patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

I think we should have legal immigration.

At about 200k a year, which is mighty generous, and diversified by law - that once one country of origin gets to be more than 5% of the total 200k, further migration from that country ends for the year. We have a housing affordability and shitty salary problem. Let's remember in the Golden 50s and 60s immigration was minimal compared to today. America First.

But the hypermassive extreme immigration is going to stop, illegal AND legal. The last time we had immigration this massive in the 1920s, GDP was growing at 8% a year and a new tool and die plant opening on every block. That's not the case today.

DeficitHawk says

WookieMan says
I even wish legal immigration was banned

I totally disagree with you on this. I think we should have legal immigration. (and I think the lack of legal pathways is contributing to the problem of illegal immigration)

Totally disagree. Cut immigration off and promote family development nationally. The melting pot already happened. We need to move on. Blacks and whites procreate. Different religions procreate, hell Ivanka and Jared.

We don't need more people. We need to keep the demographics stable and promote family growth. Men being fathers. Get the black community back on its feet without handouts. We don't need any immigrants.

Basically I give no shits about an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. Goodbye. We don't need people that got here the wrong way. Law be damned at this point.

AmericanKulak says

Let's see what the Courts say when there are actual hearings.

Exactly this!

I have no problem excluding people based on association with criminal gangs, or crimes committed while in USA or crimes committed in their country of origin. I WANT those people excluded, and if this guy is one of them, I WANT him excluded too. I just want there to be a hearing before sending people to the gulags.

DeficitHawk says

There was no lack of due process for them. They got trials. You just don't like the result.

Yeah, we're not falling for that.

This time it's us with the biased courts and the zoom calls from overseas country of origin for the deportation hearing.

Let the Supreme Court deploy it's divisions.

DeficitHawk says

I have no problem excluding people based on association with criminal gangs, or crimes committed while in USA or crimes committed in their country of origin. I WANT those people excluded, and if this guy is one of them, I WANT him excluded too. I just want there to be a hearing before sending people to the gulags.

Yep, via Zoom from Honduras or El Salvador. Deportation first, hearing later.

I KNOW that Soros and the pro-immigration lobby wants hearings here so they can then start lawfare with WHICH courts hear it, magically schedule them for the most pro-immigration Obama appointees, that it took too long so their due process was violated (despite them hiding) so they have to stay arguments, etc.

The Rule of Law can blow me, it's been so abused the past 4 years. Now it's my turn to give my enemies and opposition the full weight of the law, with only consideration and leeway for my allies. Just like they did.

The only way they will learn is to suffer as much. No more "Good Republicans doing principle, while the Left goes all out with as much as they can get away with, but when the Republicans come back, it's principles and rule of law again."

So Republicans need to follow the Democrats' interpretations of the law, but Democrats don't need to follow clear written letter of the law or SCOTUS rulings. Got it.

After seeing decades of lawlessness, selective/vindictive prosecution, rampant corruption, and outright murder and framing of political enemies, I simply don't care about "law" anymore, because it no longer matters. I care about what's right and what's wrong. Finally something right was done, and this guy got a well deserved one-way ticket to where he belongs.

You want to care about the law play holier than thou? You're about 30 years too late. Should've fixed this problem long ago instead of ignoring it because it suited your politics at the time. It's a game where one side gets to cheat constantly while the other is expected to follow every rule to the letter. That ends in guaranteed loss if you allow that. Enough is enough.

AmericanKulak says

Let the Supreme Court deploy it's divisions.

Oh come on now. Do you really want to encourage us to live in a country where checks and balances are abandoned? Courts disregarded? Laws and constitutions ignored? I can understand rhetoric... but do you really want this to be the country you live in? I dont want that.

DeficitHawk says

Oh come on now. Do you really want to encourage us to live in a country where checks and balances are abandoned? Courts disregarded? Laws and constitutions ignored? I can understand rhetoric... but do you really want this to be the country you live in? I dont want that.

Already happened. People in solitary for a year for trespassing before trial, and the same cheerleaders for it were crying that a 34-year old 17-year student visa holder who never earned a single degree but worked for a foreign political group was finally deported.

