Home / General / Undemocratic Elections Have Very Bad Consequences

Undemocratic Elections Have Very Bad Consequences

Comments
/
/
/
862 Views

colorlines-screenshot-donald-trump-taco-salad-now-050616

None of this is surprising, but it’s still terrible:

The Trump Administration released new rules Tuesday that will hugely increase the number of undocumented people who are targeted for deportation. The new directives from the Department of Homeland Security call more people to be deported more quickly, even for non-violent crimes like abuse of public benefits. It also directs the agency to hire 10,000 new immigration and customs officials, and build new detention facilities to hold everyone who is suddenly considered an imminent threat to the nation.

As The Hill notes, the new rules, implemented under Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, repeal all the directives issued to immigration officials by the Obama administration. Instead of focusing on the deportation of people convicted of violent crimes, the new rules expand the definition of what a “criminal alien” is.

[…]

The new rules also confirm something ProPublica reported: that the United States now intends to deport people to Mexico who are not, in fact, from Mexico.

Well, that SEARING SELF-EXAMINATION after which the RNC determined the party should become more inclusive certainly seems to have been very effective.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • so-in-so

    Well sure, they now include anti-Hispanic bigots as well as anti-Muslim bigots and anti-black bigots…

    Still not fully inclusive until he tones it down against the anti-Semitic bigots.

    • Fats Durston

      We got both kinds, non-Western hatred and non-country hatred.

    • DrDick

      They did become more inclusive, they welcomed the far right whackaloons that they shunned in the 60s and 70s with open arms.

  • howard

    as i noted to erik’s post, i think we can stop considering kelly one of the “adults in the room” and instead regard him as “just another trump lackey.”

    which isn’t to say that it matters who is the dhs secretary, since the cossacks work for the (undemocratically elected) czar, but if kelly thinks he’s going to emerge from this with his reputation intact, it’s already too late.

    which mattis and mcmaster may want to note.

    • Dennis Orphen

      The Republican party is a criminal organization. Anyone who is a member, or works to advance its agenda is a criminal, full stop.

  • bassopotamus

    What will Mexico do with non Mexicans dumped there?

    • NeonTrotsky

      Well if they deport them then Mexico is just letting the U.S. be a free rider and not pay for its own deportations so if I were the Mexican government I’d just refuse to take them back at all.

      • Carl Carlson

        Moroni Deported to Sweden

        Claims he’s not from there

        • Honoré De Ballsack

          Moroni Deported to Sweden
          Claims he’s not from there

          Those fargin’ bastiches!

      • busker type

        Deport them back to the US?

    • MacK

      Refuse to take them. Arrest any ICE agents who dumped them for violating Mexican immigration law. Issue warrants for ICE and CBP agents involved in the dumping so they can’t cross the border without being arrested.

      There are things the Mexicans can do and refuse to do.

      Oh who knows, depending on the outcome of a certain US Supreme Court case, use lethal force cross border to prevent the CBP and ICE from infringing the Mexican side of the birder, and citing that case say – ain’t that a shame….you have no jurisdiction….

      • DAS

        Who says the ICE agents have to step foot in Mexico? They can march deportees to the border and force the deportees to cross over at gunpoint, but not cross the border themselves. Under what jurisdiction could Mexico arrest the ICE agents?

        Heck, an ICE agent shot a Mexican citizen to death. The Mexican citizen was in Mexico. The US government has refused to charge said ICE agent with murder, refused to extradite the agent and is arguing the kid’s family lacks standing to sue as the agent acted in the US and the kid never entered the US.

        What’s then to stop ICE agents from marching deportees over the border. So long as the agents themselves never leave the US, they never enter Mexican jurisdiction. So if we say the ICE agents acted legally … they did.

        • Warren Terra

          I really don’t understand the “lacks standing to sue” notion. All they’re asking is that a court and a jury hear the case of whether this guy harmed them. It’s clear that harm was done, it’s clear that he did it, the only question is whether he is civilly liable for damages – except somehow the courts are making a “standings” ruling that ignores the things I just said were obvious, that literally no-one disputes? How does that even work?

          • ggrzw72

            Perhaps that’s because Hernandez is not a standing case. The government isn’t arguing that plaintiff lacks standing, it’s arguing that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply.

            • Warren Terra

              Maybe this would be obvious to a lawyer, but how is the 4th amendment – against unreasonable search and seizure – even be relevant in a wrongful death suit? I don’t see why either side would seek to apply it, or why it would matter.

              • rea

                It’s a use-of-deadly-force-to-arrest case, except the victim (a 15-year old teasing the guards on the other side of the fence) wasn’t really being arrested because he was in Mexico.

                • los

                  Act of War?

                • Philip

                  I don’t know about anyone else, but I have high hopes for the tribunals on the US in the Hague in a decade or so. Maybe we can throw some ICE and CBP agents in a deep pit somewhere where they’ll never see sunlight again.

            • DAS

              Not being a lawyer, I was being sloppy and not using the correct terminology (nor did I remember the exact argument the government was trying to use to get the case thrown out).

              As to Warren’s response, maybe I’m misunderstanding something because I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I know, pace all that flowery 18th century rhetoric about “natural and inalienable rights” (for white male property owners), your rights under the law are what the law says they are (with the caveat that the law can invent new rights that have quasi-constitutional force even if those rights are not explicitly enumerated in the constitution). According to the constitution, a person has a right to be secure in his/her person, etc., but obviously the US constitution does not apply in Mexico (especially to someone who is not a US citizen or even in the US on a visa or green card). So what right does the family of an individual killed in Mexico have to seek redress in US courts?

              TBH, allowing foreigners to sue in US courts over actions of Americans in the US acting under cover of legal (military or policing) authority opens up a huge can of worms, especially in this day and age of remote controlled (drone) warfare. OTOH, there needs to be deterrent against someone shooting across a border and killing someone. Could you imagine if a Mexican border agent killed a US teen across the border? And on the third hand (we do have three hands, don’t we?), it may very well be that the border patrol agent was acting in self-defense so it would be wrong to prosecute him solely to make an example of him.

