The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Sanctuary City
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Legal Information Institute:

8 U.S. Code § 1327 – Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code

Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible under section 1182(a)(2) (insofar as an alien inadmissible under such section has been convicted of an aggravated felony) or 1182(a)(3) (other than subparagraph (E) thereof) of this title to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, § 277, 66 Stat. 229; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7346(a), (c)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4471; Pub. L. 101–649, title V, § 543(b)(4), title VI, § 603(a)(16), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5059, 5084; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, § 308(d)(3)(A), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–617.)

You know, declaring your city a Sanctuary City sounds like a pretty sweet deal politically, except that there is this federal law that says you’ll be “imprisoned not more than 10 years.”

Ten years is a lot.

 
Hide 174 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Honest Q: Did you ever hear of 1327 before I mentioned it in the Churchill thread?

    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    @Jack Hanson

    I think we are all aware theres sufficient laws on the books to lock up every leftist in the country for something and deport even the " legal immigrants" if we had the will

    , @Anonymous
    @Jack Hanson

    Enforcing immigration laws sound like a good idea. When Democrats pass laws, like the gay marriage law, they make examples of people who don't follow them, in order to get compliance.

  2. I think this is the reason for the kayfabe with AG Sessions. Get everyone on record defending him as a Southron man of honor and when you have liberal mayors staring down an indictment it takes a lot of wind outta the shitstorm.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    @Jack Hanson

    I'd love to hear your explanation about how exactly that went down.

    I mean, is Trump playing doing a good cop bad cop thing with Sessions that they're both in on?

    IOW what the hell are you talking about?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack Hanson

    , @Boethiuss
    @Jack Hanson

    I hope you're right, I've been looking forward to something like this for a while.

    The thing is, at least nominally the we have control of the DoJ so there should be a lot of ways to punish sanctuary cities. From what I've seen in the media, everybody talks about defunding them. I'm not opposed to that necessarily but that seems to me to be a too narrow frame of mind.

    First of all, the feds might be paying the cities for things that the feds want done in the first place, not the cities. In that case, the threat of defunding is pretty much empty. More important, probably, it is politically difficult because of the potential for negative impact toward lots of people who have nothing to do with immigration and possibly oppose it.

    That's why we should have more than one iron in this fire, of which this is definitely one. And while I'm here, I want to plug my personal favorite: disbarment. Any lawyer who has his name on a brief or ordinance draft or any other legal product toward establishing sanctuary cities is imo obstructing justice (ie, legit not like the Trump accusations) at the federal level.

    As part of or in lieu of prosecuting them, the DoJ should be working with the bar associations to take away their law licenses, or force the offending lawyers to surrender them.

  3. @Jack Hanson
    I think this is the reason for the kayfabe with AG Sessions. Get everyone on record defending him as a Southron man of honor and when you have liberal mayors staring down an indictment it takes a lot of wind outta the shitstorm.

    Replies: @Moshe, @Boethiuss

    I’d love to hear your explanation about how exactly that went down.

    I mean, is Trump playing doing a good cop bad cop thing with Sessions that they’re both in on?

    IOW what the hell are you talking about?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Moshe

    It's certainly true that there's been a lot of strange new respect for Sessions lately. The BBC had some local journalist gushing about what an honourable guy he is, just a few days back. The more the usual suspects defend him, the harder it'll be to bash him if he takes real action (they'll try anyway).

    I'd like to believe this is brilliant 7-th dimension chess (as I think forcing the Dems to go all-out on trannies in the military was). Help thou my unbelief.

    , @Jack Hanson
    @Moshe

    So that when Senators are calling AG Sessions HitlerNaziBigot for enforcing the law this week, there's plenty of positive headlines last week from this imaginary kayfabe to throw back into their faces.

    It ain't rocket science, schlomo.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Moshe

  4. The public may soon accept punishing those who give material support to illegal aliens with serious prison time. Long sentences. Felonies.

