Are the invader cells being activated? I think so.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Solvedit
Question for Chronaut:

What is your point?

You spend your time trying to prove the subjects of the thread aren't really breaking that many serious laws

Yet you said there was only a $50 fine.

I said that in the majority of cases it is only a $50 fine. As per the the statute: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien. This is US statutory law, not something I have invented.

But the point, man, the point. What's your point? Is your point the fact that you can't tell if there's something military about them from the middle of the South Pacific? I agree, so why don't you stop hogging bandwidth?

No, that is not my point.

I have restated my point seven ways to Sunday in previous posts, and you simply choose to deflect.

And please note that the statute specifically describes the penalties as civil penalties. This means it is civil law, not criminal law. Crossing a US border at other than a designated point of crossing does not make someone automatically a criminal.

If they commit criminal acts, that makes them criminals, but crossing the border undocumented is not a criminal act.

But what does that have to do with whether they seem to be comporting themselves in a military manner?

This is a case of 'Murrican Patriots' caught out in a conundrum that the very thing they allege protects their freedom, is the most, very real, threat to their freedom.

You see, a very, very, very, very, stupid and famous US law, the 2nd Amendment, actually both encourages militia and grants them the right to open-carry arms.

And I do agree, the people in the first video look very 'armed militia' like, but according to the cleverestest and most bestest people in your land, that is their Constitutional right.

But Aurora is a Republican run city. No gun-grabbin' Democrats there! They should be proud of their freedom (to be pushed around by whomever is the first to gain ascendency there through force of arms).

In 2019, while Trump and co. were saying what you just repeated, there were nearly 1/3 more families that crossed from Mexico than there were single adults.

So? How does that disprove the OP?

It does not disprove the OP, nor does it prove the OP. It was a question, not a statement

No, it was a statement, not a question.

It was a question. It ended in an official question mark character and all.

You stated that they couldn't have something like an invasion on their minds because they weren't the only ones crossing, which makes no sense.

No. I never stated that. I do agree, however, that what you allege I said, makes no sense. But I never said anything remotely like it.

My contributions were on topic, and were countering right-wing fear mongering about immigrants 'invading'.

Truth is, the defending forces outnumber them massively and have far superior weaponry. It would be futile to mount an attack that would end in failure and threaten to escalate to further failure.

So your tactic is to pretend we were talking about a military invasion. Too silly.

The right-wing keep mentioning military age single men when they talk about 'invasion'. What do you think they mean? Tiddleywinks?

So it's that or tanks? They must mean Tiddlywinks because there aren't any tanks.

You seem to have gotten things backwards.

I was saying that, in the ranting of many right-wing people, they are specifically saying that immigrants crossing the Southern border are military invaders. I wasn't saying that they (right-wing pundits) were alleging that the border crossers aren't military.

However, despite some of the border crossers being young adult males (a demographic also common in many non-military groupings), there is no reason to assume that they are either military, nor intending an invasion.

It would make more sense to try an angle which suggested they might be simply psyching themselves up for difficulty by taking on the spirit of a military operation, or something along those lines. Maybe they are.

Nah, the far-right can parade around the US with all sorts of weapons, protected by the 2nd Amendment, so why can't others? Surely the same law that arms one lot, arms another lot, but it is really disturbing when you see a different set of thugs marching around conspicuously armed. The first video in the OP was obviously just American residents enjoying their Constitutional right.

I see it's time to stop talking to you. If Americans can have guns, why shouldn't criminal gangs from Venezuela break into apartments brandishing guns? Please elaborate if there's some way that makes sense that you haven't stated clearly enough.

There was no evidence in the video that they were breaking in. Nor was there any evidence of criminal activity. It was implied, but prosecution requires evidence that a crime has been committed.

Perhaps the refusal by police to attend relates to them having frequent similar previous call-outs by the same person, where the officers found no evidence that a crime had occurred?

Your insistence that they were criminal and were breaking in, is unevidenced allegation and the police can only act according to the law. They can't arrest anyone on allegation alone.

I feel quite confident that I fully understand the OP.

Then why is it all off-topic misdirection? You must realize you could not have too much appreciation for what the OP says from New Zealand.

The same right-wing ideologues exist here too. But the truth is, it's hardly ever the minority. Perhaps if someone talks about it, things might change and the problems could be dealt with instead of being scapegoated.