              It’s actually quite a pickle where the unique role of SCOTUS is that it’s ruling has to go beyond mere legal questions to address the (foreign) policy implications of the law — no matter what SCOTUS does here, it ain’t merely calling balls and strikes.

    • osceola

      I read today someone in the Mexican Congress filed a bill requiring deportees from the US to show proof of Mexican citizenship or not be accepted.

      • los

        Breitbart “news” reporter: “That’s not constitutional! Mexicans can’t pass laws! Deport those illegals to Mexico!”

  • Uneekness

    It turns out this is one of those times the sequel performed better than the original…

  • NeonTrotsky

    How on earth can you deport someone to a country that they don’t have citizenship or legal standing to be in? Can’t Mexico just refuse to take said non-mexicans?

    • so-in-so

      Then tRump says they can’t come back, what then? SS St. Louis repeats itself, except with 747s?

      • UnderTheSun

        SS St. Louis – not one of America’s finest moments but the passengers on it weren’t deportees from Germany but refugees.

        Perhaps Trump has found a way to get the Mexicans to pay for and build “The Wall”, to keep non-Mexican deportees out of Mexico rather than undocumented immigrants out of the United States.

      • Manny Kant

        More like when Germany expelled recent immigrant Polish Jews back to Poland and the Poles wouldn’t take them in late 1938. They were kept in refugee camps along the border for weeks. Distress over his family being kept in one of those camps is what led Herschel Grynszpan to murder the Secretary of the German Legation in Paris, which was used as the pretext for Kristallnacht.

    • Nobdy

      To quote one Christopher Wallace, AKA Frank White, AKA the Notorious B.I.G.

      “Whatchu think all the guns is for?”

      • NeonTrotsky

        This is an incredibly stupid policy to start a war with mexico over

        • so-in-so

          tRump…

          He can’t wait to find a smart policy to start one over. His two terms could be up first…

          • Colin Day

            He can’t wait to find a smart policy to start one over. His two terms could be up the heat death of the universe could occur first…

            FTFY

        • Nobdy

          I don’the dispute the truth of your comment, but I am having trouble identifying its relevance.

          Anyway it’s an even stupider policy for Mexico to start a war with the U.S. over. When you’re a gangster you do unjust shit and dare the victims to complain or retaliate.

          • Dennis Orphen

            Modern warfare tends to be assymetrical, and often in ways that are difficult to perceive.

            • Nobdy

              Sure, Mexico could mount a strong guerilla resistance to the U.S., especially if the cartels got involved, but the U.S. conventional military would stomp Mexico’s standing army and kick the current government out very quickly (The Iraqi resistance arguably beat the U.S. in Iraq, but things went very poorly for Saddam and the Ba’athists.)

              It is easier and much cheaper to just accept the deportees and send them on to their actual homelands.

              This is one of the ways Trump operates. By being stupid, vengeful, stubborn and unpredictable he makes direct resistance very pricey.

              • Manny Kant

                Why on earth do you think the response to a Mexican refusal to take in a bunch of Central American deportees would be a US invasion of Mexico?

            • Snarki, child of Loki

              Montezuma’s Revenge!

              • los

                = “Improvised Explosive Device”

                /1. Oh, the things people upload to youtube.
                /2. “Let’s see what sticks to the wall…”

          • Mutombo

            What’s the worst that can happen from Trump’s perspective?

            Mexico complains, refuses to cooperate, or escalates and Trump gets more publicity for attempting to enforce immigration law. There’s no downside for Trump.

            • McAllen

              The downside is that Trump potentially causes a human rights crisis and becomes even less popular. Not saying this will definitely or even likely happen, but Trump is not completely immune from the consequences of his actions the way some liberals think he is.

              • Colin Day

                How would a human-rights crisis make Trump less popular with his voters?

                • cpinva

                  “How would a human-rights crisis make Trump less popular with his voters?”

                  it wouldn’t, obviously. in fact, with his base of batshit crazy supporters, it might even tend to make him more popular. that, however, isn’t what McAllen said, what he said was:

                  “The downside is that Trump potentially causes a human rights crisis and becomes even less popular.” not less popular with his actual voters, just less popular overall. this could have unsalutory effects on foreign policy for example, making it more difficult to get cooperation from other countries whose help we might need to, for example, extradite one their nationals, for criminal acts we claim occurred while they were on our soil, or affected events that happened here, or any of our territories, while the alleged perpetrator was on foreign soil.

                • los

                  cpinva says:

                  with his base of batshit crazy supporters, it might even tend to make him more popular.

                  Bannon guarantees to Putin that the Mispresident aggravating relations with USA’s allies will make Trump more popular with his base of batshit crazy supporters.

          • UnderTheSun

            When you’re a gangster you do unjust shit and dare the victims to complain or retaliate.

            I thought that was the American way

            • tsam

              What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

              • N__B

                Is there an Elmer Fudd version?

                • tsam

                  Haven’t seen one, but maybe that’ll be a lazy Sunday afternoon project.

                • los

                  search:
                  Elmer Fudd translator
                  (another Foreigner put out of a job)

    • MacK

      It’s not just that, if ICE or CBP agents try to put them over the border, then the Mexicans can treat them as people smugglers – arrest and charge them. In effect the ICE and CBP agents would be breaking Mexican criminal law.

      • CrunchyFrog

        As written, the provision applies only to those who crossed the border with Mexico. Thus, as written, these are people Mexico allowed in originally.

        In practice, unless the people are caught in the act and returned immediately there is likely no way to prove they actually came from Mexico. The border gestapo will assert they did and dump them into Mexico. At this point I have no idea what happens.

        However, if put into practice and if Mexico doesn’t take steps to resist I think we can count on 10s of thousands being deported this way – maybe more – and probably a lot of people who didn’t come via Mexico. Add to this the provision for deporting people while they await their immigration hearings and and this is a thinly veiled legal set up to grab anyone who looks hispanic who doesn’t have papers at this instant and drive them over the border immediately. The reason for these provisions, of course, is that they know there aren’t enough detention facilities for all of the people they intend to deport.

