- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: City of Glendale, CA releases statement that they’re no longer cooperating with ICE
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're allowed to have a stance on how they want the feds to operate, and they can use the aforementioned collaborations as a legal way to respond to what they perceive as bad acts by fedgov. That is fully legal and within the spirit of what it means to be America.
So in essence you're saying that if the city of Glendale wants to harbor, say 10,000 Chinese nationals looking to take over Los Angeles, that's their prerogative and the fed gov is SOL?
1
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:.
If California seceded, it would have a larger GDP than all but these countries US China Germany Japan India It would have a larger economy than these notable countries UK France Italy Canada and almost twice the GDP of Russia
And 50+ billion in debt, and no one to fall back on in Indiana or Louisiana or Maine
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:25 am to 4cubbies
quote:
4cubbies
Do you still believe Trayvon martin was shot and killed by police or are you ready to recant your belief and admit you were wrong?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:25 am to Lg
quote:
So in essence you're saying that if the city of Glendale wants to harbor, say 10,000 Chinese nationals
No. That's not what I'm saying.
That would be illegal.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
tell us more about the logistical issues for our military as it relates to the L. A. insurrection.
quote:
Bad framing. My comment wasn't about the "L.A. insurrection" exclusively.
So, expand the scope. It should make it easier for you to make your list of “logistical issues.”
Or, are you just full of shite?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:28 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
So, expand the scope. It should make it easier for you to make your list of “logistical issues.”
Imagining fedgov deploying military units across the United States to combat riots containing primarily citizens should make the logistical issues pretty apparent. You'd also be asking guard units comprised of locals to act upon their friends and neighbors in many of these confrontations. Again, these issues should be apparent.
That's ignoring the legal issues, namely the Posse Comitatus Act.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:How should the federal government go about removing the 10,000 Chinese people legally?
No. That's not what I'm saying. That would be illegal.
Assume they’re getting the exact same level of pushback that we’re seeing in LA.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That would be illegal.
And harboring people that have broken the law isn't?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:33 am to Lg
quote:
And harboring people that have broken the law isn't?
What does this have to do with the city terminating a contract with fedgov to house detained illegals?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:33 am to conservativewifeymom
quote:
And ports.
We cannot replace California ports.
It is physically, logistically, financially, and literally, impossible.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:33 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
How should the federal government go about removing the 10,000 Chinese people legally?
Assume they’re getting the exact same level of pushback that we’re seeing in LA.
Again, what does this have to do with a city terminating a contract with fedgov?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:34 am to wadewilson
quote:
We cannot replace California ports.
It is physically, logistically, financially, and literally, impossible.
Correct.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
Nothing.
I’m simply curious how you think the federal government should handle the situation I asked you about.
I’m simply curious how you think the federal government should handle the situation I asked you about.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
Nothing. States and municipalities are not obliged to enter into contracts with the Fedgov or anyone else if they don't want to.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's ignoring the legal issues, namely the Posse Comitatus Act.
I didn’t mention the legal aspect. Nice deflection though.
quote:
Imagining fedgov deploying military units across the United States to combat riots containing primarily citizens should make the logistical issues pretty apparent.
No specifics related to logistics…got it.
quote:
You'd also be asking guard units comprised of locals to act upon their friends and neighbors in many of these confrontations.
Police are tasked with this DAILY.
Additionally, the NG has been deployed in previous instances.
Do you even Katrina bro?
Thanks for proving that you are full of shite. Now let’s see how your spectrum dwelling arse responds.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:37 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Nothing.
I’m simply curious how you think the federal government should handle the situation I asked you about.
But I"m not discussing that ITT. Again, I'll repost the post prior to where the irrelevant hypo was proposed to me
quote:
They're allowed to have a stance on how they want the feds to operate, and they can use the aforementioned collaborations as a legal way to respond to what they perceive as bad acts by fedgov. That is fully legal and within the spirit of what it means to be America.
How does your question in any way relate to THAT?
You're changing the hypo into one that's bordering on, to the point of clear violation, breaking laws.
This post was edited on 6/9/25 at 10:39 am
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:41 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
I didn’t mention the legal aspect. Nice deflection though.
I did, in my original comment.
quote:
Police are tasked with this DAILY.
There are a lot more police in this country than national guard.
Hopefully this starts to paint part of the picture. It was laid out pretty clearly for you originally.
quote:
Additionally, the NG has been deployed in previous instances.
In very isolated, specific instances dealing with a very small population in a very small geographic area.
Not on a national scale attempting to deal with millions of citizens and illegals across the literal US.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That would be illegal.
Why is that illegal? Do you not think we have Mexican nationals running rampant in Los Angeles right now?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 10:43 am to Lg
quote:
Why is that illegal? Do you not think we have Mexican nationals running rampant in Los Angeles right now?
This has literally nothing to do with what I posted (and you replied)
Page 14 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News