From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Feb 2, 2026 at 5:15:05 PM PST, "super70s"    
   wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Not immigrants. Illegal aliens. I know you progs like to conflate the two and   
   pretend there's no difference, but there is.   
      
   And I'm accusing Eilish of hypocrisy. There's nothing hypocritical about my   
   position with regard to illegals, so your comparison is nonsensical.   
      
   >>>  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   
      
   It's not a matter of Supreme Court interpretation. It's *in* Article I,   
   Section 8 in black-and-white. Well, maybe black-and-parchment yellow, but it's   
   right there.   
      
   > Legal precedent has long held that the federal government cannot   
   > require states and localities to carry out its immigration policy   
      
   It'll be hilarious if you all's gun control dreams ever come true and you get   
   to ban all the guns and a bunch of red cities, counties, and states declare   
   themselves 'sanctuaries' from federal gun laws; that no state or local law   
   enforcement will assist the federal government in enforcing its gun laws, and   
   if the ATF wants to try to police 800 million guns nationwide with only 2300   
   special agents, they're welcome to try.   
      
   Betcha Dems won't be so excited about the concept of sanctuary cities then.   
   Betcha we'll be treated to all sorts of hysterical bleating about how "that's   
   unconstitutional". And when you remind them that they started all this with   
   sanctuary cities for illegals, all you'll get is the Democrat's trademark   
   "That's different!"   
      
   > which the current regime routinely ignores by trying to extort them   
   > with the withholding of federal funds.   
      
   Which is perfectly acceptable and legal. Has been since the 1970s, when the   
   FedGov imposed a nationwide speed limit of 55mph. Several states sued, rightly   
   pointing out that per the 10th Amendment, regulating traffic is a power   
   reserved to the states and the FedGov has no jurisdiction over speed limits.   
   The court sided with the states, so the FedGov said fine, you can regulate   
   your own speed limits but if you set them any faster than 55mph, no more   
   highway funds for you. The states sued again and this time the court ruled in   
   favor of the feds. Said it was their money and they could set any conditions   
   on it that they chose. So we ended up with 55mph speed limits everywhere   
   except Alaska, which told the feds they didn't need their highway money so   
   they could keep it and pound sand.   
      
   If you don't want to cooperate with federal law enforcement, then your state   
   or cities don't get law enforcement dollars.   
      
   >>  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.   
      
   Suuure. My latina girlfriend literally works on the same block as ICE offices   
   in L.A. She has brown skin, long dark black hair, and they have no idea how   
   she speaks or what accent she does or doesn't have just by looking at her as   
   she walks down the street. Not once has she had any problem with them.   
      
   >>  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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)