        Furthermore, it’s already clear that the border gestapo will basically be given freedom to do whatever they want to whomever as long as it isn’t on videotape. The provisions as documented openly give the border gestapo freedom of judgement in many areas.

        This is what Trump promised. This is what so many of his voters – even a large number of those who voted for him reluctantly – want. Tired of hotel maids who can’t speak English. Tired of “press 2 for Spanish”. Tired of the day laborers hanging around outside Home Depot. And completely don’t give a crap what happens to them – just get rid of them.

    • sigaba

      It woild be … tedious to point out that Germany made a swift business of “deporting” French, German and Dutch citizens to scenic Poland. That’s literally the word they used.

      It’s probably easier to deport a non-Mexican to Mexico than a Mexican. A non-Mexican might be stateless.

    • Pete

      Yes, Mexico can just refuse to take those folks back, and you have to expect they will. Mexico does not want detention camps full of foreigners by its northern border plotting to escape back into the US.

      I found it interesting that the policy memo was largely written by two former aides to Jeff Sessions without career DHS input, and that some of these provisions seem to come from a 1996 law (likely a Sessions favorite) which administrations from both parties had ignored for 20 years as unenforceable (or stupid).

    • los

      mexico builds a wall…

      • los

        Republican Reversal joke:
        into GOP America, Mexico deports you.

  • Nobdy

    Like a neglectful, indulgent, parent excusing his kid’s poor performance in math class by saying “awww, hell, you ain’t gonna need math in the REAL world, don’t worry about it” the Republican party looked at its electoral self-grading, saw an F in Minority Outreach and decided “The only outreach we need is strong white hands reaching out, grabbing the Messicans by their collars, and throwing them the hell out of our country! They can’t vote when they’re back in Guatemala or wherever Messicans come from. Won’t need no minority outreach when we make ‘Murica white again!!”

    At the time this seemed insane to me, but since full bore ethnic cleansing is on the table, who knows it could work.

  • David Allan Poe

    Doesn’t this kind of expansion require Congressional appropriation, or is there enough money kicking around the DHS budget to cover it? None of the articles I saw said one way or another.

    • Dennis Orphen

      ‘You rubber stamp my back and I’ll rubber stamp yours.”

      Now excuse me while I vomit.

    • JustRuss

      Indeed.

      It also directs the agency to hire 10,000 new immigration and customs officials, and build new detention facilities…

      We’re talking real money here, to round up people who aren’t causing problems and are probably contributing to our economy. Besides the inhumanity, it’s economically imbecilic.

      • los

        Jan 19, Cuck Stream Media: “Things will change in America after January 20, Patriots!”
        /(jollily)

        Jan 20, Cuck Scream Media: “SHUT YOUR MOUTHS ABOUT THAT NATIONAL DEBT NONSENSE, TRAITORS!”
        /’biotch’

    • imwithher

      Yeah, I would like to know where Trump has found the legal authority, as well as the money, to hire ten thousand more agents. No way there is that much loose money lying around within the appropriations for the agency involved. Or that much money that could be legally squeezed out of something else. Or the legal authority to do so under current statutory law. We are talking billions of dollars here. Just like with the EOs to “build the wall,” where is the money? A President, if he wants to, can write any old thing in an EO, but that, by itself, without either statutory or Constitutional authority, doesn’t make it enforceable. And without the money, how can he hire agents even assuming he does have the authority to do so?

      • Just_Dropping_By

        He doesn’t have that authority, nor does he have the money, absent congressional action. These kinds of things are basically Potemkin villages for his supporters to gaze upon.

        • Dennis Orphen

          Potempkin policies are a potent tool in the kleptocrat’s toolbox.

          • efgoldman

            Potempkin policies are a potent tool in the kleptocrat’s toolbox.

            Apparently on January 21, the new administration rounded up all the copies of the “How to Promulgate New Policies” manual, and ripped out the “Think it through” and “Unforeseen consequences” pages.

            Fuckem.

        • los

          Just_Dropping_By says:

          …nor does he have the money

          Bartender Donald: “Put that on my tab.”

          Bartender Donald: “I can’t do that anymore because you owe too much already.”

          Bartender Donald: “I’M THE F**KING BARTENDER! I DO WHAT I WANT!”

      • los

        imwithher asks(?):

        where is the money?

        Answer: Follow the NotMyPresident

    • rea

      Well, of course it requires Congressional appropriation! ICE “removed” {their technical term–no one gets “deported” nowadays) 240,000 in FY 2016. Trump wants to remove 11 million? So, the budget is going to have to expand enormously, and 10,000 new employees is likely just the beginning. It’s going to require major budgetary action by Congress.

      I basically don’t believe that Congress will spend the money. We’ll see a lot of showy and fairly random enforcement, an enormous number of people will have their lives made miserable, but there will still be the millions of immigrant workers that keep the economy flowing.

      • searcher

        It’s just going to get added to the list of things Republicans are happy to run a deficit for – tax cuts, military adventures, and border walls.

        And when the deficit piles up, they’ll just complain about inheriting it from Obama.

      • efgoldman

        I basically don’t believe that Congress will spend the money.

        They could have appropriated it at any time going back multiple administrations. It’s never even been introduced, not even by assholes like Steve King.

      • imwithher

        From the DHS implementation memo:

        E. Hiring Additional ICE Officers and Agents

        To enforce the immigration laws effectively in the interior of the United States in accordance with the President’s directives, additional ICE agents and officers are necessary. The Director of ICE shall-while ensuring consistency in training and standards- take all appropriate action to expeditiously hire 10,000 agents and officers, as well as additional operational and mission support and legal staff necessary to hire and support their activities. Human Capital leadership in CBP and ICE, in coordination with the Under Secretary for Management and the
        Chief Human Capital Officer, shall develop hiring plans that balance growth and interagency attrition by integrating workforce shaping and career paths for incumbents and new hires.

        Seems like there is some wiggle room there…”take all appropriate action to expeditiously hire…” and “shall develop hiring plans…”

        • Pyre Light

          According to the linked article, ICE can’t even get enough qualified applicants to fill their current authorized strength.

