I'm impressed that you speak any foreign language fluently. You must have a natural talent or have used it often. I studied German in college 65 years ago and just this month found a use for it. I ordered a new Roku device which would display setup and menu information only in German. I recognized enough words to eventually get to the home screen and select "sprache".
Most "conservative" Canadians are liberal although I have met a few exceptions working in management positions in this country. The best move for the USA in any trade dispute with Canada would be to outlaw ice hockey. Only a few million of our citizens would care and it would destroy the NHL.
Good advice. Never looked at it that way. Of course, my viewing is limited to You Tube TV content (a little golf, a little college football and a lot of Fox News), a few Prime TV offerings and Grand Ole Opry on Roku. Don't know everything my wife watches but it seems pretty routine. Wouldn't your comment apply to all streaming?
Not just all streaming, but all television manufacturers now as well. There's apparently big money to be made selling your video consumption data to third parties. Anything that is advertised as a "smart TV" is doing this, as consumer electronics companies are finding more (and recurring) profits selling user data than television sets these days. (And that includes data on what you're watching on others' streaming services.)
I highlighted Roku, as they've been particularly aggressive on this front.
I never said I was fluent in French. Or that I can still speak it reasonably well. I could, however, in 1990, communicate well enough to do business in Quebec or Paris.
The packaging and condition of the device lead me to believe it is brand new.
Works perfectly now so don't know about German model. I am constantly amazed at the intelligence that is built into three ounces of electronic gadgets. My only experience with computers prior to PCs becoming common was with mainframes the size of basketball courts - often with a few frames of analog to digital converters.
Yeah, we've gotten processing down to very small packages - to say nothing of storage.
As an example: someone posted a picture from the original Super Mario Bros. game, and the picture's size in terms of storage was larger than the actual game.
So, then, where is the lawlessness on Trump's part, because you, yourself, said that the action taken against Ruiz was legal? Trying to have it both ways, Steve?
Lots of lawlessness, deporting legal immigrants, failure to grant habeas corpus rights, misuse of authority under law. But no, Ruiz was legal. And yes, both can be true.
From just yesterday, a new executive order states that military personnel will start assisting local law enforcement - a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
"Sec. 4. Using National Security Assets for Law and Order. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime."
18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Your final summation that blames Trump's not following due process for the judge's lawlessness is missing one important aspect. That is, that the Trump team does not think that anything it has done violates due process and that the Judiciary branch is interfering in the Constitutionally specified prerogatives of the Executive to manage foreign affairs (and citizens of foreign countries). I missed it if the current SCOTUS has definitively decided that foreign citizens on US soil have every right that a US citizen has. That his rights are not subject to foreign treaties, international agreements or other considerations of foreign affairs, or anything not under the control of the Executive Branch.
Every right - no, as citizens have specifically enumerated rights within the Constitution. However, anything that says "person" or "people" applies to all present - because due process just means innocent until proven guilty.
Keep in mind that treaties are part of our laws: they have to be ratified by Congress for them to be fully enacted. The Executive can make agreements with foreign nations without going through treaty ratification, but those are then not as protected legally.
And more: Specific law on immigration and visas and international rules of treating asylum seekers and visitors, with and without passports, may help interpret which "people" are addressed in a specific case. The assumption, when the Constitution was passed was that everyone here was going to be a permanent resident except for ambassadors and such,and that any person a judge delt with was a citizen, even if not native born. The formality of renouncing loyalty to your native country and accepting the duty of fealty to the US, her flag and her people is recent and thoroughly reasonable due to improvements in transportation and information about what events are occurring elsewhere in the world.
The presumption of innocence reigns - hence the due process. Think of it this way: from the perspective of the law, the accused is just a person. Their status - citizen, legal resident, legal visitor, or undocumented - has to be determined first. Until then, they are just people with rights.
To the extent that rights are God given, and not Constitution given, every person has rights. To the extent that a judicial process that grinds as fine as a citizen is due, is expensive, and that it would be totally impractical to grant every person on the face of the Earth a full hearing to see if they qualify as an immigrant to the US, procedures are needed to sort applications for entry, and they need to be set by law and followed. What is the remedy when procedures are not followed? The choices are a return to the status quo ante, before the people entered unvetted, or an impractical, one by one hearing for everyone who was never vetted.
