thrown off of a high building or mountain; 2) Ms. Good was obstructing a highway for purposes of mischief, which is punishable under Holy Quran 5:33 by "behead of slaughter"; and 3) Ms. Good was not paying Jizya Tax, nor did she deliver up any of her three children to the Mosque pursuant to the islamic Blood Tax ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme ), and thus Ms Good and her whole family was liable to enslaved and sold pursuant to holy Sharia law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
Sorry, there’s no market for your MAGA bullshit anymore. Too many people have seen the video.
Good for Renee Good. But I strongly suspect no ICE activity was in progress, based on Noem’s comments and how long Good was left alone in the middle of the street. But since the administration will do all it can to prevent any investigation, we’ll probably never know.
Ms. Good was not shot by ICE officers BECAUSE she was a "white women" nor because of the "numbers of illegal immigrants" in that place. Rather, Ms. Good was shot because she went with her vehicle to street where ICE operations were occurring and she litterally parked that vehicle illegally crosswise in the street to obstruct ICE vehicles, then when ICE officers engaged with her illegal-operation, she recklessly drove the vehical directly towards the ICE officer, who reacted only by drawing and pointing his gun directly at Ms. Good who instead of just stopping, drove her vehical forward and then STRUCK the ICE officer body with the Vehicle, prompting the ICE officer to fire the weapon three times to try to stop the vehicular battery that Ms. Good was committing. Ms. Good did these things to increase the population and polical power of Somoli Muslims in that place. When we apply the Sharia Law of the Somoli Muslims to the conduct of Ms. Good, we find that 1) Ms. Good and her Husband/Wife were engaged in Zinna, punishable by being stoned to death and/or thrown off of a high building or mountain; 2) Ms. Good was obstructing a highway for purposes of mischief, which is punishable under Holy Quran 5:33 by "behead of slaughter"; and 3) Ms. Good was not paying Jizya Tax, nor did she deliver up any of her three children to the Mosque pursuant to the islamic Blood Tax ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme ), and thus Ms Good and her whole family was liable to enslaved and sold pursuant to holy Sharia law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Palestine
"remove every single illegal" was not on the ballot in 2024 any more than "four years open borders" was on it in 2020. don't be a moron.
You obviously can’t read and didn’t read. 90% of the Somali-Americans in Minnesota are citizens.
ICE can’t deport legal migrants on their own, and they can’t determine which of them committed fraud without their going through the judicial system.
Did 77 million also vote to pardon the thousands of insurrectionists who definitely violated countless federal laws and assaulted hundreds of officers? Maybe, maybe not. But feeling morally superior with this backdrop would be amusing if the consequences weren’t appallingly immoral.
The lies and hysteria began almost immediately— Trump declaring the ICE agent was in the hospital, Vance declaring it was self-defense, Noem declaring ICE has complete immunity and media pretending the videos didn’t show what they obviously did show.
But we have a significant segment of the country primed for this justification of violence and glorification of vigilante justice. Punishment for “not following orders” and men dressed in riot gear with faces masked has been normalized. Does no one remember the draconian, irrational rules during covid and the public shaming, violence (in some cases) and complete intolerance for disagreement?
It’s the same playbook but now directed at anyone who dares question the methods employed to enforce immigration laws without losing their mind and shooting someone.
Do not obstruct LEOs. Protest peacefully and lawfully. That's literally all you have to do to prevent future incidents like this one. Why can't you manage that? You seem to want death, insurrection, and civil war. It is awful to watch leftists spinning out of control like this. Seek and teach temperance.
Most people are protesting legally. However Trump, as never before in our lifetimes, has created dozens of reasons for people to resist authority. What you decry is the inevitable outcome of Trump and MAGA words and actions. They have stated their goals, and they are illegal. Their unstated goals are worse. I don't endorse illegal acts. But it's the Right that is indicating only raw power, and not law is what matters.
No. Dems do not care about law. We spent recent years watching leftists openly encouraging rioting and disorder and open borders, rejoicing shamelessly over political assassinations, making up lies to pursue impeachment, and salivating for more of all the above. Please. Just stop. TDS is a terrible disease. Most MAGA voters would have been considered centrists or moderately conservative 10 years ago. Many MAGA voters used to be liberals but were alienated as the left veered into revolutionary Marxism. Left wing extremism is out of control. Due to ideological capture and indoctrination people on the left can not even see it any more, it is just the air you breathe. From the outside, your side's platform looks bonkers.
Rubbish. These are not the same protests as occupy wall street or even George Floyd. These protestors are average people not leftists or marxists. This isn't about any agenda other than Trumps lawlessness and subversion of democracy.
Removing illegal immigrants is not illegal.
Massive systemic fraud...
now, THAT is illegal. Anyone looking into that story sees that MN is corrupt as hell and has devolved into red-green lawlessness and treachery. Absolute horror show stuff, socially and politically.