          • Philip

            Because they’re evil fucks and no person who hasn’t had their conscience surgically removed will work for them.

      • Warren Terra

        As many people have pointed out – Hilzoy, on Twitter, comes to mind – just saying all undocumented are up for being stranded in Sonora is powerful enough, even without a single new hire to enforce the policy. Undocumented people can’t risk going to the police when they’re wronged, they can’t contest a parking ticket, they can’t risk being stopped for a broken taillight or being at a bar where a fight breaks out. All they can do is hide in their homes and their workplaces, meekly accepting whatever abuse their landlord or their employer decides to inflict. They lose all rights, all protections, and all independence, and become little more than chattel. Small wonder Sessions is so enthusiastic.

        • Gizmo

          Slavery really never went out of style with Sessions and his ilk. It just became less socially acceptable.

      • los

        “Federal hiring freeze.”

        “10,000 new ICE hires”

        /pun as governing policy.

    • Hogan

      First law of public finance: “If they think it’s important, they can always find the money.”

      The mathematical expression is “2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2.”

      • los

        they can always find the money

        from The Hard-Working Americans’ Pocketbooks, into my campaign investors’ pockets.

    • Pete

      Not in the current budget – and Trump hasn’t produced a proposed budget yet.

      This will be hugely costly if they even try to really implement it.

      • efgoldman

        Trump hasn’t produced a proposed budget yet.

        When’s the last time an actual budget got passed (not a continuing resolution)?
        2008? 2009?
        Not since the mouth breathers have been in charge. Weeping Cheetoh couldn’t; Granny Starver couldn’t.

        But wait! There’s more!! The debt limit is coming up soon. What’s Granny Starver going to do? Actually be responsible? Or send the economy down the crapper even faster than Peach Pustule is going to do.

        • los

          Ted Cruz budgetary brilliance: “We’ll hold a tea eggs and sham sale.”

  • alexceres

    There’s no difference between the two neoliberal wall st fawning war mongering business parties.

    • FMguru

      Also: Dronezzzzzzz

    • Chetsky

      Wrong font, buddy.

      • Warren Terra

        Too much kerning. Also, too much derp.

  • Fozzz

    How does funding for the additional 10,000 ICE agents/new facilities work? Can the executive shift money around to pay for this or will Congress need to authorize the funds, and if the latter is true, is there any way that appropriation can be blocked in Congress?

    • The Temporary Name

      How does funding for the additional 10,000 ICE agents/new facilities work?

      Bounties.

      • so-in-so

        It’s the GOP, they pull out the Platinum card and fund it on credit.

        • los

          It’s the GOP, they pull out the your Platinum card and have a weekend fling at Mar-a-Robbo.

      • Nobdy

        Voluteers. Remember the Minutemen. If there is one natural resource America is blessed with it is racists with guns.

    • Just_Dropping_By

      Something that huge (I would guesstimate that the cost would be more than $1 billion a year for the ICE agents alone) would almost certainly require Congressional appropriations.

      • Fozzz

        looks like around $3 billion. Filibuster that shit to hell and back.

        http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-budget-busting-immigration-crackdown-234201

        • DAS

          Actually the sneaky, devious part of me says the Democrats should pick such a bill coming up as the moment to say “the GOP says we shouldn’t filibuster their bills because they won the election, so we won’t filibuster this bill”. The GOP wants us to filibuster the bill so they can say “we tried to do something about illegals, but those Democrats blocked us”.

          If we don’t filibuster, either the GOP congress doesn’t pass the bill and GOP Congresscritters have to explain to their Trumpista supporters why they are soft on “illegals” or GOP Congresscritters pass the budget and have explain to their donors why they voted to fund massive deportation of cheap labor.

          I’d say we should refuse to filibuster, except not only would it be morally wrong, but the GOP would still find a way to blame the mess on Democrats. E.g. “if the Democrats really were so not racist, why didn’t they filibuster our bill? That they didn’t filibuster it proves they are the real racists”. And even the liberal media will repeat the GOP line so much, everyone will just accept it.

          • los

            DAS says:

            I’d say we should refuse to filibuster, except not only would it be morally wrong,

            True, but we’re apparently cornered into two choices:
            1. don’t filibuster then “Extreme Deportations” happen or
            2. filibuster then “Extreme Deportations” happen anyway.

            but the GOP would still find a way to blame the mess on Democrats.

            Blame-shifting will fail if Non-Republicans filibuster enough to have officially filibustered.
            After such, the GOP’s “Liberals are the real racists because they didn’t oppose our heinous racist actions” would strictly be a lie, thus harder to cram.

            • DAS

              My point was that the GOP would use “liberals are the real racists because they didn’t oppose our heinous racist actions” if we don’t filibuster. The problem with our filibustering is that it gives the GOP the out they desire: the GOP still gets their exploited labor without having to pay the price for opposing Trump’s plan to deport said exploitable labor force, because the Democrats will get the blame for Trump not getting the deportations he promised his base.

          • Fozzz

            The Donors will have no problem with that trade given tax cuts, gutting of environmental regs, gutting of financial regs, gutting of health care regs, the continued destruction of labor, etc.

            The GOP has to deliver some goodies to the base after all – and since economic goodies are reserved for the donors, offering an upsurge in state sanctioned domestic violence against those groups of people they hate is about as good of a deal as they’re going to get from the GOP.

      • CrunchyFrog

        Only if those rules are actually enforced. So far not a soul in Congress or Government has moved a muscle to enforce the Emoluments clause. If Trump writes an EO saying $1B intended for the EPA needs to go to the border gestapo, who’s to stop him? Congress? Get real. Courts? Well someone has to file suit, and we don’t have standing (Congress does, but I just dealt with that).

        Honestly, we say “you can’t do that” – but that’s only because both parties followed the rules they agreed to. Those days ended 1/20/17. They can do whatever the fuck they want. Yes, the Muslim Ban EO got blocked, so what? If you go back to the 1930s history you’ll see the Nazis had all kinds of temporary setbacks like that, but it was always 2 or 5 steps forward, 1 step back. And the second time they tried they’d got rid of the roadblock.