Slap 'em back so they learn.

No more principles for me, pushing boundaries for them. I'm done. I want to win, not be principled, it's gotten me nowhere.

I need results, not vague promises.

Fuck the rule of law. I want revenge and victory.

I will, however, be magnanimous to uphold the rule of law if they surrender unconditionally. They broke the trust, it's up to them, where they have the power to show - not talk - about fixing it. Until then the maximum weight of government on them, and the best treatment for me and my allies.

Well, I dont agree. I dont want to abandon checks and balances. I dont want the courts ignored. I dont want the constitution abandoned. I dont want the country you are describing. Im not going to encourage it, and Im going to advocate against it.

DeficitHawk says

Well, I dont agree. I dont want to abandon checks and balances. I dont want the courts ignored. I dont want the constitution abandoned. I dont want the country you are describing. Im not going to encourage it, and Im going to advocate against it.

Already was.

I'm not fighting with on hand tied while they have both hands free and kick below the belt and the ref ignores it or allows it only in their case.

I want to beat them with a tire iron and the judge ignore it, then maybe after they are beaten to a pulp and no longer an opponent, we'll restore the rule of law.

AmericanKulak says

Fuck the rule of law. I want revenge and victory.

Its going to be hard for you and I to see eye to eye.

DeficitHawk says

Its going to be hard for you and I to see eye to eye.

Get them to surrender unconditionally and I won't beat them with a tire iron as they deserve.

I won't be talked back into stupid principles they themselves don't believe in and violate every chance they get.

(Edit: And the ref ignores)

AmericanKulak says

DeficitHawk says

Its going to be hard for you and I to see eye to eye.

Get them to surrender unconditionally and I won't beat them with a tire iron as they deserve.

I won't be talked back into stupid principles they themselves don't believe in and violate every chance they get.

Who is "they"? do you mean me? People who believe in rule of law and the constitution?

DeficitHawk says

Who is "they"? do you mean me? People who believe in rule of law and the constitution?

Leftists don't believe in the Constitution.

They got a magic 20M votes just oh so coincidentially when we had mail-in voting, but lost handsomely like before when it was no longer in operation.

Only a fool thinks that a coincidence.

AmericanKulak says

Leftists don't believe in the Constitution.

Try me.

DeficitHawk says

Try me.

I searched your posts for J6ers, and found nothing prior to this recent conversation.

AmericanKulak says

DeficitHawk says

Try me.

I searched your posts for J6ers, and found nothing prior to this recent conversation.

I'm sure I made some comments that J6 was a serious incident and people had committed violence and deserved sentencing consistent with their actions. I did not say they should be deprived of their rights under the constitution, I think they were entitled due process while being tried for their crimes.

DeficitHawk says

I'm sure I made some comments that J6 was a serious incident and people had committed violence and deserved sentencing consistent with their actions. I did not say they should be deprived of their rights under the constitution, I think they were entitled due process while being tried for their crimes.

So, a year in solitary pending a misdemeanor trespassing charge without violence, as the vast, vast, vast majority of J6ers were?

Have you ever seen an unarmed left wing trespasser get a year in solitary before trial?

I don't trust you one iota. My trust is your problem, not mine.

AmericanKulak says

They got a magic 20M votes just oh so coincidentially when we had mail-in voting, but lost handsomely like before when it was no longer in operation.

Oh, this old chestnut. OK. Yeah, trump lost in 2020. Get over it. Thats not a constitutional principle. Thats just the result of an election.

Democrats are worried that they might have to suffer everything that they themselves did to conservatives, or worse, everything they planned to do to conservatives.

Lawfare, entrapment and imprisonment like the J6 protestors, camps for those who question the right to rule by paid-off "science", decades of relentless disparagement in all forms of media, their own speech being censored as "misinformation" and "hate speech", overt discrimination in education and jobs, impoverishment, etc.

That's what "Maryland Man" is all about. Fear that their own evil history and evil plans will come back to them.

They know they have been unspeakably evil and rightly fear the consequences of decades of their own actions, so they wet their pants in paranoid projection now.

