• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Immigration Issues

Bomb#20 said:
A lot of illegal immigrants from Anglo countries, are there?
Click to expand...
Do you think we would know if there were? I'm pretty sure Swiz (if he truthfully represents himself as a white male naturalized Englishman) is in little current danger from the junta he voted for. Might be different if he voted for Harris.
Anyhow I personally doubt that there are what I would consider "a lot", but I'm not sure what qualifies as "a lot" in your mind.
I wonder if there have been "a lot" of arrests of known illegal immigrants from ANYWHERE that have committed felonies in the US since their admittance. I was given to understand that those were the "targets" of this murderous "enforcement campaign" that is killing some US citizens and disappearing others.
 
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
 
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
Click to expand...

Again, Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents. A bad decision that had devastating consequences.
 
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
Click to expand...

Again, Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents. A bad decision that had devastating consequences.
Click to expand...
You think legally protesting should result in public execution?

Yeah, people didn't have to be there, getting in the way. People didn't have to fight Hitler either. But some people have guts.
 
robnisch said:
Gospel said:
crazyfingers said:
ZiprHead said:
Minnesota judge summons ICE leader to court, threatens contempt sanctions

Minnesota’s chief federal judge has ordered the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, to appear in his courtroom Friday and threatened to hold him in contempt for what he says has been repeated defiance of judges’ orders in the state.

“The court’s patience is at an end,” U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz said in a three-page order issued Monday night, demanding the acting director explain himself “personally.”

Schiltz’s frustration has been boiling for weeks amid Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s massive immigration enforcement action in the Twin Cities. The operation has flooded the courts with emergency lawsuits brought by immigrants who say they have been illegally arrested or detained. The judges in the district have agreed nearly every time, ordering their immediate release from custody and warning, in increasingly alarming terms, about rampant violations of the law.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The judge was appointed by W Bush and once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. I wonder if Garbage will still call him a loonie leftist judge.
Click to expand...

He called someone exercising a constitutional right to bear arms a terrorist and his supporters believe it so....
Click to expand...
There must have been a transcription error. The founders meant to say, "the right kind of person shall bear arms".
Click to expand...
Actually, they did specify what type: "well-regulated militia".
 
WAB said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
Click to expand...

Again, Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents. A bad decision that had devastating consequences.
Click to expand...
You think legally protesting should result in public execution?

Yeah, people didn't have to be there, getting in the way. People didn't have to fight Hitler either. But some people have guts.
Click to expand...
Mr Pretti didn’t need to be there. Neither does ICE need to be Minnesota.
 
WAB said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
Click to expand...

Again, Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents. A bad decision that had devastating consequences.
Click to expand...
You think legally protesting should result in public execution?
Click to expand...

When Pretti inserted himself into the ICE operation as he did, he is no longer a protestor. Alex Pretti was a soft headed fool worked up into a frenzy by the likes of Tampon Tim and effeminate soy boy Frey. As was the equally soft headed woman that Pretti was trying to "help".

WAB said:
Yeah, people didn't have to be there, getting in the way. People didn't have to fight Hitler either. But some people have guts.
Click to expand...

Oh puhleeze. :rolleyes:
 
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
Click to expand...

Again, Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents. A bad decision that had devastating consequences.
Click to expand...

The evidence doesn’t show what you’re claiming. It shows federal agents engaging with Pretti at a protest. Federal agents can legally engage with protesters only if there’s a legal basis, such as actual criminal conduct or interference with law enforcement duties, not simply because someone is present, filming, or trying to help someone up. There’s no indication they were in the process of arresting the woman, and in fact she wasn’t arrested at all. Being at a protest isn’t reasonable suspicion of a crime, and carrying a firearm legally under Minnesota law isn’t evidence of wrongdoing by itself. What’s been publicly available is Pretti protesting and filming agents, and moments before ICE engaged with him he attempted to assist a woman to her feet.

If anything, the evidence suggests that decisions by federal agents had devastating consequences for Pretti, not any decision made by Pretti himself.
 
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...
Pretti and the woman he was helping were across the street from where the ICE agents were working. The ICE agents came at them, not the other way around.

Funny how the right is now not supporting the 2nd amendment.
 
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
Click to expand...

Again, Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents. A bad decision that had devastating consequences.
Click to expand...

The evidence doesn’t show what you’re claiming. It shows federal agents engaging with Pretti at a protest.
Click to expand...

Pretti was on the other side of the street and then crossed the street to engage with ICE agents.


Gospel said:
If anything, the evidence suggests that decisions by federal agents had devastating consequences for Pretti, not any decision made by Pretti himself.
Click to expand...

Many bad decisions were made in this tragedy.
 
TSwizzle said:
Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents.
Click to expand...
Yup. What Swiz is unhappy about is resistance. If nobody challenges the takeover of society by fascist bully-boys, then nobody gets hurt, so there's no problem.

