—> ICE / Immigration Catch-All

[ZenMode]

Even if Trump has no plans to allow them back in, which he probably doesn't, there's no reason a future president/administration couldn't.

Honestly, if they are here illegally, even if it's only on an expired visa, deporting them is a no-brainer for the courts.

 

[superrific]

In a situation where a person's presence in the US is optional, I'm ok removing terrorist supporters.

Deported Brown University doctor acknowledged she attended Hezbollah leader’s funeral on visit to Lebanon, source says​

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/17/us/brown-university-doctor-deported-hnk/index.html

She said she liked some of what Nasrallah did but not all of it, not the bad parts.

That sounds very close to "I support Trump, but not everything he does -- not the bad parts."

If you are going to ascribe terrorism support to her because she attended the funeral of an important figure in her country, then you should do the same for MAGA. I don't want to hear, "I already said I don't support that," because you're making these things into all or nothing propositions. If you support Trump at all in any way you are a full MAGA.

 

[ZenMode]

She said she liked some of what Nasrallah did but not all of it, not the bad parts.

That sounds very close to "I support Trump, but not everything he does -- not the bad parts."

If you are going to ascribe terrorism support to her because she attended the funeral of an important figure in her country, then you should do the same for MAGA. I don't want to hear, "I already said I don't support that," because you're making these things into all or nothing propositions. If you support Trump at all in any way you are a full MAGA.

"If you are going to ascribe terrorism support to her because she attended the funeral of an important figure in her country"

Hezbollah isn't a country. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah leaders are only important in that they are terrorist leaders.

 

[superrific]

"If you are going to ascribe terrorism support to her because she attended the funeral of an important figure in her country"

Hezbollah isn't a country. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah leaders are only important in that they are terrorist leaders.

Hezbollah is more than a terrorist organization, though. That's what has made them so tricky, along with other Islamist groups.

Back in 2005-07, who was providing social services to Palestinians? It was primarily Hamas, especially in Gaza. That's why Hamas got elected -- it was doing good work. Then Israel's blockade happened and Hamas further radicalized. Maybe it was their plan all along to act nice, get control, and continue fighting. I can't speak to that at all, either way. But what Hamas meant to people in Gaza was very different than what they mean to you.

Hezbollah, same story.

The Red Army liberated China from the Japanese. Only Mao and the communists had the guts to stand up to the Japanese and fight. That's how and why they gained so much support from the people -- their rivals, the KMT, were basically bending over and taking it (I use a rape analogy purposefully for historical reasons). And so for Chinese people, Mao literally was a hero. They would hang his portrait because they admired him, not because they were forced to. For a while. The "honeymoon" ended in 57 and by the late 60s, most Chinese were ready to be done with him. But he was extended a long leash, so to speak, in part because he was a hero.

Organizations like that are multi-faceted. Reducing Hezbollah to "a terrorist organization" is facile but it's not correct. It is a terrorist organization, plus a provider of social services like education and health care, plus a media organization. You don't have to like any of it, but denying that it exists is stupid.

 

[nycfan]

Hegseth ‘disestablishing’ Office of Net Assessment, Pentagon’s strategic analysis specialists​

A March 13 memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, obtained by Breaking Defense, orders all employees of the Office of Net Assessment reassigned to different roles and cancels related contracts​

Hegseth 'disestablishing' Office of Net Assessment, Pentagon's strategic analysis specialists - Breaking Defense

A March 13 memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, obtained by Breaking Defense, orders all employees of the Office of Net Assessment reassigned to different roles and cancels related contracts.

breakingdefense.com

“…
The memo, dated today and signed by Hegseth, directs the Pentagon’s Performance Improvement Officer and Director of Administration and Management to reassign all civilian employees to other “mission critical positions” inside the department, while military personnel will return to their service to receive new billets.

Simultaneously, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official is directed to “ensure that the necessary steps are taken” by department contracting authorities to terminate “all ONA contracts awarded for ONA and ONA-related requirements.” A number of DC think tanks and research organizations will likely be impacted by these cancelled contracts. …”

——
It’s like the Trump Administration is cutting out parts of the government’s brain, bit by bit.