DeficitHawk says

Oh, this old chestnut. OK. Yeah, trump lost in 2020. Get over it. Thats not a constitutional principle. Thats just the result of an election.

No. Every case brought was dismissed. Nothing went to trial. It's your opinion Trump lost. It's my opinion it was stolen and the Powers That Be ensured it would take. It shocked the world that Trump was up in multiple states by 11PM, only to lose them in secret counting, and then the records lost or destroyed or kept secret.

Like I said, my trust is your problem, not mine.

Patrick says

They know they have been unspeakably evil and rightly fear the consequences of decades of their own actions, so they wet their pants in paranoid projection now.

It actually has to happen. The only reason the religious wars of the 1600s ended was total exhaustion.

Have you ever seen an unarmed left wing trespasser at any government building get a year in solitary before trial?

It needs to start happening.

"Oh, protesters for abortion protested at the Dept of Health and Human Services and are terrorists endangering our democracy. One locked herself in an office for an hour. One year in solitary pending trial."

AmericanKulak says

My trust is your problem, not mine.

OK. Look theres not much point in continuing, if your test of whether or not I support the constitution is whether I think Trump won the election, or whatever. And you wont trust anything I say and that's my problem. Lets end this sidebar.

I am frustrated. I say I am a leftist on this forum because everyone here is so extreme right. But in the overall spectrum, I am moderate. There are other forums I participate in where I am the 'right winger' relative to that population. It is sad to see this country so polarized. So much that we can not even hardly acknowledge each others humanity. And that is from someone speaking from the (left leaning) middle.

I participate here as the lonely moderate voice, in an experiment to see whether it is possible to bridge gaps. But I get discouraged.

"Oh, protesters for abortion protested at the Dept of Health and Human Services and are terrorists endangering our democracy. One locked herself in an office for an hour. One year in solitary pending trial."

That sounds about right, J6 equivalent. If it was good for them, then it's good for the Left.

DeficitHawk says

I participate here as the lonely moderate voice, in an experiment to see whether it is possible to bridge gaps. But I get discouraged.

Leftists always call themselves moderates. Until they push further left, and then pretend to be the moderate of the far left pushed new paradigm which was the Far left of the old paradigm.

We're a threat to your bureaucracy.

If you think the vax mandate was necessary, you're not a moderate.

DeficitHawk says

Well, I dont agree. I dont want to abandon checks and balances. I dont want the courts ignored. I dont want the constitution abandoned. I dont want the country you are describing. Im not going to encourage it, and Im going to advocate against it.

I presume this guy drove a car? Show a license? There's your due process. Worked a job? Show your SS card. You'd have to do the same. Is that unfair to you? He couldn't prove his citizenship. He's illegal. That's enough due process.

I don't like government control, but this guy clearly couldn't prove that he was here legally. Where is my due process in getting handcuffed and tossed in jail for having 3 beers. A digital machine determines my outcome or if I can stand on one leg with a torn MCL and walk a straight line?

There is no due process. You gotta understand that. That guy wasn't even supposed to be in the country. Yet I can be jailed and convicted with .04, a bad knee because I had 3 beers over 2 hours while eating. Has not happened to me, but it happens. Is that fair? .08 is the LEGAL limit in most states. That's not due process.

Lol that Senator just said, and I quote “this administration is seeking to stash away US residents in El Salvador” thereby attempting to deceive.

He states “residents” rather than “permanent resident” or “citizen” in attempt to persuade anyone not paying too much attention.

As to due process I’m pretty much a staunch supporter. Unfortunately for the last few decades George Soros sponsored organizations have been advising every last illegal to claim asylum in order to force them into a due process situation rather than insta deportation which border patrol has the right to do when people are viewed illegally entering the US. It’s tantamount to lying and it’s no coincidence at all that the Democrats refuse to deal with the situation while continuing to be heavily funded by the same George Soros. I can’t help but believe that someone arguing for due process for illegal aliens at this point is actually arguing from an entirely disingenuous standpoint.

Or, another agitprop repeating station standpoint. It's hard to be merely that 'disingenuous' (being strictly euphemistic).
FuckTheMainstreamMedia says

entirely disingenuous standpoint.

