It wouldn’t have happened this way without the killing of Pretti, IMO. That changed things instantaneously.
You are not exaggerating. If I remember correctly, Democrats went along with the funding the day before the shooting. The day after the shooting, they threatened to force a shutdown.
That’s right. I was trying to get at that with my leverage “of the moment” remark. Being more explicit would have been clearer.
But right, a bipartisan funding of DHS had passed the House a few days earlier with no restrictions. I thought that odd since a lot of shit had occurred prior to Pretti. I imagine had Pretti not been killed, on video, that it would have passed the Senate, too.
Right, pretty cool move by the Democrats.
If we were at the point of simply saying “everybody should follow the law”, then ICE wouldn’t be kidnapping and murdering US citizens in the streets (which is also against the law, even if it’s so-called “police” who are doing it).
ICE are a lawless gang. They cannot be reformed, they must simply be removed from the equation, and the easiest way to do it is to stop paying them and let them find real jobs.
Moderating:
The poster to whom you’re speaking was mod-noted for this off-topic suggestion.
Please pay attention to mod notes in the thread, and don’t respond to posts that have been modded for hijacking.
Meanwhile, Schumer and Jeffries are making it clear that they have absolutely no intention of actually sticking to any of their demands, I guess because a shutdown would make their donors mad.
In a press conference outlining their push for changes to immigration enforcement policies at the Department of Homeland Security, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) described, for the first time, small qualifications to their “no mask” demands…“I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people,” Jeffries said.
Schumer followed with a similar caveat, saying immigration authorities “need identification and no masks, except in extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
Lets see- they have slightly modified one item of their fairly long their list. Did you read that article? It does not say what you claim it does.
There are TEN items on that list- They already got an agreement on body cams.
Which means they’ll wear masks all the time, because Trump declares everything an emergency so that he can exercise “emergency powers” nonstop. That doesn’t always work; courts have said, for example, he needs a real emergency to take over a state’s National Guard, but he’ll definitely try. And I can see him declaring that because ICE is in such danger from domestic terrorists, every moment they are on the job is an “extraordinary and unusual circumstance”.
A reasonable person might make reasonable exceptions to a no-mask rule, but this is not a reasonable administration.
I get the frustration, but if you’re going to claim from just one slight concession that they clearly aren’t going to stick to any demands, if you are that pessimistic, what made you think that they would before this information?
I wasn’t expecting them to. Backing down and giving the Republicans everything they want in exchange for nothing is Schumer’s speciailty.
Since he has not done that, this is not true.
And now he’s backed all the way down to “they can wear masks if someone put their picture up or something”.
And how long before they say that posting a picture of a maskless ICE agent makes you a terrorist?
Schumer has to go.
Jeffries is barely better. Barely.
Schumer sucks. Jeffries might also suck, but his job is very, very different - wrangling House reps is much different than wrangling Senators. From what I’ve read, Jeffries is doing the tough job of managing very diverse opinions in his caucus, and that’s what his public stances are usually about, rather than his own ideology. But I’m not totally sure.
Small businesses across Los Angeles County reported $3.7 million in losses over three months last summer, with owners saying federal immigration enforcement reduced customer traffic and created staffing shortages, according to a County report released February 9.
The report, produced by the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, surveyed 311 businesses and found that 82% reported negative effects from enforcement between July and September, with 44% saying they lost more than half their revenue. The Republican Party of Los Angeles County called the report politically motivated, saying the County’s Democratic supervisors commissioned it to justify tax increases.
Of the businesses surveyed, 70% reported staffing shortages following enforcement actions, and 33% of employers said workers were afraid to report to their jobs, according to the report. County Supervisors Hilda L. Solis and Janice Hahn commissioned the study through a motion adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 17, according to the County’s press release.
“Small businesses and workers across Los Angeles County have felt the real consequences of the Trump administration’s cruel and inhumane federal immigration enforcement,” said Solis, the County Board chair, in the press release. Hahn, the County’s Fourth District supervisor, said in the same release that “our businesses recorded millions of dollars in losses in a matter of months.”
So, this overbearing push is costing billions, not just in LA, but also the cost of increased ICE raids, etc.