US News

2081 readers

59 users here now

News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml

Trump signs executive orders targeting illegal immigration, cartels, 'birthright citizenship' (www.reuters.com)

submitted 2 days ago by rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml to c/us_news@lemmygrad.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

WASHINGTON, Jan 20 - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed executive orders declaring illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border a national emergency, designating criminal cartels as terrorist organizations, and targeting automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of immigrants in the country illegally.

Trump also signed an order expected to suspend the U.S. refugee resettlement program for four months, although the text of the orders was not immediately available.

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] RedColossus@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

He CAN’T do that, the constitution, the 14th amendment, and precedent!!!

Finally liberals are realizing that the constitution is just a piece of paper and can’t actually enforce anything. I had a political science professor who told us that any paper or exam that said that the government “can’t” do something, would get an automatic F, he said that the government is nothing but the diplomatic wing to avoid using the definition of government power… which is the monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force. Things can be unpopular, not worth pursuing, or better done via other means, but no piece of paper anywhere can block the government’s thugs from saying, “RULES CHANGED, ASSHOLE, NOW OBEY OR DIE.”

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 day ago

lol the fetishization of the constitution is so cringe in liberal democracies.

[–] footfaults@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago

“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,”

[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Did nobody from the CIA get to him fast enough to tell him they run the cartels?

this is gonna be fabulous, honestly. Seeing feds fight each other makes me happy.

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This is not infighting, this is the point. Finance organised crime abroad to sow instability and undermine local governments, and use that instability as an excuse for intervention, usually in the form of loans, joint military operations, while also driving investment and labour away from that country towards the "safer" core.

Outright invasion only makes sense if the local government becomes insubordinate and refuses "help" (often due to becoming effective at handling the "cartels") or if the organised crime groups become politically active against imperial interests. In Mexico it's the former, in Haiti it's the latter.

[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 day ago

so the play is most likely the embedded agents are all going to back out and territory will be seized, got it

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago

lol you believe they actually want to attack the cartels? My sweet summer child

[–] kredditacc@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It makes sense actually. The cartels were pawns to be used. Sacrificing them to gain an advantage is also a valid use.

[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But what advantage?

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 1 day ago

Basically, when the US say "we will fight the cartels", they are really trying to say is to steal land for their transnational companies, plunder resources and to kill people that block their imperialist endeavors.

If you want to learn more about this, you can check this book:

[–] willxkuzunoha@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

He can't do the children born in the us of illegals without a constitutional amendment.

[–] ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 day ago

Assuming laws matter

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 day ago

ngl it would be mildly funny to see no sabo kids deported (mexican americans that do not speak spanish)

[–] senseamidmadness@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My understanding is that the courts have never actually ruled on the interpretation of the Constitution's language, and that the "natural-born citizen" phrasing is vague. It may simply be an attempt to get the current Supreme Court to rule on it in a xenophobic way

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 17 hours ago

Natural-born might be read as 'born to naturalised parents' but I don't know much about US law except that the constitution offers unbound freedom to say anything you like unless the people that hear it don't like it.

[–] trashxeos@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago

Having listened to enough 5-4 podcast, I would venture to bet that they'll tie themselves in knots to justify exactly that line of reasoning, too.