From: super70s@super70s.invalid   
      
   On 2026-02-02 21:07:06 +0000, BTR1701 said:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   So you have no more concern about the welfare of immigrants than what   
   you're accusing Billie Eilish of.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I'm aware of what the Supreme Court has ruled, I'm just pointing out   
   how conservatives are only enthusiastic about federal intervention vs.   
   states rights when it happens to conform to their own dogma.   
      
   Legal precedent has long held that the federal government cannot   
   require states and localities to carry out its immigration policy,   
   which the current regime routinely ignores by trying to extort them   
   with the withholding of federal funds.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   The Trump regime isn't only rounding up "criminals," all you need to do   
   is have dark skin or speak with an accent.   
      
   > 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.)   
      
   Okay from now on I'll describe your "incoherent rambling full of   
   opinionated fallacies" as demonstrated above as such instead of   
   "verbose," the latter doesn't necessarily mean you don't know what   
   you're talking about.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)