        • Just_Dropping_By

          Yes, if we assume nobody will enforce any rules, no rules will be enforced. However, to claim that Congress isn’t going to object to the President ignoring their budget authority is basically to say that members of Congress don’t like being reelected. If Trump starts purporting to move billions of dollars around without congressional approval, that’s going to start goring a lot of oxen really fast, because even in a post-earmarks era members of Congress love their pork.

          • CrunchyFrog

            They also love getting reelected. The very large majority of Republicans in the House are from districts that went heavily Trump. Suing Trump to stop his anti-immigrant plan would be seen as virtual treason by the base.

            It’s interesting watching this happen. The biggest mistake people are making is assuming that longstanding rules – which in fact are there by convention and rely on the majority party agreeing to those conventions – are going to hold up.

        • JKTH

          I honestly doubt that Congress would hold up the money anyways, at least for the ICE agents. $3 billion is chump change.

          • so-in-so

            Plus, t-Rump can threaten to veto one or more of their major bills if they refuse – they don’t have an override majority.

            • los

              so-in-so says:

              [Bannon/Putin] can threaten to veto one or more of [GOP’s] major bills

              That will be rare, but if such fratricidal conflict shall loom, then McTurtle and Ryan will make deals with Dems.

              Precedent: I recall reading that Pelosi sometimes fire-extinguished the post-2010 GOP House’s butts-on-fire.

  • MacK

    The basic problem is that the non-Mexicans put over the birder have no right to be in Mexico – and ICE and CBP agents who put them over the border coukd be arrested and charged with people-smuggling. It’s a stupid idea.

    • los

      MacK says:

      ICE and CBP agents who put them over the border could be arrested and charged with people-smuggling

      “National Socialist Donald Trump’s coyotes are smuggling illegals across the Mexican border11!!”

      and ICE coyotes captured on video while catapulting[1] live Swedes over the wall, provides evidence.

      ___________
      1. so that the coyotes avoid immediate arrest by Mexico.

  • smott999

    Can’t Mexico simply refuse to take them, by way of saying they cannot be confirmed as Mexican citizens?

    • Warren Terra

      This and related comments are addressed above. It seems the US has every right to hand back to Mexico anyone who came from Mexico illegally – but there seems to be consensus the US can’t toss into Mexico non-Mexicans who they can’t prove crossed the US-Mexico border illegally. So how this would apply to most anyone not caught in the act is a mystery.

      Note there’s a middle case, non-Mexicans who crossed from Mexico legally but then overstayed their visas. I assume they can’t be deported to Mexico, but with Steve Bannon in charge who knows?

      • los

        but with Steve Bannon in charge who knows?

        the only question remaining is whether the Ivanka Designer-Knockoff Human-Cannonball cannons will be made in Russia or in North Korea.

  • NewishLawyer

    The whole Mexico thing makes me wonder if the Trump team is really incompetent or really malicious. They are obviously both in many ways but surely someone had to be bright enough to know that this would not fly legally and provides a latch to a successful law suit.

    What is the end game with passing something so startlingly unconstitutional unless your next announcement is “Troops will be occupying every blue city and state tomorrow and I am removing all Democrats from office. By force if necessary.”

    Semi-OT: But Trump finally managed to do a halfway decent denouncement of hate crimes.

    • efgoldman

      The whole Mexico thing makes me wonder if the Trump team is really incompetent or really malicious. They are obviously both in many ways but surely someone had to be bright enough to know that this would not fly legally

      Yes they are. Their incompetence is the only thing thus far saving us from their evil. (Is evil worse than malicious? Because they are.)
      I don’t think they’ve yet come to the conclusion that Cantaloupe Corruption and his boss, Bannonazi really do need to run things past competent legal and subject matter experts. I can understand that, seeing as they’re both SUPERGENIUSES!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Joe_JP

      The Anne Frank Center doesn’t seem overly impressed.

      Also, Happy Birthday Rep. John Lewis.

      • Warren Terra

        I think the Anne Frank Center’s statement was issued earlier in the day, after Trump’s first renunciation of antisemitism, which was horrible. Later in the day Trump issued another that was, as NewishLawyer suggested, a bit better. But it was Too Little Too Late.

        • Joe_JP

          Thanks. Reading the Anne Frank Center statement, don’t think they would be overly impressed by the new renunciation either.

  • Among them was the Mexico part of the plan, for example, which calls for returning undocumented immigrants “to the foreign contiguous territory from which they arrived.”

    An admin. that wasn’t completely overrun by racist asshats would have a policy that applies to both countries that border the U.S.

    • Pete

      It only applies to immigrants coming over the Southern border? That’s foolish, and I’ll expect they’ll close that loophole if only because it looks horrible.

      But I’d love to see them try to dump people back in Canada.

    • los

      Shakezula says:

      policy that applies to both countries that border the U.S.

      “we’ll shoot Chef Bork into Castro’s Cuba.”

  • Bitter Scribe

    Hey, at least building and staffing all those detention centers will create jobs!

    • FlipYrWhig

      Manly jobs! In construction, law enforcement, and torture!

    • imwithher

      I think there is a good possibility that if Trump ever really did build the Wall and the detention center, then there would be more, not fewer, undocumented workers. Presumably, all of this construction work is going to be contracted out to private companies. And don’t private construction companies in the non Union Southwest tend to hire quite a few undocumented workers? I see a spike in demand for such workers, and more immigrants crossing the border illegally to meet that demand. Oh, the irony!

    • los

      Bitter Scribe says:

      building and staffing all those detention centers will create jobs

      Cuban labor’s remittances go to Raul.

      • los

        but moar jobs for Guantanamo’s Alt-Interviewers

  • JdLaverty

    I’m Catholic; I study part time at a Christian college and plenty of my fellow Christian Soldiers voted for trumpity trump trump. None of them have been able to explain how Christianity is compatible with support for a lying, racist plutocrat and his campaign to ruin the lives of every poor, brown-skinned migrant in the country. I mean it’s one thing to read about evangelical support for the GOP, but coming face-to-face with a ‘Christian’ attempting to justify this evil shit? It’s surreal.