It's like Germany in the 1930s; You would have to be an idiot to challenge the brownshirts, that's just asking to get beaten and/or murdered. Far better to just let them take over the streets. What could possibly go wrong?
 
TSwizzle said:
Many bad decisions were made in this tragedy.
Click to expand...
...and as you can't point to any made by Pretti, you will just have to fall back on using the passive voice to insinuate that there is somehow blame on both sides.

How you live with yourself, I do not know.
 
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
TSwizzle said:
Gospel said:
You said he made bad decisions but wasn’t a terrorist. I’m trying to understand what specific decision you consider ‘bad.’ Helping someone up isn’t criminal. Carrying a firearm is constitutionally protected. He did not resist arrest. So which action crosses the line for you?
Click to expand...

Pretti was obviously there as an agitator and inserted himself into a situation he didn't need to be in. I would also say it was unwise of him to have a firearm when going to these events.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment protects the right to be there. Protest, by definition, challenges people and draws attention to an issue. That’s not the same as provoking violence or being there to cause trouble. You can call it risky, sure, but claiming intent to agitate in the sense of causing conflict still requires evidence. And if he lives in that community (which seems to be the case), that’s even more reason his presence there isn’t unusual.
Click to expand...

Again, Pretti chose to get involved with ICE agents. A bad decision that had devastating consequences.
Click to expand...

The evidence doesn’t show what you’re claiming. It shows federal agents engaging with Pretti at a protest.
Click to expand...

Pretti was on the other side of the street and then crossed the street to engage with ICE agents.


Gospel said:
If anything, the evidence suggests that decisions by federal agents had devastating consequences for Pretti, not any decision made by Pretti himself.
Click to expand...

Many bad decisions were made in this tragedy.
Click to expand...
MgrWkTwQwo5F.gif
 
ZiprHead said:
TSwizzle said:
Pretti was on the other side of the street and then crossed the street to engage with ICE agents.
Click to expand...
Do you have video to prove that. The videoS I've seen show ICE crossing the street to attack them.
Click to expand...
I watched a video of a YT guy debating a former cop about the incident. It showed Pretti on the roadway filming/talking to the agents. Cop suggested that could be construed by the agents as grounds to disperse (potentially impeding efforts to apprehend a suspect under investigation).

Everything that followed (according to the cop) was a continuation of the effort to disperse (shove, spray), detain with force, etc.

It was sickening in that i can see how the agents could beat the rap even if ever charged.
 
ZiprHead said:
TSwizzle said:
Pretti was on the other side of the street and then crossed the street to engage with ICE agents.
Click to expand...
Do you have video to prove that. The videoS I've seen show ICE crossing the street to attack them.
Click to expand...
I watched a video of a YT guy debating a former cop about the incident. It showed Pretti on the roadway filming/talking to the agents. Cop suggested that could be construed by the agents as grounds to disperse (potentially impeding efforts to apprehend a suspect under investigation).

Everything that followed (according to the cop) was a continuation of the effort to disperse (shove, spray), detain with force, etc.

It was sickening in that i can see how the agents could beat the rap even if ever charged
 
It seems Pretti had an earlier encounter with federal agents

It is unclear how Pretti first came to the attention of federal authorities, but sources told CNN that about a week before his death, he suffered a broken rib when a group of federal officers tackled him while he was protesting their attempt to detain other individuals. The earlier incident started when he stopped his car after observing ICE agents chasing what he described as a family on foot, and began shouting and blowing his whistle, according to a source who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution. Pretti later told the source that five agents tackled him and one leaned on his back – an encounter that left him with a broken rib. The agents quickly released him at the scene.
“That day, he thought he was going to die,” said the source. Pretti was later given medication consistent with treating a broken rib, according to records reviewed by CNN.
Click to expand...

CNN

Murky reporting but if true, Alex Pretti doesn't seem like a protestor, seems like an activist agitator.
 
TSwizzle said:
It seems Pretti had an earlier encounter with federal agents

It is unclear how Pretti first came to the attention of federal authorities, but sources told CNN that about a week before his death, he suffered a broken rib when a group of federal officers tackled him while he was protesting their attempt to detain other individuals. The earlier incident started when he stopped his car after observing ICE agents chasing what he described as a family on foot, and began shouting and blowing his whistle, according to a source who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution. Pretti later told the source that five agents tackled him and one leaned on his back – an encounter that left him with a broken rib. The agents quickly released him at the scene.
“That day, he thought he was going to die,” said the source. Pretti was later given medication consistent with treating a broken rib, according to records reviewed by CNN.
Click to expand...

CNN

Murky reporting but if true, Alex Pretti doesn't seem like a protestor, seems like an activist agitator.
Click to expand...
If you can rationally explain how yelling and blowing a whistle isn’t protesting by agitating, please do so. If you cannot, please shut ip Piggy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom