From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Feb 2, 2026 at 12:44:55 PM PST, "super70s"    
   wrote:   
      
   > On 2026-02-02 20:18:26 +0000, BTR1701 said:   
   >   
   >>  During her acceptance speech at last night's Grammys, singer Billie Eilish   
   >>  claimed that America is land stolen from "native peoples".   
   >>   
   >>  Billie Eilish's $14-million mansion sits on several acres of land stolen   
   >> from   
   >>  the Tongva peoples who were indigenous to Southern California. Will she   
   >> return   
   >>  that land and the home that sits on it to the tribe? I mean, she has the   
   >> moral   
   >>  high ground, after all. She's virtuous and she made sure we all knew it.   
   >>  Signaled it, as it were.   
   >>   
   >>  So now that it's incontrovertible that she knows her land is stolen, will   
   >> she   
   >>  turn it over to the Tongva Tribe? I mean, that's what one does with stolen   
   >>  property, right? You return it to its rightful owner. If Billie needs an   
   >>  attorney to help her with the land transfer paperwork, I'd be happy to   
   help.   
   >>  I'd even do it for free.   
   >>   
   >>  In the alternative, Billie could use that land and that mansion to help   
   >> house   
   >>  literally hundreds of illegal aliens. She could invite them all in to live   
   >>  with her, since it's all stolen land and "no one is illegal on stolen   
   land",   
   >>  right Billie?   
   >>   
   >>  In the alternative, she could have just listened to Ricky Gervais and taken   
   >>  his sage advice:   
   >>   
   >>  https://youtu.be/fgson2Q3nog?t=419   
   >>   
   >>  It sure would be cool if we had an actual functioning media in this country   
   >>  who would have asked Billie Eilish some of these hard questions after her   
   >>  preening performance at the award podium.   
   >   
   > At least California and Minnesota are making amends with new immigrants   
   > with sanctuary cities, now Republicans want to ban that across the   
   > nation.   
      
   Excellent! About time.   
      
   And how does it "make amends" to (allegedly) steal land from some people and   
   then shield other people from breaking the law as a way of compensating for   
   it?   
      
   I mean, if the government stole my car and then said "we feel bad about having   
   done that" so they had the cops protect a rapist that has nothing to do with   
   me from being prosecuted as a way of making amends to me for stealing my car,   
   I wouldn't feel any better about having lost my car. That wouldn't actually be   
   "amends" from my perspective.   
      
   > Rationalize that position for us especially in context with   
   > Republicans' long held "states rights" stance which seems to have   
   > disappeared under Trump.   
      
   Easy. Per the Constitution, immigration is entirely a matter of federal   
   jurisdiction. There is no "state's rights" argument with regard to   
   immigration. Which is something the Obama and Biden DOJs actually ran to court   
   and argued when red states started trying to put up barriers along the border   
   to stop the hordes Democrats were letting flood in. The Democrats had no   
   problem screaming about how immigration is federal only and states have no   
   business butting into it. Then a Republican gets elected and suddenly every   
   blue state in the country thinks it has a say in border and immigration   
   enforcement.   
      
   What happened to Obama's claims that states have no business interfering with   
   immigration enforcement? Oh, right. A Republican's in office now so the entire   
   Constitution changes. Certain powers of the presidency only apply when   
   Democrats are in office. I keep forgetting that.   
      
   But as a practical matter, if you ACTUALLY care about the illegals, then   
   refusing to cooperate with ICE and handing criminals over at the jailhouse   
   door when they're released is the last thing you'd do. Because if you don't   
   hand them over to ICE and you release them back into the community, then ICE   
   has to go after them in the neighborhoods and at job sites. And when ICE turns   
   up to those places looking for the criminal you refused to hand over to them   
   at the jail, they're likely to find a lot *more* illegals present and now   
   they're gonna get deported also.   
      
   Bottom line, if you stop with the 'sanctuary' nonsense and hand over an   
   illegal in the jail, then one illegal gets deported. If you refuse to   
   cooperate and ICE has to hunt him down in the community, dozens get deported.   
   Which way is better for the "undocumented community"?   
      
   And most of the time, the "community" itself would prefer the state hand that   
   burglar or drug dealer or rapist over to ICE. They don't want people like that   
   living amongst them any more than you or I would. But no, Democrats have an   
   Agenda to pursue and if that means dumping convicted rapists back into   
   immigrant communities to own Trump, that's what they're gonna do. And if a few   
   innocent people get raped and murdered because of it, well... you have to   
   break a few eggs to make an omelette, amirite?   
      
   (Sorry if that's to 'verbose' for you, super70s. I know how much you hate big   
   words and sentences and all.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)