    • The Lorax

      Yep. It’s fucking outrageous. It’s almost as if they’ve never read the Synoptic Gospels. The Parable of the Good Samaritan?

      • Pete

        This

      • Ithaqua

        The point of the parable is that even amongst those awful Samaritans, there are a few good ones, so you should judge people by the content of their character (rather than their ethnicity, for example.) If you drop the conclusion, though, you are perfectly at home with Trumpist and indeed alt-Right beliefs.

      • los

        Alt-Corinthians[1]? Alt-Samaritans.

        ___________
        1. https://biblia.com/bible/1Corinthians13

    • John F

      2016 Vote by religion:

      Protestant: 60:37 for Trump
      Catholic: 52:45 for Trump
      Mormon: 61:25 for Trump
      “Other Christian”: 55:43 for Trump
      Jewish: 71:24 for Clinton
      Other religions: 58:33 for Clinton
      None: 68:26 for Clinton.

      So Catholics suck less than other Christians.
      Seriously, it is not possible to be a Christian and vote for Trump, it is not possible to be politically conservative and a real Christian- most self-identified “Christians” are full of shit- I’ve read the New Testament- it is not possible to read the New Testament, and then to be a political conservative while claiming, in good faith, to be a Christian.

      Maybe I’ve been lucky, most of the Catholic Priests I’ve met have been politically liberal, but the conservative ones? As vile as Fred Phelps- and lordy do those cretins HATE HATE HATE Pope Francis (I hope he lives a real long time, he really has been forcing the conservatives out, it’ll take awhile, and the trouble is they know he’s doing it, but JPII and Benedict XVI left a system in place that makes it virtually impossible to do anything except try to outlast him (unless they want to openly schism)- what they are running into is that almost all their leaders are over or near “retirement” age- and he’s actually enforcing that by “letting” them retire. (Burke is well under retirement age – or he’d have been forced to retire – instead he’s been shuffled around and his formal authority has steadily diminished)

      • nemdam

        Arguably the most risible thing conservative Christians do is argue with the Pope. I regularly hear/read evangelicals argue that the freaking Pope doesn’t understand the Bible, the history of the Church, or the teaching of Jesus. I’m no theological scholar, but to hear some random Christian shmuck claim he knows Christianity better than the Pope is like hearing a drunk football fan claim he knows how to QB better than Tom Brady. The hilarity doubles when it’s a Catholic. “How dare the Pope say we need to worry about climate change! DURR IT’S NOT IN THE BIBLE!”

        • Bitter Scribe

          After decades of seeing conservative politicians use the Vatican as their own personal precinct organization, it’s amusing and gratifying to see the holy slipper on the other foot.

          • los

            or letting both feet loose and slipper-free

        • bender

          I doubt the Pope understands the Bible (the Original Series, not the sequel), and I’m certain most Protestants do not. Bible School Protestants seem to think that a number of people in Genesis and Judges are intended to be moral exemplars when they are actually tragic figures or examples of what not to do. Their preachers quote Leviticus as selectively as Republicans quote the Constitution, and not one of them appreciates THE LORD’s sarcastic remark at the end of Jonah.

          I haven’t heard enough of the Orthodox churches’ views to have an opinion about whether they understand the Bible. It’s a rare Christian in this era who has even read any book in the third section other than Psalms. No adult could read Job and Ecclesiastes more than once and stay a fundamentalist Christian.

        • ajay

          I’m no theological scholar, but to hear some random Christian shmuck claim he knows Christianity better than the Pope is like hearing a drunk football fan claim he knows how to QB better than Tom Brady.

          Dude, literally the entire history of Protestant Christianity consists of people arguing that ordinary people know Christianity better than the Pope, on things like “If I pay the Church enough money, can they get me into Heaven?” The Pope of the time was pretty emphatic that, yes, totally, we take all major credit cards.

        • Redwood Rhiadra

          Ah, but to evangelicals, Catholics (including the Pope) aren’t Christians, they’re Satan Worshipers. (See Jack Chick…)

      • efgoldman

        most of the Catholic Priests I’ve met have been politically liberal

        I’m old enough to remember Bob Drinan, a Jesuit who was one of the most progressive/liberal people in congress.
        Whatever Nazi pope was in power forced him to quit.

        • Dennis Orphen

          To expound on that riff, Father James Groppi was notable and now probably forgotten activist.

        • It was JPII that forced Drinan out. However rightwing he might have been he was no Nazi.

          .

          • Pete

            Good Lord yes, Pius the XII was the Pope who uneasily coincided with Hitler and Mussolini, and likely bent over too far to try to save the Church,

            • Warren Terra

              Oh, it’s worse than that. The Catholic Church did a lot to actively collaborate with genocide during the war and to protect and traffic genocidaires after the war, especially in Croatia and France.

        • Pete

          I’m pretty sure that “Nazi” would be Saint John Paul II.

          I really liked Father Drinan — took courses from him in his post-Congressional career, but it is not absurd to think that priests should not be secular politicians.

          [Although forcing Drinan and others to retire was part of JPII’s fight against the Jesuits and liberation theology more generally in the early 1980s. But the Jesuits outlasted him — Francis made it in.]

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Do you have a source for that perchance?

      • Thom

        It is hard to see how this adds up to Clinton getting nearly 3M more votes than Trump. A source would be helpful.

        • NewishLawyer

          Probably discounts people of color who are religious.

        • Ithaqua

          “None” would likely be “None / decline to state / did not ask” in the exit polling, and there could be an awful lot of those.

      • ThresherK (KadeKo)

        I am familiar with “cafeteria Catholics”, and the statistics on the high % of self-professed Catholic women who use birth control, and female-controlled birth control.

        Do we know if there anything like that for Mormons, various Protestant denoms, or “other Christian”?

        • Chetsky

          I think it’s well-documented that amongst the Evangelical (Protestants), the incidence of (ahem) “sin” is rampant. Truly rampant. All sorts. Adultery, out-of-wedlock birth, etc. The thing that makes them “different” from liberals (aside from the fact that liberals do all of that *less*) is that the Evangelicals regard having sinned, and repented, as a good thing, as …. what I would call an experience that cements one’s membership in the in-group.

          I’m not a social scientist, but what I’ve read is that these experiences of (e.g.) having an out-of-wedlock child, rather than causing these folks to think “gee, it could happen to others, so we should make allowance for it”, they think “it’s a sin; I did it, have repented, and God has forgiven me; but it’s a *sin*, and those sinners (who do not repent) will burn in *hell*”.

          Atheist that I am, I don’t get all that, except for the “in-group hazing ritual / trial” aspect.

          • Snarki, child of Loki

            “I think it’s well-documented that amongst the Evangelical (Protestants), the incidence of (ahem) “sin” is rampant. Truly rampant. All sorts.”

            Strangely enough, it’s not those amoral atheists that are found dead in hotel rooms, wearing TWO wet-suits, with a ball-gag and butt-plug.

        • Tristan

          Do we know if there anything like that for Mormons

          I didn’t know Mormons weren’t supposed to drink until I was an adult, and had trouble believing it at first, because you could easily assume the exact opposite based on the ones I went to school with. I’m not talking one or two guys either. If anything the Mormon kids in my high school had a capacity for acquiring illicit alcohol that was so much greater than their peers’ it can only be called suspicious.

          • ajay

            I didn’t know Mormons weren’t supposed to drink until I was an adult

            An unusual commandment, but it’s in there. There was a hell of a party in Utah when the word got round that Tristan had turned 18.

          • Chetsky

            Heh indeed. I remember growin’ up in the Bible Belt, our English teacher Mr. Manning used to joke

            “People ask me if I’m Baptist”

            “I say no, I do my drinking in public”

            It was a dry county where I grew up. The incidence of DUIs just inside of the county line was …. amazingly high (of course, the nearest liquor store was -just- across the county line).

    • Abortion Trumps all. They would vote Hitler over any pro choice Democrat.

    • CrunchyFrog

      You’re coming face-to-face with the reality that your religion – like most religions – has an implicit understanding that by “people” they mean “people like us” – and the rest, fuck ’em. Yes, there are some cool new testament parables that imply otherwise, but there also is – even in the gospels – a happy tolerance of slavery, which means a lower class of pseudo-humans.

      Oh they make themselves feel good about themselves by making an annual trip to a third world country to build a swing set or something. But then they go home and vote for the party who is bombing the shit out of the third world and sponsoring corporations that pollute the water and food those people rely on.

      • Pete

        People are people — all flawed, most deeply so. American Christians have — taken as a group — been horrible failures at following what we admit are the teachings of the one we purport to worship. But at the same time, people of faith (including Christians) have been prominent in most liberation movements and civil rights movements going back centuries. So, the problem isn’t necessarily with the religions.

        • CrunchyFrog

          Agree, the problem is with people. Or some people. But religion is the organizational method – much more so for the tribalists on the right than people on the left. Sure, the UU folks will get together and organize a protest, but those folks would figure out a way to organize without the UU. For the rightwingers the church is a key part of their identity. I don’t mean the specific church in all cases – yes for Mormons and right wing Catholics, but otherwise church-shopping is common and what is key to the identity is that they are “real Xtian”.

    • AMK

      The religious right is and always has been about white nationalism.

      It’s stunning how many people on our side are genuinely surprised by this. Lots of otherwise smart, perceptive and politically informed people apparently thought the Christian right was about Christianity in some form before Trump came along.

  • Gregor Sansa

    Where’s the fucking march?

    Better voting methods wouldn’t have elected Trump, in the primary or general. Blah blah. I can talk about that shit with my Center for Election Science shirt on on Earth day but it’s relevant to the title of this post. But for now…

    Where’s the fucking march? In the Boston area?

    • Gregor Sansa

      My family, wife and daughter, are at this moment in Guatemala. The chances that some bullshit border guard will pull some shit with my wife, and that she’ll not τake that shit, and that I will be fucking separated from my family for the next year and a half until I get my PhD, and my citizen daughter will lose her place in school… those chances just skyrocketed. I’m down to start blocking freeways, right now. Where do I go?

      Gonna call my friend in Cosecha…

      • The Lorax

        I agree. This is an outrage.

      • CrunchyFrog

        If you live in the US but do not have citizenship I strongly suggest not leaving the country. Even if you are a lily white European with a long-standing Green Card. Whatever is the law today may not be the law tomorrow. (And yes, this is the advice I gave my wife.)

        In the not too distant future it may be appropriate to extend that advice to naturalized US citizens. I haven’t seen that distinction made yet – but in the Trump base they talk about that all the time – revoking citizenship from immigrants.

        If you’re here on a Visa you should develop a contingency plan. Finish that degree, yes, but start the next one in another country. Sell the house while the prices are good and before you are forced to.

        Hopefully all of this is being way too alarmist. But if not, don’t count on the pace of anti-white actions to be implemented over a course of 6-7 years like in Germany – it will be a lot faster here if it does happen.

        • Gregor Sansa

          I’m a citizen, and so is my daughter. My wife has a green card. For the first 10 years of our marriage, she couldn’t get a visa, so we lived in Guatemala (with our daughter and house and car and dogs and her government job supervising 50 people, but no, she was a risk of overstaying her visa).

          • Gregor Sansa

            I’m a citizen, and so is my daughter. My wife has a green card. For the first 10 years of our marriage, she couldn’t get a visa, so we lived in Guatemala (with our daughter and house and car and dogs and her government job supervising 50 people, but no, she was a risk of overstaying her visa).

            We believe that the reason they wouldn’t give her her visa was that she got slightly uppity / righteous when she was asking for a fiancee visa before our marriage. She does not suffer fools; she was a refugee as a child so she knows how to nod her head at immigration officials saying stupid shit, but she has her limit, and once she’s loose, she can say some very unflattering stuff about the USA.

            well… that was strange. Edited comment and it turned into 2 comments. But now I can change the second one and it works.

        • Lurking Canadian

          In the not too distant future it may be appropriate to extend that advice to naturalized US citizens. I haven’t seen that distinction made yet – but in the Trump base they talk about that all the time – revoking citizenship from immigrants.