Please try to open your eyes to the reality that sane, non-leftist people are looking on gobsmacked at the scale of corruption and theft Dems accommodate.
And now, we just recently heard several MN leaders calling out for insurrectionist activity!
The Dems who rule MN spent the past decade presiding over billions in obvious, glaring tax fraud perpetrated largely (more than 80% of perpetrators) by one immigrant community, whose members are quite clearly disposed to being ungrateful, anti-American criminals.
I sure hope you agree that many thousands of immigrants colluding to steal billions from their fellow citizens is anti-American treachery. Do you agree?
Of course ICE should prioritize removing illegal aliens from thieving immigrant communities and jurisdictions. That is called protecting Americans. Give your head a shake for thinking otherwise. This is not rocket science.
Perhaps bc the media is on your side, you have become incapable of seeing what non-indoctrinated, sane people see.
This is a great example of why Dems have been bleeding voters, and why Trump won the last election. Millions of you are now severely detached from reality.
If Dems want to win back the electorate, Islamo-leftism ain't it. Truly.
I’m against all lawlessness. I am somewhere in the middle. As are most people appalled by Trump and his politics. Trump will never ever lead to a better politics. Nor will his administration. Although we are not talking about this now, How about his demand for the delivery of Greenland? How much more evidence do you need that he is willing and able to burn down everything. He is not on your side. I get the left isn’t for everyone. But we must at least agree to somebody who has basic respect for decency and humanity.
ICE should be professional, less confrontational and focus on those taking advantage of safety nets which were never designed for immigrants.
Less raids on employers, and more demanding to get records on every illegal immigrant getting free health care in California.
Dream on
I still come back to this being a race issue—white privilege, a term I normally hate, applies. All the other commentary falls from this. You’ve obstructed and taunted and are now being approached by armed law enforcement. If you are a POC (another term I hate but works here) you know what to do. Freeze and hands on the dashboard. It’s only from the sense of entitlement that make you think you can drive away with an armed officer anywhere near your path. Regardless of how you feel about the overall ICE actions or protesters what she did was terminally dumb.
It's entitlement to think you can peacefully drive away from lCE thugs without being shot?!? Do you think it's an "entitlement" to want to live in a non-Fascist country?
It's entitlement to think you can drive through a group of law enforcement officers mobilizing in the street and then put your vehicle across their path and suffer no consequences. The officer who demanded she get out of the car (not the one who shot her) was well within his authority. Instead, she tried to drive away, moving toward another officer standing in front of the vehicle. Not a very good move. Not a move punishable by death, but not a good move.
Obama gave Tom Homan top honours and a medal in 2015 for the same work. Now Dems call Homan and his dept evil cuz he now has a boss they hate. Terrible hypocrisy. Radicals cycling through positions trying to take down Trump are neurotic and destructive.
People protested ICE back in the day under Obama; yes, it was harder to get people to protest them because it was a Dem President, and Dems are perceived as "better" on immigration. However, the people who protested ICE under Obama did not get shot in the head, so he had that going for him.
Obstruction, threats, incitement, and violence are not protest. Anti-ICE criminality is obviously a problem. This is just your new anti-racism hysteria. Dem strategy of open borders insanity as a base-building method is treachery. Left wing extremist activity and systemic indoctrination into anti-western ideologies have both skyrocketed since 2015. You all got wayyyy too radical for the majority to stomach.
Multiple polls show the majority of people think that Renee Good was an unjustified shooting - and 70-80+% of the population have seen the video! - but just repeat your talking points I guess.
If it is ruled an unjustified shooting, so be it. I understand and accept arguments from both sides on that. I feel badly for both the officer and Renée's loved ones. It was a terrible incident that she initiated by making bad decisions. Maybe he made bad decisions, too. I am not in law enforcement and so I don't try to make that judgement.
My points are still 100% valid.
Try to restrain yourself and your loved ones from obstructing and resisting arrest. Stay safe and protest peacefully.
LOL, you're not in law enforcement so you don't know when a masked thug commits murder and then runs away?!? If you're so ignorant on what proper law enforcement protocols are, why are you commenting?
Either identify which procedures he violated or fuck off permanently. Driving your vehicle at an officer is clearly a provocation.
I agree with this essay and with your criticism of MAGA generally - it's both accurate and necessary.
However, I have to admit "AWFUL" is a pretty clever acronym. Gotta give credit where it's due.
It is interesting that there is so much emphasis on being manly and masculine, because I consider MAGA to be perhaps the least manly movement in modern history, up to and including movements that primarily consist of and are led by women. The thin-skinned bellicosity that Trump and his supporters display doesn't remind me of a real man, it reminds me of a childish bully. They think they are the Man With No Name, but they are actually Yosemite Sam. Yosemite Sam is not masculine or manly, no matter how often he threatens to shoot people.
