71–80 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ICE isn’t allowed to act on citizens By law or policy?
It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
This is a first amendment violation, right?
[flagged]
I've long been skeptical of the US constitution and the supposed checks and balances, and with this wildly partisan supreme court you indeed can't hope that the law will keep the government in check.
I agree with most of what you said, except that a better constitution would be an (almost) magical defense against tyranny, in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not legal to deport U.S. citizens but they have anyway. A judge in Minnesota has said that ICE has violated around 100 court orders. We are living in a personalist dictatorship. The courts are ignored when their rulings are inconvenient.
This doesn’t even remotely address the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I am a Constitutional Scholar and there is no way that not getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” because you can simply get in line. In general, there need to be damages when you talk about liability.
Welcome to the thread! I trust your expertise, but am a little put off by your flippant tone: > getting to jump the line at the airport is a “material adverse action” This is rhetorical device of framing. I could just as easily say: > Pretending to open an online cupcake shop and pretending to be forced to serve gay people isn’t a “material adverse action” And it would sound equally ridiculous, yet the highest court…
I love this. You:
1. Declare everyone stop talking until an actual expert can speak and educate us all
2. An Actual Expert™ enters the chat and offers his expert opinion.
3. You decide his opinion is bullshit after all, because it disagrees with what you had in mind, and accuse him of being flippant.
This is a first amendment violation, right?
The constitution is not a living document except in a courtroom, and even then it really depends on what the supreme court thinks of you.
Whether or not that was true before this admin, it is clearly the case now.
Presidential Memorandum NSPM-7 includes "civil disorder" in its list of acts of "domestic terrorism." Its indicia of "terroristic activities" includes extremely vague language like "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism" and "extremism on migration, race, and gender" and "hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality".[^1]
I sincerely hope that the engineers responsible for these technologies have fully grasped where things seem headed. This country is teetering on a knife's edge. Maybe more precariously than we know. Nobody can know for sure if we've tipped too far until it's too late.
The economy cannot thrive in a vacuum of normalcy and stability. If things escalate into something akin to The Troubles... I hope that's factored into their cost-benefit analysis.
[^1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider the information can be used for more than just identifying you... if you have sufficient quality biometrics they can be used to _impersonate_ you, including "fingering" you for things you didn't do. Police forces have "planted" evidence for decades now, biometrics can be just another thing that can be planted. The problem is, you can't fight it, because it's absolutely unique to you (with some extreme except…
I don’t disagree. What will (and is) actually happening is every government everywhere is rushing to get these systems setup ASAP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like this is a social credit system.
Global Entry absolutely is a completely voluntary social credit system? It’s an optional thing you literally subscribe to that says “I’m squeaky clean so I can skip the investigation line.”
> “Protesting isn’t a listed or ‘valid’ reason for having Global Entry revoked, but being arrested at a protest is… And being investigated is.”
its no secret they're declaring everything a protest. they are actively and seemingly randomly roaming, demanding ids, and then declaring everything from that moment forward a protest. this isnt imaginary, its happening regularly.
it’s no secret how many people they have arrested and released an hour or two later once they’re "investigated."
it’s also no secret that they’re simply arresting people, who arent at a protest, but who happen to be in the same street they’ve roamed to.
if they roam into my neighborhood, and if i were to be outside walking my dog, they demand my id which i probably wouldnt have because im just walking my dog. so they arrest me. hours later let me go because they’ve "investigated" and oops, just a neighbor out walking his dog..
if they've declared it a protest, this would mean i would have just been arrested and investigated at what they call a protest.
so now in this situation i would barred from global entry because they’ve declared everyone in their eyeline worthy of arrest and then wrongly arrested and investigated me?
what a cluster fuck. we need to get due process back, this is insanity.
not to mention that protesting, just like legally carrying a firearm is absolutely protected by the constitution and not at all a criminal offense. getting arrested at a protest because they dont like protesters is absolutely not a reliable indicator of any kind of illegality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's trivial for the state to punish you and nearly impossible to assert your own rights. It is a very hard legal battle to get those rights acknowledged and upheld by the courts.
> nearly impossible to assert your own rights. It is a very hard legal battle to get those rights acknowledged and upheld by the courts What are you basing this on? This administration is constantly losing in court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost certainly. The law should also be amended to require conviction or settlement, not merely investigation, to revoke someone’s PreCheck or Global Entry status.
Trusted Traveller programs are a privilege and not a constitutionally protected entitlement. They can be revoked at any time for any reason and you don't get your money back. What law are you talking about? Show us where in the Constitution it says you're entitled to cut in line at the airport. We're now in the Find Out phase of "Let's fuck around with DHS and see if they take us off their club's VIP list".