          Your real hard-core Trump supporters also want to take away citizenship from born citizens if they don’t like the kid’s parents.

          But we were wrong to take Trump literally. Great job, New York Fucking Times!

        • Ithaqua

          Yeah, I’m worried about that too, my wife’s mom’s 80th birthday is in April, big family event in Weinstadt and neither one of us is 100% sure about what will happen when she returns – especially since her flight is on Turkish Air and her last port of call will have been Istanbul (but she won’t have had to enter the country so there won’t be a stamp on her passport.)

          • CrunchyFrog

            See if you can get her re-routed through Dublin or Toronto.

            Seriously. In both those countries CBP is done remotely, and the staff are demographically completely different from a US airport. In Toronto, especially, you’d be shocked at how many of the staff are of middle eastern dissent, with many of the women in hijabs (not making this up). Montreal also works.

            Just to be clear, they are officious assholes in both places, but still an order of magnitude better than what you’d encounter at George Bush International or Ronald Fascist Reagan National.

    • Chetsky

      Gregor, as a (dusky-hued) naturalized citizen, I also am wondering about these things. Reading about ICE’s stepped-up pace of deportations, I’m wondering what I can do to be part of resisting. And ….. to your point about “they haven’t come across the naturalized citizens YET”, (a) I remember my Niemoller, and (b) even if I didn’t Bannonazi reminded me that he’s got me in his sights.

  • CrunchyFrog

    Trump’s biggest, most important promise to his base – yes, implied but not explicitly stated, but they heard it loud and clear – was to Make America White Again. And unlike his empty promises to crack down on Wall Street, this is a promise he and, crucially, his top advisers believe in fully.

    The first Muslim Ban was just their opening salvo. This is an issue they’ll fight until they are forced out of power.

    • Gregor Sansa

      This is an issue they’ll fight until they are forced out of power.

      OK, then. I’m down. Let’s do this.

    • nemdam

      But conservatives all said he wasn't serious about mass deportation. They said it was just a ruse to get attention.

  • rob_b

    The self examination that determined the party should become more inclusive was never out of any desire to be more inclusive. It was only seen as necessary to win presidential elections. Turns out it wasn’t even necessary.

  • rewenzo

    If the Deep State was really a thing why couldn’t they find 100,000 extra votes in PA, WI, and MI? Would have saved us all a lot of grief.

    • Dennis Orphen

      Perhaps a deep state did find those votes there?

  • milx

    tbf, it seems like they learnt the appropriate lesson very quickly – there are no consequences to taking aggressive actions against undocumented workers. It apparently doesn’t alienate latinos any more than more conciliatory Republicans do, and it certainly doesn’t turn off white folks. If anything it galvanizes a certain % of the population. Maybe one day the left will turn out to polls and then there will be a consequence for this kind of thing. I’m not holding my breath; breathing is important!

  • Breadbaker

    How do you vet 10,000 ICE officials? Don’t they need the same “we take no risk of a mistake whatsoever” standard they are applying to immigrants?

    • CrunchyFrog

      Nope. It’ll be 100,000 mall-rent-a-cops deputized.

      • Breadbaker

        What could possibly go wrong?

      • Abbey Bartlet

        Neighborhood Watch.

    • Rob in CT

      George Zimmerman is available…

  • Joe_JP

    Apparently, protecting trans students is a “state” issue too per Spicer and plans to change the Obama Administration order.

    Chelsea Clinton:

    Discrimination as a states rights issue so 20th century….right? Hopefully? Please? I just keep thinking is this really happening in 2017?!

    Somewhat relevant to the post — case this morning at the Supreme Court regarded if a U.S. Border Patrol agent should be liable in a civil lawsuit [a “Bivens” action] for the fatal shooting, on Mexican soil, of a couple’s 15-year-old son, the shot coming from the U.S. Tough to call, but Kennedy wary. Might go down 4-4, left to Gorsuch.

    • Abbey Bartlet

      Chelsea has really been letting loose. It occurred to me that this is the first time since she was a child that neither of her parents has been running for president. She must feel very free.

  • 1060westaddison

    Will this deportation drive target *all* undocumented immigrants, or just Latin Americans? Media coverage of immigration seems to forget that an awful lot of (white) immigrants from Eastern Europe do the same kinds of physically demanding, low-paid jobs that many Mexicans do (construction, cleaning houses, driving trucks, etc). If the problem is undocumented immigrants who “don’t speak the language” and “drive down wages”, will we also be deporting people back to Warsaw, Sarajevo, and Sofia? Yes, I know what the answer is, but is anyone on the Right even trying to justify that?

    • CrunchyFrog

      Usually in this case the leaders let the neanderthug brownshirts go unleashed and don’t worry about exactly who they go after.

  • tsam

    Holy shit–Maxine Waters just OPENED A BIGASS CAN on the administration on Chris Hayes’ show. Called the scumbags! Go Ms Waters!

  • ArlingtonVsGuy3

    Yes, it’s HORRIFYING that we would try to crack down on people abusing public benefits. Screw working class–keep borders open and wages down!!

    • tsam

      What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

      • efgoldman

        Been waiting for rant copy/paste. I’ve missed it.

        ETA: But you might want to edit “gorilla warfare…”
        Just saying.

        • Hogan

          I think it ties the room together.

        • tsam

          That’s the best part, man!

        • Dennis Orphen

          Tsam was sitting quietly on the bank of the river, patiently waiting for the body of his enemy to float by. Finally, along it came, in all its putrified glory.

    • Pete

      You believe undocumented immigrants collect lots of federal public benefits?

      • efgoldman

        You believe undocumented immigrants collect lots of federal public benefits?

        It’s a racist troll. Who knows or cares what it believes.

        • Snarki, child of Loki

          Deport those damn trölls back to Niflheim, already!

          • NBarnes

            And Svartalfheim will pay for it!

            • Lurking Canadian

              #MVGA

  • petemack

    I don’t know about ‘even’ when it applies to fraud of any sort. I’m considerably more sympathetic towards recreational drug users.

It is main inner container footer text