    Because having millions of people invade your country is suddenly starting to feel creepy.

    • Replies: @Random Dude on the Internet
    @RobertTaylor


    The public may soon accept punishing those who give material support to illegal aliens with serious prison time. Long sentences. Felonies.
     
    The public is already there. We just need someone with the will to see it through since that means that the donation streams start to dry up.
    , @AM
    @RobertTaylor

    Helping one or a few illegals into the country during more normal times - yeah, that's properly a felony, 10 years is about right. Helping illegals during a massive invasion? That looks to me like treason, sedition, conspiracy, collusion, etc. Death penalty and forfeiture of right to pass on one's estate sounds about right.

    Replies: @bomag

    , @Anonymous
    @RobertTaylor

    I think the public already feels comfortable with punishing the treasonous elites for this and many other things.

    Its only the false illusion created by control of the media, entertainment, etc. that gives people the impression that "everyone' agrees with leftism.

    The enormous showings at Trump rallies and the election of the man himself, are only one of many clear pictures of this.

    When honest polls and assessments are taken of these 'brillant' liberal social cures for problems that were never really there in the first place, time after time, the majority of the population is against them.

    , @Frau Katze
    @RobertTaylor

    I'll believe it when I see it. (I'm a pessimist.)

    There's an analogy with marijuana. It's still illegal at the federal level. But several states have legalized it, albeit with restrictions.

    The new pattern seems to be: if you dislike a federal law, at the state level you can ignore it.

    I could be wrong (I'm not an American) but that's what I've gathered from reading US news.

    But letting states set their own immigration policy is a complete disaster as the migrants are free to move on from the state that gave them sanctuary.

    And their children, born in the sanctuary city are brand new Americans of course.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  5. Welcome back! You were missed.

    It appears that “E Pluribus Unum” as voiced on the Great Seal of the United States is no longer in fashion. Certainly, one way of making the millions of new immigrants feel welcome and secure is to ignore our laws as well as our values, culture, and customs that adversely impact them.

    I’m wondering if this general breakdown in law and order is behind a lot of our social unrest — BLM, black-clad “ninjas” terrorizing universities, riots masquerading as protest, sanctuary cities. People know what they can get away with and behave accordingly.

    What happens to a society that is afraid to enforce its laws?

    • Replies: @Hubbub
    @TheJester

    What happens to a society that is afraid to enforce its laws?

    The society eventually collapses - and it deserves its fate if it isn't willing and able to defend its society.

    Ten years is a lot.

    Not nearly enough if aiding and abetting illegal aliens lead to the collapse of a society.

    , @Njguy73
    @TheJester


    “E Pluribus Unum”
     
    E Pluribus Nihil.
  6. In Britain, police departments are dedicated to fighting right wind extremism on Twitter. Will we follow will making the arrest of Roman saluting digs a priority over arresting violent criminals?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    @Thea


    In Britain, police departments are dedicated to fighting right wind extremism on Twitter.
     
    The smelly, wrong wind, on the other hand, is OK.
  7. @TheJester
    Welcome back! You were missed.

    It appears that "E Pluribus Unum" as voiced on the Great Seal of the United States is no longer in fashion. Certainly, one way of making the millions of new immigrants feel welcome and secure is to ignore our laws as well as our values, culture, and customs that adversely impact them.

    I'm wondering if this general breakdown in law and order is behind a lot of our social unrest -- BLM, black-clad "ninjas" terrorizing universities, riots masquerading as protest, sanctuary cities. People know what they can get away with and behave accordingly.

    What happens to a society that is afraid to enforce its laws?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Njguy73

    What happens to a society that is afraid to enforce its laws?

    The society eventually collapses – and it deserves its fate if it isn’t willing and able to defend its society.

    Ten years is a lot.

    Not nearly enough if aiding and abetting illegal aliens lead to the collapse of a society.