 

[nycfan]

Hegseth ‘disestablishing’ Office of Net Assessment, Pentagon’s strategic analysis specialists​

A March 13 memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, obtained by Breaking Defense, orders all employees of the Office of Net Assessment reassigned to different roles and cancels related contracts​

Hegseth 'disestablishing' Office of Net Assessment, Pentagon's strategic analysis specialists - Breaking Defense

A March 13 memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, obtained by Breaking Defense, orders all employees of the Office of Net Assessment reassigned to different roles and cancels related contracts.

breakingdefense.com

“…
The memo, dated today and signed by Hegseth, directs the Pentagon’s Performance Improvement Officer and Director of Administration and Management to reassign all civilian employees to other “mission critical positions” inside the department, while military personnel will return to their service to receive new billets.

Simultaneously, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official is directed to “ensure that the necessary steps are taken” by department contracting authorities to terminate “all ONA contracts awarded for ONA and ONA-related requirements.” A number of DC think tanks and research organizations will likely be impacted by these cancelled contracts. …”

——
It’s like the Trump Administration is cutting out parts of the government’s brain, bit by bit.

The Office of Net Assessment opened more than 50 years ago and developed concepts for possible conflict with U.S. adversaries, including China.

Hegseth Closes Pentagon Office Focused on Future Wars

The Office of Net Assessment opened more than 50 years ago and developed concepts for possible conflict with U.S. adversaries, including China.

www.nytimes.com

“… The office costs about $10 million to $20 million a year — a fraction of the Pentagon’s $850 billion annual budget — but its work and staff of about a dozen civilians and military officers has often had an outsize impact on how the Pentagon prepares for possible conflicts.

… For most of its history, the Office of Net Assessment was run by Andy Marshall, its founder, who pioneered an innovative and somewhat mysterious approach to comparing the strength of U.S. forces with that of its potential enemies. The office also developed inventive ways of fighting adversaries. Jim Baker, a retired Air Force colonel, succeeded Mr. Marshall in 2015.

…
Thomas G. Mahnken, a former top Pentagon strategist, questioned the decision to dismantle an office focused on preparing the U.S. military for long-term competition with major powers at a time when China seems to be growing stronger and more aggressive.

“We’re in a period that looks a lot like the Cold War, and we’re doing away with an office that for decades helped senior leaders navigate that conflict,” said Mr. Mahnken, who leads the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank based in Washington.

… The office’s critics, such as Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, have charged that it has not received enough scrutiny in recent years. In a statement released on Thursday, Mr. Grassley blasted the internal Pentagon think tank as “wasteful and ineffective.”

Other critics have said that it has too often ignored the wars the Pentagon was actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in favor of future and potentially distant threats.

The office’s core mission is to compare or assess opposing sides in a potential conflict, typically the U.S. military and its most capable or advanced adversary. Over the decades, the Office of Net Assessment conducted thousands of war games, often in partnership with the military services or think tanks. And it produced countless studies. …”

 

[superrific]

The office’s core mission is to compare or assess opposing sides in a potential conflict, typically the U.S. military and its most capable or advanced adversary. Over the decades, the Office of Net Assessment conducted thousands of war games, often in partnership with the military services or think tanks. And it produced countless studies. …”

This is the problem. Those war games had different players on each side than they would now, and asking the war gamers to war game a US-Russia alliance would be particularly bad optics. So they're getting rid of the office.

 

[nycfan]

“… The Office of Net Assessment often focused on high-risk research that others in the Pentagon were unlikely to undertake. As a result, its work sometimes did not produce tangible or immediate results for the military. …”

——
Paying people to think and think ahead has been a strength of the US government — the wealth of studies and information we amass doesn’t guarantee outcomes but it provides the opportunity for informed decisions for those who value informed decisions…

 

[ZenMode]

Hezbollah is more than a terrorist organization, though. That's what has made them so tricky, along with other Islamist groups.

Back in 2005-07, who was providing social services to Palestinians? It was primarily Hamas, especially in Gaza. That's why Hamas got elected -- it was doing good work. Then Israel's blockade happened and Hamas further radicalized. Maybe it was their plan all along to act nice, get control, and continue fighting. I can't speak to that at all, either way. But what Hamas meant to people in Gaza was very different than what they mean to you.

Hezbollah, same story.

The Red Army liberated China from the Japanese. Only Mao and the communists had the guts to stand up to the Japanese and fight. That's how and why they gained so much support from the people -- their rivals, the KMT, were basically bending over and taking it (I use a rape analogy purposefully for historical reasons). And so for Chinese people, Mao literally was a hero. They would hang his portrait because they admired him, not because they were forced to. For a while. The "honeymoon" ended in 57 and by the late 60s, most Chinese were ready to be done with him. But he was extended a long leash, so to speak, in part because he was a hero.