The Constitution states - and the Supreme Court has upheld - that every person has basic rights. It's that simple, and the only way that citizenship can be protected: otherwise the government can allege that you are an illegal immigrant and - without the ability to challenge their allegation - you will be deported with haste.
The thing you're either misunderstanding or not aware of is that the process in question differs: criminal cases have one process, civil cases another, immigration cases have a few (for example: if CBP observes someone crossing the border illegally, they may then immediately remove them from the country without any hearing). It's also not "every person on the face of the Earth", it's people here in the USA.
And we do have processes for sorting applications for entry.
The problem is that our immigration system is underfunded and incapable of processing even legal immigration requests in a timely manner, with a huge backlog. We sorely need to update our laws to codify Biden's executive order requiring asylum claimants to make their claims at ports of entry; to expand funding for immigration judges to process asylum claims and legal residency applications; to expand make our border patrol more efficient by implementing electronic surveillance and fast response teams.
Another thing I'd like to see is for there to be immigration centers in multiple locations in Mexico and Central America, where those looking to enter the US for work may both apply for jobs and apply for a work visa on the spot. Make it more, not less, efficient to do so.
Ideally, this would cut down on the number of asylum claims being made: the elevated numbers are partially due to how long it takes to immigrate through standard legal immigration processes.
Sometimes you have to pay to have things work well: this is one of those things.
Interesting,and I will have to think about it more thoroughly. BUT my first reaction is that where the government has the right to grant a privilege to a non -citizen, on the basis of criteria at its own discression, it has the right to recind that privilege, also at its disgression.
I'm impressed that you speak any foreign language fluently. You must have a natural talent or have used it often. I studied German in college 65 years ago and just this month found a use for it. I ordered a new Roku device which would display setup and menu information only in German. I recognized enough words to eventually get to the home screen and select "sprache".
Most "conservative" Canadians are liberal although I have met a few exceptions working in management positions in this country. The best move for the USA in any trade dispute with Canada would be to outlaw ice hockey. Only a few million of our citizens would care and it would destroy the NHL.
Keep an eye on that Roku - you're not the customer, you're the product as the company sells what you watch to fuel its advertising business.
https://lifehacker.com/tech/roku-is-experimenting-with-unskippable-ads
Good advice. Never looked at it that way. Of course, my viewing is limited to You Tube TV content (a little golf, a little college football and a lot of Fox News), a few Prime TV offerings and Grand Ole Opry on Roku. Don't know everything my wife watches but it seems pretty routine. Wouldn't your comment apply to all streaming?
Not just all streaming, but all television manufacturers now as well. There's apparently big money to be made selling your video consumption data to third parties. Anything that is advertised as a "smart TV" is doing this, as consumer electronics companies are finding more (and recurring) profits selling user data than television sets these days. (And that includes data on what you're watching on others' streaming services.)
I highlighted Roku, as they've been particularly aggressive on this front.
More details here: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/08/tv-industrys-ads-tracking-obsession-is-turning-your-living-room-into-a-store/
I never said I was fluent in French. Or that I can still speak it reasonably well. I could, however, in 1990, communicate well enough to do business in Quebec or Paris.
That's...interesting. Perhaps that Roku device was a returned one, or otherwise was a German model?
The packaging and condition of the device lead me to believe it is brand new.
Works perfectly now so don't know about German model. I am constantly amazed at the intelligence that is built into three ounces of electronic gadgets. My only experience with computers prior to PCs becoming common was with mainframes the size of basketball courts - often with a few frames of analog to digital converters.
Yeah, we've gotten processing down to very small packages - to say nothing of storage.
As an example: someone posted a picture from the original Super Mario Bros. game, and the picture's size in terms of storage was larger than the actual game.
So, then, where is the lawlessness on Trump's part, because you, yourself, said that the action taken against Ruiz was legal? Trying to have it both ways, Steve?
Lots of lawlessness, deporting legal immigrants, failure to grant habeas corpus rights, misuse of authority under law. But no, Ruiz was legal. And yes, both can be true.
