Using taxes for healthcare - bad. Using taxes to get rid of brown people - good. The mental capacity of some people is amazing.
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
136 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19656 readers
3048 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"But if we use taxes for healthcare, some of my tax money would go to brown people and other people I hate. How is that fair at all?"
That's exactly why the US doesn't have social programs, except it started with not wanting it to go to black people.
Black is just a darker shade of brown
Point is it goes way further back.
Honestly, this is a strawman. There are so many reasons this is bad, we don't have to pretend they are logically inconsistent if they aren't actually. If you believe taxes should only be used for national defense/sovereignty/enforcing individual liberties on a national scale, then that is completely consistent. I'm not saying it's good, but if people are here illegally and their kids are getting free public education, then they are using resources "meant for Americans/legal residents" and they are "stealing" them. Wanting to stop that isn't inconsistent with not wanting M4A. M4A is good, and what Trump is doing is bad, but it's bad policy, not inconsistent.
Well see, using the money to hurt brown people makes healthcare cheaper somehow. You can't just use the money for healthcare because that helps Brown people too. And we can't have that
Doesn't surprise me, a C-17 is not laid out for passenger efficiency. Commercial planes and their schedules are all laid out to maximize efficiency (and thus profit).
The military is expressly prohibited from conducting law enforcement activities like deportation under the posse comitatus act.
We should not be talking about costs. We should be talking about prosecuting the entire chain of command between the president and the aircrew who actually performed the mission, in federal court and/or state court of any state they passed through on their way out of the country.
Posse comitatus doesn't apply to the deportations, as they are assisting federal law enforcement agencies under 10 USC ch15 and under a declaration of a National Emergency.
It is a fair argument to pursue testing the validity of that in court, but they haven't done that because they don't believe they have a case.
10 USC 15 does, indeed, allow for the military to provide assistance to law enforcement agencies under specific circumstances. Among other requirements, they have to have an LEO on board the aircraft. The LEO ostensibly supervises the operation: the military members present are operating under the authority of the officer.
Here's the problem: They are trying to argue against birthright citizenship on the basis that undocumented immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the united states (14th Amendment). Diplomats and enemy combatants are not subject to the laws of the united states. They cannot be charged or convicted under US criminal code. They can only be held in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict, and treated as POWs rather than accused criminals. The military can detain people as POWs, but it cannot enforce the law domestically.
As soon as they claim 10 USC 15 justification, or they put an LEO in charge of the operation, the government loses its "subject to the jurisdiction" argument.
The government can't claim justification under 10 USC 15. They need to argue that the immigrants are a category of people that the military can lawfully detain. They need to argue that the immigrants in question are invaders; enemy combatants.
the cruelty, and the message, was the entire point
Yes. Really sick of people pretending it's about the money. They want them to be miserable so they don't come back and so people stop associating America with a place of refuge. If they could get away with actually torturing them before sending them back they would, just to send a message that they are viewed as less than. It's gross, but it's literally the point?
I mean, I'm all for deporting the US military, but what country would take them?
Mexico, Columbia, Panama, wherever they came from.
They don't get a choice! That's the whole point of a military.
The pilots need a certain amount of flight hours in those aircraft anyways. It cost nothing.