"You can't eject the trespasser from the property until he has his due process".

Sure you can. If he feels he was illegally detained, he can initiate a case AFTER he's removed.

Or, we can just appoint some more SCOTUS judges.

The MSM/Left (but I repeat myself) was all excited to do so after Debt Forgiveness and unlimited North Korean abortion on demand penumbra of privacy was overturned

We owe the left one after FDR got his way when he threatened to do it.

This guy thinks Biden mysteriously got millions of votes after midnight and came roaring back to victory, all just outside relative mandatory recount number is only a handful of contested states like PA and GA. This pattern did NOT repeat in 40+ other states.

That a year in solitary pending trial for basically misdemeanor mischief and trespassing was keeping with "Due Process"

He probably has no problem with the IRS seizing money without due process and reversing the guilty-innocence presumption that exists everywhere else in common law.

But he wants people with absolutely no evidence they are legally allowed to be here to have due process before they can be deported.

Sure he does. He knows that if they get it, they're never going back.

DeficitHawk says

I was not too worried that the patnet crowd would have trouble finding voices to advocate for the J6'ers... But even still, I was NOT here advocating to take away the bill of rights protections from the J6'ers.

J6ers were American citizens.

But as stereotomy stated, you pick and choose when to cry about “civil liberties.”

By the way, a Thief who broke in to your house would be out of line to complain if you kicked him out.

PeopleUnited says

By the way, a Thief who broke in to your house would be out of line to complain if you kicked him out.

It's not even about kicking him out. It's about breaking in and if you have proof of that, due process is over if you have the proof. J6'ers were on camera and got prison sentences. Some of them literally were just walking through a public building and not causing any damage.

An illegal does not need due process.

Also why in the hell would we tie up the legal system with illegals. They have the right to prove they're here legally. If you're not or can't, goodbye.

DeficitHawk says

everyone here is so extreme right

Really?
I for one voted a straight D ticket my whole life until very recently. There are millions of voters under the umbrella of "I didn't leave the Democrats, they left me".

https://x.com/amuse/status/1914318598035681604

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/habeas-corpses-monday-april-21-2025

It wasn’t easy tracking down this eye-popping story, which combined all the elements of the immigration debate— yet corporate media still ignored it. The Albuquerque Journal ran the astonishing article last week below the bland, uninformative headline, “Doña Ana County judge resigns after feds arrest man at home.” It was an all-American story about a small-town judge, a quiet, well-kept house, a nice, peaceful neighborhood— but while the judge’s wife was in the kitchen cooking dinner, a designated terrorist was out back polishing a suppressed AR-15.




On March 3rd, Las Cruces Magistrate Judge Jose Cano (D) quietly resigned from the bench after three re-elections since 2011. On the same day, prosecutors were down the street in federal district court arguing that a recent arrestee, a Venezuelan national named Christhian Lopez-Ortega, 23, was a Tren de Aragua gang member and a flight risk.

The two men’s connection defies belief.

Christhian was first caught crossing the border at Eagle Pass in December, 2023, but was freed three days later— due to overcrowding. This year, three days before Judge Cano tendered his letter of resignation, the El Paso Homeland Security Office, responding to an anonymous tip, raided the judge’s Las Cruces home and found the gang member living in the judge’s guest cottage, or what the locals call a casita.

Homeland Security officers nabbed Lopez-Ortega with a bunch of guns (a felony), and the family closed ranks, claiming the guns were owned by the Judge’s daughter, April. The government’s April 8th motion for reconsideration drily reported, “The Defendant admitted that he knew it was illegal for him to possess firearms.”

According to federal filings, Judge Cano’s liberal wife Nancy came upon the young man working construction and hired him to replace a glass door and do a couple odd jobs around the house. After Lopez-Ortega was evicted from his apartment, Nancy invited him to live with the family, and began driving him to his immigration appointments and his construction gigs.

No good reason for inviting a 23-year-old gang member into the family appears in any of the reports, leaving ample space for sordid speculation. Generously, the affluent middle-aged mom may have thought she just was helping “reform” the career gangster.