  8. OT, but relevant to past articles of yours, Steve, about the high priority placed by jewish groups on denying their own group “privilege” (in the sense that leftists use the term in “white privilege”), see the big elite brouhaha this morning about one fairly innocuous sentence in an article in the Sunday Times Irish online edition.

    In an article about the topical issue of men’s versus women’s salaries at the BBC, Myers slipped in the following sentence (from the BBC article about the fuss this morning):

    Commenting that two of the best-paid presenters, Winkleman and Feltz, were Jewish, Mr Myers wrote: “Good for them.

    “Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity.”

    Sunday Times removes ‘anti-Semitic’ column on BBC pay

    The usual anti-white nonsense about white privilege (eg the notorious “hideously white” comment) in relation to celebrity and elite pay is not just perfectly acceptable for these people but almost de rigeur. But this kind of mild comment referencing the jewish identity group’s status triggers instant hysteria, and the usual opportunist aggression from the loathsome identity lobby organisations like the UK’s equivalent of the ADL, with calls for public apologies and dismissals.

    The problem is not the hysteria itself, of course, but the fact that these groups have sufficient power to coerce apologies and even resignations out of even extremely senior people.

    All depressingly familiar, but also very telling. Kudos to Myers, in having the courage to write the unpublishable and to slip it somehow past the gatekeepers.

  9. This is probably a stupid question, but what checks exist when the courts’ “interpretations” get so broad that they start arrogating congressional and executive authority? It really seems like it doesn’t matter in the least any more what statutes exist, or how unequivocal they appear to the untrained eye.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    @Tim Howells

    >>This is probably a stupid question, but what checks exist when the courts’ “interpretations” get so broad that they start arrogating congressional and executive authority?

    Resistance. Fighting back. Physical if necessary.

    , @Joseph Doaks
    @Tim Howells

    Impeach the judges! Unfortunately, Congress is full of cowards.

  10. The statute focuses on aiding illegal aliens “to enter” the U.S. Not clear that it applies to assistance after they are already here.

    • Replies: @Sideways
    @Henrico Otto

    Right, it doesn't.

  11. Any person who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States

    How are sanctuary cities assisting aliens to ENTER the US? That means helping them to cross the border, disembark in a port, or land in an aircraft. The aliens in sanctuary cities are already here.

    Yes, Dominican fisherman who try to smuggle paying passengers into Puerto Rico, from whence they can fly unimpeded to the US, might fall into this category.

    Also, it is doubtful if sanctuary cities are defined as persons, although with the Supreme Court that we have, anything is possible when it comes to defining what is a person, and if they are incorporated, then perhaps they are persons.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Jonathan Mason


    How are sanctuary cities assisting aliens to ENTER the US?
     
    Well, if you are building them a landing pad, you certainly have some culpability.
    , @Tim Howells
    @Jonathan Mason

    The officials implementing the sanctuary policies are accessories after the fact then.

  12. @TheJester
    Welcome back! You were missed.

    It appears that "E Pluribus Unum" as voiced on the Great Seal of the United States is no longer in fashion. Certainly, one way of making the millions of new immigrants feel welcome and secure is to ignore our laws as well as our values, culture, and customs that adversely impact them.

    I'm wondering if this general breakdown in law and order is behind a lot of our social unrest -- BLM, black-clad "ninjas" terrorizing universities, riots masquerading as protest, sanctuary cities. People know what they can get away with and behave accordingly.

    What happens to a society that is afraid to enforce its laws?

    Replies: @Hubbub, @Njguy73

    “E Pluribus Unum”

    E Pluribus Nihil.

    • Agree: bomag
  13. @Moshe
    @Jack Hanson

    I'd love to hear your explanation about how exactly that went down.

    I mean, is Trump playing doing a good cop bad cop thing with Sessions that they're both in on?