Organizations like that are multi-faceted. Reducing Hezbollah to "a terrorist organization" is facile but it's not correct. It is a terrorist organization, plus a provider of social services like education and health care, plus a media organization. You don't have to like any of it, but denying that it exists is stupid.

That's all fine and good.

The US government officially designates Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If you are a non-citizen, and want to remain in the US, it's best to not attend terrorist events.

That would seem to be a no-brainer to me.

 

[superrific]

The US government officially designates Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If you are a non-citizen, and want to remain in the US, it's best to not attend terrorist events.

1. The point is that the funeral is not a "terrorist event." You sit there on your couch judging everything and everyone from afar, without caring in the slightest for the actual motivations for the actual people involved.

And apparently CBP is the same way -- which is why they are trying to sideline judges. Because judges require evidence to justify policy, not bullshit propaganda.

2. OK, let's assume she made a suboptimal choice. What difference does that make? Every authoritarian ever says things like that. "If you wanted to keep your head, you shouldn't have said that thing about Robespierre that could be considered an insult" might have been true, but it also doesn't in any way justify Robespierre. A complaint about that person being beheaded is answered in no way by "you shouldn't have said that thing."

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

[White House is appealing and intends to re-fire them — wonder extent to which this process is being slow-walked]

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

This is why Kamala Harris really lost

Turnout among young people and immigrants was too high for the party’s own good, according to Democratic data analyst David Shor.

www.vox.com

“The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of 1.7 points].”


Seems like a load to me. The youth in-roads has been wild to see. Trump is the oldest of the old. I simply can’t grasp it.

 

[Duke Mu]

Nah, that won't affect the economy.

 

[Duke Mu]

Buyer's remorse?

 

[farce©]

1. The point is that the funeral is not a "terrorist event." You sit there on your couch judging everything and everyone from afar, without caring in the slightest for the actual motivations for the actual people involved.

And apparently CBP is the same way -- which is why they are trying to sideline judges. Because judges require evidence to justify policy, not bullshit propaganda.

2. OK, let's assume she made a suboptimal choice. What difference does that make? Every authoritarian ever says things like that. "If you wanted to keep your head, you shouldn't have said that thing about Robespierre that could be considered an insult" might have been true, but it also doesn't in any way justify Robespierre. A complaint about that person being beheaded is answered in no way by "you shouldn't have said that thing."

He's a troll and you're getting played. He will do this as long as you respond. But he enjoys it.

 

[superrific]

This is why Kamala Harris really lost

Turnout among young people and immigrants was too high for the party’s own good, according to Democratic data analyst David Shor.

www.vox.com

“The reality is if all registered voters had turned out, then Donald Trump would’ve won the popular vote by 5 points [instead of 1.7 points].”

Seems like a load to me. The youth in-roads has been wild to see. Trump is the oldest of the old. I simply can’t grasp it.

Teenagers are especially vulnerable to disinformation. This very well could be the manosphere effect.

It's also true that the issues that tended to animate the young folks simply didn't feature in the campaign, at all. There was no talk of gun control, school shootings, etc. Nor did climate change get any attention whatsoever. And the young people were especially likely to be invested in the Israel/Hamas issue and perhaps even voted against Kamala for that reason.

Let's see what happens when these young voters get a taste of reality under Trump.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Buyer's remorse?

I actually think the ignoring of the judicial order and the calling for a judges impeachment is more of an impeachable offense than almost anything he did in first term. Trump knows he can play this as the Democrats and judges want criminals but this is criminal behavior from his administration.

 

[superrific]

I actually think the ignoring of the judicial order and the calling for a judges impeachment is more of an impeachable offense than almost anything he did in first term. Trump knows he can play this as the Democrats and judges want criminals but this is criminal behavior from his administration.

I'm not sure I would want to try to analyze which of the events is "more" impeachable. We have some fine candidates:

1. Leveraging US foreign policy for personal gain.
2. Inciting an insurrection and actively trying to steal an election
3. Ignoring a court order.

I'm not sure #3 in itself is that big a deal if it was an isolated occurrence. It's scary because it's part of a sustained, multi-pronged attack on the rule of law.

I'd add to the list the pardons, and the DOGE lawlessness.