Investigators discovered some clues in Lopez-Ortega’s text messages. He called Nancy his “patrona,” which I believe is Venezuelan for “sugar momma.” One unidentified amigo asked Lopez-Ortega to get him “two grenades.” Another texted him a grisly murder scene photo showing decapitated victims with their hands cut off, a gruesome photo attached in full to Homeland’s motion, but which I will not reproduce here in close-up.

Troublingly, the local federal Magistrate judge overruled Lopez-Ortega’s bond, rebuffing federal prosecutors and saying something like, “I’m sure he’s okay if he’s living with Judge Cano.” The federal judge even tried to remit the gang member back into Nancy Cano’s custody.

That prompted the government’s attorneys to file an emergency motion for reconsideration, which has not yet been set for hearing.

This story involves two judges. The first, a sitting state judge embroiled in what appears at minimum to be a non-traditional relationship with a member of a designated terrorist organization, an illegal, gang-tattooed alien the Cano family shared everything with including their firearms, and a second local federal judge who in open court said he would release the man because he was friends with the first judge.

If this story came from Venezuela, it would surprise no one. But it’s from New Mexico.

This troubling tale has created a certain amount of buzz in local and social media, percolating just below corporate media’s veneered surface. If we had a functioning media, which we obviously do not, they would tell us how historically, the corruption of local judiciary is one of the first and most critical steps that cartel-style organizations take when consolidating soft territorial control.

Cartels are cagey, sly, and experienced. They don’t roll into a new area in hummers holding assault rifles. They quietly assimilate and get a read on the local judicial and law enforcement arena. Then they deploy a carrot and stick approach. They offer sweet bribes, called “plata” (silver), sometimes cloaked as gifts or brokered with third parties. And, for judges who don’t take bribes, they offer quiet threats, called “plomo” (lead): you don’t want to deny bail on a TdA hermano.

Plata or plomo. Silver or lead.

The cartels realize that the judicial bench is the choke point. There are only a handful of judges in each locale, so controlling even one through plato or plomo makes a measurable difference. Control the judiciary, and you effectively control law enforcement. It’s not just a cartel thing, it’s an organized crime tactic. You can find similar examples in the 1980’s mafia and the 1930’s Chicago mobsters.

The cartels are just the tactic’s most recent incarnation.

In other words, this suppressed story is narrative dynamite. It is a much more threatening example than that MS-13 moron down in CECOT. Here, we have a U.S. judge literally living under the same roof with a violent, illegal alien gang member (if requests for grenades and snuff photos of gang killings aren’t enough evidence of violent inclination, then I don’t know what to tell you). And we see a second judge in a completely different courthouse running cover for the first judge.

But here, the media could care less about Christhian Lopez-Garcia’s deportation battle.

Here’s a link to the government’s motion for reconsideration, but note that some of the final attachments are graphic.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u82ynv2ddhvvhpmcmroqw/Doc.-32-Lopez-Ortega-Dist.N.M._2-25-mj-00330-1.pdf

Wonder if judge was a homo Freemason. It would explain a lot.

DeficitHawk says

But even still, I was NOT here advocating to take away the bill of rights protections from the J6'ers.

You literally said that the J6ers all received due process despite years in jail before seeing a judge.

Robert Sproul says

Really?
I for one voted a straight D ticket my whole life until very recently.

He isn't honest or is such a Team Player it's pointless.

He thinks J6ers were "violent"
He thinks solitary confinement pending charges was "Due Process" and perfectly fine.
Probably thinks that Trump committed a crime by "Fooling" a dozen elite, world-expert level Deutsche Bank financiers into lending him money, which he repaid early. Nevermind the lenders in their own internal documents called the collateral "some of the best they've ever seen".

In short, he's a typical MSNBC Leftist, not at all moderate. That's why I'm harsh on him.

BTW, anybody remember the multiple Left Wing terror attacks on SCOTUS judges after their abortion and student loan rulings?

And how the media was portraying it as "Regrettable, but understandable anger at injustice" with no mention of "Rule of Law"?