You've been consistently on your own page. You are obviously not here to talk about change. You are seemingly here to channel your avatar: a spacey baby floating around in orbit, looking at things that are too far away to see from orbit.

"What do you think they're doing, Chronaut?" "Uh, from way out here, it looks like you can't prove anything to me at all, so I'm just going to barge in and tell you you're all wrong bla bla bla..."

"But Brawndo has what plants crave. It has electrolytes."

You may be a little low.

You keep alleging that I can't know what goes on there, but I am fairly sure that I have read from the same sources that you have, and unless you live in the apartment blocks in question, in Aurora, you probably do not have any better grasp, or direct experience, of the situation than I do.

I also have taken a sceptical approach and have investigated several inconsistencies posed by the OP's accounts of what transpired, so it is even possible that from way across the world, I may have insights which you have not explored because you took the post at face value, assuming it told you the whole truth.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: chr0naut

Not only that, but the numbers of people trying to cross the Southern border has skyrocketed ever since Trump began advertising internationally that people were trying to cross the border to seek a better life in the USA.

Seriously, where do you come up with this BS? The numbers skyrocketed under Biden, I’ve seen the data. You’ll say frigg’n anything if you can somehow twist it to blame Trump, pathetic.

Look at the graph. Look at when the trend started, and its slope, and compare it to the slope of more current trendlines.

The numbers coming across the border did not happen instantaneously. Things that are the result of political policies rarely do. But if you see a change in trend line, then you can be sure something preceded it to cause that change.

I don’t have to look at your graph, I just looked up the numbers recently and posted them here. It all “skyrocketed” as you say under Biden. But but blame trump, like I said, pathetic

The upward trend started in 2016 under the Trump administration.

Under the Biden government, the trend continued, at roughly the same slope, leading to the current numbers. The upward trend clearly started in 2016.

Are you afraid that looking at a graph, will melt your brain, or might it in fact reveal that your faith in Trump is misplaced??

Trump became President Jan 20, 2017. Obama was President in 2016 for the whole year. 😀

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

If they commit criminal acts, that makes them criminals, but crossing the border undocumented is not a criminal act.

You keep saying that even after seeing the actual law. Why are you lying so much?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 (each face represents 10,000 people laughing at you)

It clearly states that it is civil law. Not criminal.

If you want to be lax about definitions, perhaps Trump is a convicted criminal?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

If they commit criminal acts, that makes them criminals, but crossing the border undocumented is not a criminal act.

You keep saying that even after seeing the actual law. Why are you lying so much?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 (each face represents 10,000 people laughing at you)

It clearly states that it is civil law. Not criminal.

If you want to be lax about definitions, perhaps Trump is a convicted criminal?

Migrants that are caught crossing the border unlawfully will face arrest, detainment, and removal from the United States by the Department of Homeland Security

a reply to: xuenchen

what about the ghostdancers and the rise of dead spiders and the aids vaccine becoming monkeypox?

it's rough here tonight.

a lot of rabid apes being put down.

sad night.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

The Ghost Dance preached peaceful co-existence with Euro-Americans, but the Sioux interpretation of the religion foretold that the Ghost Dance would remove non-Indians from their lands. Indian agents on the Sioux reservation banned the Ghost Dance religion and used the military to enforce the ban.

🙌
!Ghost Dance and Wounded Knee Massacre 1890!

originally posted by: chr0nautThere was no evidence in the video that they were breaking in. Nor was there any evidence of criminal activity. It was implied, but prosecution requires evidence that a crime has been committed.

You think they just found a cell phone floating in the middle of the ocean with an unexplainable confrontation on it?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

If they commit criminal acts, that makes them criminals, but crossing the border undocumented is not a criminal act.

You keep saying that even after seeing the actual law. Why are you lying so much?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 (each face represents 10,000 people laughing at you)

It clearly states that it is civil law. Not criminal.

If you want to be lax about definitions, perhaps Trump is a convicted criminal?

Ya know you’re wrong quite often there bud. It can be both criminal and civil.
There’s that TDS again👏

a foreign national who enters the U.S. illegally can be both convicted of a crime and held responsible for a civil violation under the U.S. immigration laws.

Criminal Penalties for Improper Entry to the United States For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)

Civil Penalties for Unlawful Entry to the United States Entry (or attempted entry) at a place other than one designated by immigration officers carries additional civil penalties. The amount is at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or twice that amount if the illegal entrant has been previously fined a civil penalty for the same violation. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: chr0nautThe right-wing keep mentioning military age single men when they talk about 'invasion'. What do you think they mean? Tiddleywinks?

