Polls: Society & Politics

The Department of Homeland Security is now barring states and volunteer groups that receive government funds from helping undocumented immigrants, according to a Washington Post analysis of updated guidelines and interviews with Federal Emergency Management Agency employees.

Some members of the national volunteer disaster group network also questioned whether the new requirements are constitutional and point out that they seem to violate some local and state laws that prevent asking about a person’s immigration status.

By accepting the federal grants and awards, the new documents state, volunteer organizations that help after disasters must agree to not “operate any program that benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.”

That could put groups that provide food, housing, mental health support and other assistance in disaster-stricken states in the position of having to verify aid recipients legal status before providing assistance, experts said.

They are also barred from “harboring, concealing, or shielding from detection illegal aliens;” have to agree to “provide access to detainees, such as when an immigration officer seeks to interview a person who might be a removable alien;” and not leak or publicize an enforcement operation.

Several members raised concerns that federal contracts cannot make nonprofits violate local laws that protect people’s privacy. The bulk of disaster-volunteer groups that work with the federal government are also faith-based organizations, which some groups said could create constitutional concerns.

"First, the federal government has never attempted to tell the nonprofit sector who we can and cannot serve. Further, as a faith-based organization we have the right to determine who we serve.”

WWJD?

Pros of a monarchy.

● No social and political division.

● Government works much more efficiently and is more stable.

● Conditions of the country will be more secure and far less crime.

● Government will have the best available public officials holding important positions throughout the country.

Cons:

● Unfair treatment of others and political power can be abused (but totally depends on the king in authority.)

● Some freedoms most likely will be gone i. e. no publically criticizing the royal family or disrespecting social officials like police officers among others freedoms like gay parades, porn abortions etc.

Pros of a democracy.

● The general public gets to elect politicians that represent their own interests whether good or bad.

● Every few years the populous can ask for change of their representatives.

● Far more freedoms whether good or bad.

Cons:

● Causes social and political division.

● Giving the people the power to vote who don't understand how government nor how the economy, energy, security etc works in depth causes voting in the wrong people into positions of power.

● Government operates and government agendas are slow and work far less efficient.

Stunningly, math teachers have technically been banned from using them when teaching probability in many districts. Yes there is the potential for gambling but JFC life IS risk analysis and card games of all stripes are VERY useful for that purpose. I just don't understand USA American "education" sometimes.

This is the ABC news website.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/abrego-garcias-attorneys-blast-government-unilaterally-rearresting/story?id=124991217

This is the headline. "Abrego Garcia's attorneys ask to reopen his immigration case to seek asylum"

Notice he has multiple attorneys. I never had multiple attorneys. Most people only get one.

Who is paying for all this legal help?

it's been a while now and nothing bad seems to have happened.

The belief that all people are created equal is something we are taught in Western societies today. Some people are dogmatic about the belief. But it is hardly a universal and timeless belief. Plato divided people into gold, silver and bronze. Aristotle said some people are naturally slaves. Nietzsche stated "In the age of universal suffrage when everyone may sit in judgment on everyone and everything, I feel impelled to reestablish order of rank."

No more Mexico, Sweden, Egypt, Uganda, etc. My only critique is that even if they did disappear, new territorial units would emerge and they would not be any different. They would just be called different things, but would serve the same function. I don't think it's possible to have a world without some sort of various organizations (what we currently call nations) because if there were none, there would have to be one-world government. And who would run it?

Also do mention your country in the comments.

very common take I see at least on my social media algorithms. it's been my experience with my boomer parents (yeah they're old, they were literally grandparents by the time I was born). they were well off. left my two brothers and sister destitute and broke. didn't even get them a car to get to work in at 16-17 but forced them to get a job. almost like they were living in the 50s where making ice cream cones all day could pay enough to afford a new car. the funny part? when my brother ODd and my other brother was locked up in prison for selling drugs and my sister almost died from an obesity related stroke, they said it wasn't their responsibility. who said it was? a guilty conscience?