Examples?
From just yesterday, a new executive order states that military personnel will start assisting local law enforcement - a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/strengthening-and-unleashing-americas-law-enforcement-to-pursue-criminals-and-protect-innocent-citizens/
"Sec. 4. Using National Security Assets for Law and Order. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime."
Yes: now show which law expressly allows for the use of military personnel for enforcing domestic policy.
From https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385"
18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
No argument. Now just show me where the executive order states that military forces will be used without legal review.
Your final summation that blames Trump's not following due process for the judge's lawlessness is missing one important aspect. That is, that the Trump team does not think that anything it has done violates due process and that the Judiciary branch is interfering in the Constitutionally specified prerogatives of the Executive to manage foreign affairs (and citizens of foreign countries). I missed it if the current SCOTUS has definitively decided that foreign citizens on US soil have every right that a US citizen has. That his rights are not subject to foreign treaties, international agreements or other considerations of foreign affairs, or anything not under the control of the Executive Branch.
Every right - no, as citizens have specifically enumerated rights within the Constitution. However, anything that says "person" or "people" applies to all present - because due process just means innocent until proven guilty.
Keep in mind that treaties are part of our laws: they have to be ratified by Congress for them to be fully enacted. The Executive can make agreements with foreign nations without going through treaty ratification, but those are then not as protected legally.
And more: Specific law on immigration and visas and international rules of treating asylum seekers and visitors, with and without passports, may help interpret which "people" are addressed in a specific case. The assumption, when the Constitution was passed was that everyone here was going to be a permanent resident except for ambassadors and such,and that any person a judge delt with was a citizen, even if not native born. The formality of renouncing loyalty to your native country and accepting the duty of fealty to the US, her flag and her people is recent and thoroughly reasonable due to improvements in transportation and information about what events are occurring elsewhere in the world.
The presumption of innocence reigns - hence the due process. Think of it this way: from the perspective of the law, the accused is just a person. Their status - citizen, legal resident, legal visitor, or undocumented - has to be determined first. Until then, they are just people with rights.
To the extent that rights are God given, and not Constitution given, every person has rights. To the extent that a judicial process that grinds as fine as a citizen is due, is expensive, and that it would be totally impractical to grant every person on the face of the Earth a full hearing to see if they qualify as an immigrant to the US, procedures are needed to sort applications for entry, and they need to be set by law and followed. What is the remedy when procedures are not followed? The choices are a return to the status quo ante, before the people entered unvetted, or an impractical, one by one hearing for everyone who was never vetted.
The Constitution states - and the Supreme Court has upheld - that every person has basic rights. It's that simple, and the only way that citizenship can be protected: otherwise the government can allege that you are an illegal immigrant and - without the ability to challenge their allegation - you will be deported with haste.
The thing you're either misunderstanding or not aware of is that the process in question differs: criminal cases have one process, civil cases another, immigration cases have a few (for example: if CBP observes someone crossing the border illegally, they may then immediately remove them from the country without any hearing). It's also not "every person on the face of the Earth", it's people here in the USA.
And we do have processes for sorting applications for entry.
The problem is that our immigration system is underfunded and incapable of processing even legal immigration requests in a timely manner, with a huge backlog. We sorely need to update our laws to codify Biden's executive order requiring asylum claimants to make their claims at ports of entry; to expand funding for immigration judges to process asylum claims and legal residency applications; to expand make our border patrol more efficient by implementing electronic surveillance and fast response teams.
Another thing I'd like to see is for there to be immigration centers in multiple locations in Mexico and Central America, where those looking to enter the US for work may both apply for jobs and apply for a work visa on the spot. Make it more, not less, efficient to do so.
Ideally, this would cut down on the number of asylum claims being made: the elevated numbers are partially due to how long it takes to immigrate through standard legal immigration processes.
Sometimes you have to pay to have things work well: this is one of those things.
Interesting,and I will have to think about it more thoroughly. BUT my first reaction is that where the government has the right to grant a privilege to a non -citizen, on the basis of criteria at its own discression, it has the right to recind that privilege, also at its disgression.
The Constitution and its amendments are where "people" is stated, so if you want to change that - amend the Constitution.