Hmm, what could they be doing? Have we seen this before?

A bunch of people came here before and tried to take a quarter of the nation through direct military action.

The USA started as the colonies of several nations, except for a big chunk that was once part of Mexico, and which the US took from them. The US was born when the colonists expelled some of the colonizing governments and purchased the rest of the land from others.

It didn't work, so they marched through the institutions and rigged it so you couldn't get a haircut, to say nothing of medical, spiritual, or educational help in what they wanted to be "their" place unless you became an entertainer for them so they could sideline your competitiveness and redistribute your intelligence.

Yes, racism and segregation existed in the US. I haven't been denying that.

Some newcomers probably came in straight from Europe, others probably got captured at sea by the Barbary Pirates and involved in piracy and the slave trade, then the European-looking ones were asked to leave the Barbary States (or their slave trading outposts further South in Africa) when Europe and the Americas started banning slavery and cracking down on piracy, because the lack of foreign income would cause a famine in the Barbary States.

The US did not ban slavery. Even today, the 13th Amendment contains an exception.

The 13th Amendment puts a partial ban on slavery and forced labour after 18 December 1865, but the USA has existed since 1776. That's 89 years as a legal 'slaver' country under a Constitution that is largely the same as it is now.

There are many countries in the world that never had legal slavery, ever.

They may have slipped in to the US. Illiterate? Sometimes it seems some people can't talk more than a few words of pidgin if not channeling a slave. They may have been the boat rowers of the Ottoman world. That's why they practice cousin marriage. They can only freely communicate with others who know their unique patois if they get saved. I am not talking about black Africans or other people from a different culture where they speak English differently or not at all.

Spain may have been disingenuous with the world in the 15 and 1600s. there may be a heavier Barbary States presence in the New World than they let on, but if they were a little racist, maybe they would have put the more European looking ones to rowing and saved the intelligent jobs for their own people, or perhaps, God forbid, sold the intelligent Europeans and put the less-so ones to rowing.

What I mean is the Latin American newcomers may be A) not Barbary pirates at all, B) Just as Barbary pirate as the South, or C) somewhat less Barbary pirate than the South. B) is unimaginable because they don't have the United States to give them welfare or start wars for them in Southeast Asia or the Gulf when their society is running low of funds and doesn't want people moving in. Yet their home countries function. A) seems unlikely, so it's probably C.

Not that there isn't plenty of ethnofascism in places not connected to the Barbary pirates.

I am guessing the newcomers may want to skip ahead to the march through the institutions. They seem to be respecting the Southern states' wish that they stay out. They may want a coalition and laws which allow them to secretly control society by their own rules. They may, they just may. Obvously, it's impossible to know for sure at this point.

 
The poor in various places often express the notion that it is not so wrong because if they cannot put some foreigners in their dungeon, some portion of their number will have to do sex work themselves.

So, is chronaut a cancellation cave-in, or a gangster? Do you want to tell us where your misdirection is coming from, chronaut?

Honestly, your revisionist view of history doesn't jibe well with the accounts of the heritage of the majority of American peoples, but it may have been true for some of them.

When the early Europeans arrived, America was already populated, quite heavily, with peoples and cultures that have been supressed even until fairly recently. There are still native reservation lands, native law enforcement and etc.

If that isn't legally entrenched racial segregation still evident, I don't know what is.

List of Indian reservations in the United States

The US Congress didn't even have full indigenous native representation until 20 September 2022.

U.S. Congress reaches a milestone in Indigenous representation

a reply to: xuenchen

I've been aware of Ghost Dance Bans for some time.

I don't practice Black Magic.

Let sleeping dogs lie/stop digging up bones/bury the hachet.

I'm not foolish, I stayed in school, paid attention, graduated Vanguard AP with Honors.

My husband, on the otehr hand, was too smart for his own good.



The Purity Project is GREAT for INNOCENCE.

HEART BREAK FOR US.

originally posted by: Terpene

That's not how swiss politics nor voting works. We vote our government to implement our democratic process and organize its execution.
we don't vote them to rule, but to do what we decide needs done.
What's that about illegal immigrants voting, what kind of banana Republic alows that to happen?

Well maybe you can understand some of our concerns in America now, and it has nothing to do with being racist or xenophobia. I'm just trying to educate you on the issues many of us have been talking about.