Maybe the reason MAGA emphasizes masculinity is that left-wing activism is often very female coded, and they see "man" as the opposite of "woman." But the real opposite of man isn't "woman," it's "boy." Trump and his followers do not act like men, they act like spoiled little boys who have not learned to control their violent emotions.
Rhetorical trends in some conservative spaces where policy disagreement is met with accusations of effeminacy, disloyalty, or bad faith rather than substantive engagement. This represents a departure from conservative intellectual traditions that valued prudential reasoning, cost-benefit analysis, and constitutional constraints on executive power.
This is been ongoing for decades. Where are there even adherents to "conservative intellectual traditions" in MAGA?
I think Ben Shapiro, as a MAGA type, still relatively adheres to "conservative intellectual traditions," although sometimes his animosity toward transgender people causes him to fall short of being sufficiently rigorous and honest when discussing those issues.
Yep, and Shapiro will be marginalized/cast out of the Right-wing MAGA world pretty soon as well. As Hanania points out, the arc of the Right/GOP/MAGA leans towards Groyperism.
You may see this as an insult, but you strike me as someone for whom racism is not a deal-breaker. I am almost the same way. For the first three years of Trump 1.0, I could make a case for why people voted for him. And then COVID happened, or as I call it, Trump Virus. No one in his right mind could vote for Trump in 2016, and no one in his right mind could vote for him after 2020, yet they did. Because they didn't vote Trump to lower the price of eggs, they voted for him to beat up darkies and make liberals cry. Not that there aren't some things that a hypothetical Republican wouldn't do better than a Democrat, but this is Trump. And unlike you, I never voted for him, because I'm Las Vegas, and he's Atlantic City, and I have watched this guy be an obnoxious failure for decades.
Back in the 90s Somalis were deliberately placed in the most Scandinavian state of the union-Minnesota by the bipartisan system. In Europe they've been admitted in their 100s of thousands and cost their countries of residence from 500k to million over their lifespan.
A population explosion has taken place in Somalia itself through remittances and free grain from Putin etc.
But that's really great for the grand plan that unites the US, the EU, British commonwealth and even Putin himself...the eradication of whiteness.
You ignorant dumbass. You're so ignorant, you don't even know how Somalis ended up in MN.
Okay, enlighten us.
It was by the will of allah.
The white woman problem is real regardless of whether it was the woman who tried to run over an ICE agent after she repeatedly blocked agents who were continuing to arrest criminal illegal aliens or Nancy Pelosi who admitted she was responsible for the riot initiated by FBI agents and other government assets. While the Jan 6 Committee illegally destroyed much of the evidence, there are enough snippets available to see that most of the crowd were welcomed in with open doors by Capitol Police as FBI agitators donned MAGA hats inside the Capitol before the doors were opened and finally the identity of the mysterious bomber has been revealed as a loyal Democrat after the FBI sat on the evidence for 4 years until the new FBI leadership came in. The white woman who lost the election in 2016 paid millions to fabricate the "Russian collusion" story at a cost of millions while her husband complained to his mistresses that same wife woman ate a lot more pussy than he ever did.
The obvious answer is to have white women wear the rags on their heads like those obedient Somali women do as they send billions of taxpayer dollars to their homeland and ICE will no longer be needed.
https://cha.house.gov/2024/8/new-obtained-hbo-footage-shows-pelosi-again-taking-responsibility-for-capitol-security-on-january-6
Excellent post, although I'm unconvinced by the last sentence. I would change: "Whoever is coming next will be, by necessity, smarter than Trump" to "Whoever is coming next will *likely* be, by *default*, smarter than Trump"
And I'm not trying to be funny/petty! I think it is both unnecessary for the successor to be smart (as pathos is the defining feature of the movement) AND that the successor will probably be smarter given the baseline. In a perverse way, we were lucky Trump is such a shallow thinker. He's not as dangerous as a calculating dictator like Putin or Assad would have been in the same scenario.
Hanania asks why Minneapolis makes no sense as immigration enforcement. It doesn't—over 90% of Somalis in Minnesota are citizens. But it makes perfect sense as something else.
The Border Patrol was founded in 1924 by Klansmen. The Klan's tools were always spectacle violence and terror deployed against noncompliance. The target was never just Black Americans—it was anyone who broke racial solidarity. "Race traitors."
Look at the comments here. The "AWFL" rhetoric isn't random misogyny—it's that same framework. White women supporting immigrants are race traitors in the alt-right playbook. Some commenters are saying it explicitly.
Renee Good wasn't killed because she was blocking an arrest. She was killed because she was a white woman holding a camera in solidarity with her immigrant neighbors. The spectacle is the point. The terror is the policy.
To "C.C. Harvey" and others defending this: the agent who shot her said "fucking bitch" over her body, then fled the scene. That's not protocol. That's not self-defense. That's exactly what the Klan did—and said—100 years ago.