The Department of Homeland Security is considering taking part in a television show that would have immigrants go through a series of challenges to get American citizenship, officials said on Friday.
The challenges would be based on various American traditions and customs, said Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the agency. She said the department was still reviewing the idea, which was pitched by a producer named Rob Worsoff.
“The pitch generally was a celebration of being an American and what a privilege it is to be able to be a citizen of the United States of America,” Ms. McLaughlin said. “It’s important to revive civic duty.”
…
Okay, I think this could work. But right away I’d like to suggest two, um, enhancements. First, involve wild animals. That should kick up the adrenaline in participants, as well as viewers. Probably in the animals, too.
Second, the contest should be to the death for the losers. Let’s don’t screw around. These people risk their lives in boats, in the backs of semi trucks, in the desert. And America doesn’t want losers anyway.
Ads could be sold at Super Bowl rates. Win-win. Well, mostly.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Disclaimer: surely I don’t need to say–but I will–that this is bitter black humor.
In the past I have (sarcastically) suggested in a couple of threads that a great way to pay off the national debt would be to start a “Squid Games” type of show at the border. MAGATs would pay to operate the machine guns/killing devices from the comfort of their homes for a period of time. The debt would be paid off at astonishing speed.
It sounds like we are getting close to this becoming reality.
To be fair, the Supreme Court punted on this one and sent it back to the lower courts.
While it was not a win for Trump it wasn’t a loss (yet) either.
The justices did not rule on whether the Alien Enemies Act, which the Trump administration invoked in mid-April to deport the detainees, had been applied correctly. - SOURCE
The justices announced they would allow the Trump administration to end the protections pending appeal of the case, potentially allowing the administration to move ahead with deportations. The justices also clarified, however, that they would preserve the ability of individual immigrants to bring some legal challenges if the government tried to cancel their work permits or to remove them from the country.
Justice Jackson says she would have denied the administration’s request.
The court’s brief order was unsigned and gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices rule on emergency applications. No vote count was listed, although Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that she would have denied the administration’s request.
IOW, nothing indicates she was the only one who felt this way.
That powerful intellect, Kristi Noem, when asked what habeas corpus was, said “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.” Really. At least she has the excuse of not being a lawyer. But to answer in such a ridiculous way is unworthy of anyone who has passe high school civics.
Just another one of Trump’s DEI hires. But seriously, wouldn’t you expect that someone holding a lead cabinet position be at least familiar with the Constitution of the United States as well as the Declaration of Independence?
Someone should start a thread about the Constitution according to Kristi.
‘The First Amendment says that Jesus is always first.’ ~ Kristi
(Sadly there’s no way to put little hearts over the 'i’s which I’m sure she did until she was elected.)
That statement she made makes me recall a crusty old professor at law school, who defined “Rule of Law” as, “Rule of Law means that the government doesn’t get to make shit up to justify its actions.”
In this case, Kristi is making shit up to justify Trump’s actions.
That, and also, most kids in the US get taught about the Constitution in 7th grade. In my class, habeas was a big one. Like, I couldn’t forget it if I tried.
She should be roundly mocked by the media, but I won’t hold my breath.