Blame the guy pointing out the poor security for the poor security.

Classic.

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: chr0naut

Not only that, but the numbers of people trying to cross the Southern border has skyrocketed ever since Trump began advertising internationally that people were trying to cross the border to seek a better life in the USA.

Seriously, where do you come up with this BS? The numbers skyrocketed under Biden, I’ve seen the data. You’ll say frigg’n anything if you can somehow twist it to blame Trump, pathetic.

Between 2010 to early 2018 the numbers oscillated a little, staying under 500,000.

2017 was at a 10 year low, and then the trend which had been coming down, began to rise.

In 2018 the upward trend began to rise more steeply. In 2019, they peaked briefly and dropped almost back to 2018 levels.

In 2020, while Trump was still in office, the trend reversed and began to climb steeply again. More steeply than in any of the 10 years previously.

In 2021, under Biden, the trend continued but at a lower slope and in 2022, the trend reversed and began to come down.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not saying this as a matter of fact.

Just suggesting that we should consider that the Democrats can encourage immigration without holding the White House. Additionally, it could be more beneficial to them to push harder for it when they aren't in Office.

-They could use the statistics to play a blame game.

-They could use the influx to secure future votes.

Lots of other uses to consider as well.

Just throwing it out there.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: chr0naut

Not only that, but the numbers of people trying to cross the Southern border has skyrocketed ever since Trump began advertising internationally that people were trying to cross the border to seek a better life in the USA.

Seriously, where do you come up with this BS? The numbers skyrocketed under Biden, I’ve seen the data. You’ll say frigg’n anything if you can somehow twist it to blame Trump, pathetic.

Between 2010 to early 2018 the numbers oscillated a little, staying under 500,000.

2017 was at a 10 year low, and then the trend which had been coming down, began to rise.

In 2018 the upward trend began to rise more steeply. In 2019, they peaked briefly and dropped almost back to 2018 levels.

In 2020, while Trump was still in office, the trend reversed and began to climb steeply again. More steeply than in any of the 10 years previously.

In 2021, under Biden, the trend continued but at a lower slope and in 2022, the trend reversed and began to come down.

Look again at the data I posted, Trump’s last year had low numbers, 405k. I don’t care how it goes up and down, it’s done that with every prez. I’m more interested in a yearly total because that’s really all that matters. That number soared under Biden right after he got rid of Trump’s policies.

a reply to: chr0naut

The U.S. land that was one time Mexico was bought and paid for, not taken. 🤣

a reply to: chr0naut

Your little graph is "apprehensions and expulsions", not releases into the U.S. 😊

OhOh! 😀

X zourze

BREAKING: A group of 32 armed Venezualans took over an apartment building in Chicago tonight

Local law enforcement has confirmed responding to the scene at 6124 S King Drive, where the alleged takeover occurred

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

yeahbut can you show anything?

misinformation is dangerous ☠️

and don't forget the main source of immigration has been crossing illegally and not getting caught ☠️ No graphs for that is there

No, there are no graphs for that.

But with the drone, satellite, and various electronic border incursion detection systems, as well as regular on-ground patrols, how many do do you think actually get through unnoticed?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KrustyKrab

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: chr0naut

Not only that, but the numbers of people trying to cross the Southern border has skyrocketed ever since Trump began advertising internationally that people were trying to cross the border to seek a better life in the USA.

Seriously, where do you come up with this BS? The numbers skyrocketed under Biden, I’ve seen the data. You’ll say frigg’n anything if you can somehow twist it to blame Trump, pathetic.

Look at the graph. Look at when the trend started, and its slope, and compare it to the slope of more current trendlines.

The numbers coming across the border did not happen instantaneously. Things that are the result of political policies rarely do. But if you see a change in trend line, then you can be sure something preceded it to cause that change.

I don’t have to look at your graph, I just looked up the numbers recently and posted them here. It all “skyrocketed” as you say under Biden. But but blame trump, like I said, pathetic

The upward trend started in 2016 under the Trump administration.

Under the Biden government, the trend continued, at roughly the same slope, leading to the current numbers. The upward trend clearly started in 2016.

Are you afraid that looking at a graph, will melt your brain, or might it in fact reveal that your faith in Trump is misplaced??

Trump became President Jan 20, 2017. Obama was President in 2016 for the whole year. 😀

But Trump did campaign for more than a year, with one of his primary fave topics, of the situation on the US Southern border and his magic wall (which apparently hasn't helped any).