    IOW what the hell are you talking about?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack Hanson

    It’s certainly true that there’s been a lot of strange new respect for Sessions lately. The BBC had some local journalist gushing about what an honourable guy he is, just a few days back. The more the usual suspects defend him, the harder it’ll be to bash him if he takes real action (they’ll try anyway).

    I’d like to believe this is brilliant 7-th dimension chess (as I think forcing the Dems to go all-out on trannies in the military was). Help thou my unbelief.

  14. The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    • Agree: 415 reasons, Alden
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    @Mark Caplan

    Check this one out. Especially look under HARBORING:

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

    The actions of those officials in sanctuary cities falls under harboring.

    , @anonymous
    @Mark Caplan

    But Section 1324 fits the crime—it even uses the word shield—and provides penalties up to life imprisonment. Life > 10 years:


    (a) Criminal penalties
    (1)
    (A) Any person who—
    . . .
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
    (v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
     
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    Replies: @Alden, @CPK

    , @Jack Hanson
    @Mark Caplan

    If that's the hook you want to try and wriggle off of, good luck.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Mark Caplan

    I suppose that offering a safe-house for escaped felons can be construed as aiding a jail-break. Running a fence-operation could be construed as aiding burglars. In short, running a service for criminals that makes it easier for them to break the law, can be construed as aiding those criminals in the breaking of that law. And making of your city a "sanctuary city" is providing a service for law-breakers.

    , @Front toward enemy
    @Mark Caplan

    It could be argued that granting sanctuary is permitting aliens to enter by granting them a place to be. There is also a conspiracy aspect that might apply, telling aliens, ngo's coyotes that there is sanctuary in "our" city. Let a jury decide.

    , @Anonymous
    @Mark Caplan


    8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
     
    I worked at DHS up until 2010. Under Bush and Obama there was a tacit SOP of not enforcing the ongoing movement of huge numbers of illegals. There would be large and systematic movements through major airports like LAS. In groups of 50 at a time with some do-gooder handler who would help them with communicating with CBP officers. They'd show a Mexican consular card and say the magic phrase ("The purpose of my travel is to self-deport."). DHS: "Buenos dias. Adios." Btw, we'd run criminal checks through federal law enforcement databases and find a quite a few of them would have federal warrants out for their arrest. Local law enforcement would never enforce and when we'd call the ICE fugitive unit they'd tell us they didn't have anyone available to do the apprehension.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    , @Wilkey
    @Mark Caplan

    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    WTF? Given the way leftists have twisted every other law ever written, who cares? The difference between "entering" and "remaining" is minute in comparison.

    , @Greg Pandatshang
    @Mark Caplan

    If this were a law that liberals wanted to use against their enemies, then for sure it would be interpreted as broadly as necessary. "Oh, come on," they would insinuate, "we all know who is a who here and who a whom." But if the Trump administration tried to use this for their purposes, then quite possibly judges would refuse to allow it.

  15. So you mean if President Trump wants to make an example of a sanctuary city he could have the FBI look no further than Portland, Oregon?

    http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/diane-gruber/illegal-alien-deported-20-times-rapes-two-portland-women

    Seems like a lot of officials there have been aiding and abetting a criminal illegal alien in the commission of crimes against citizens.

  16. @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    Check this one out. Especially look under HARBORING:

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

    The actions of those officials in sanctuary cities falls under harboring.

  17. “… or who connives or conspires …”

    Is “connive” a legal term? Where and how is it defined?

  18. @Jack Hanson
    Honest Q: Did you ever hear of 1327 before I mentioned it in the Churchill thread?

    Replies: @Colleen Pater, @Anonymous

    I think we are all aware theres sufficient laws on the books to lock up every leftist in the country for something and deport even the ” legal immigrants” if we had the will

  19. CPK says:

    Doesn’t work (alas):
    (1) “Enter” and “remain within” are different acts.
    (2) “Aid/assist” requires an affirmative act.

    So this applies to those who actively help illegal aliens with the specific act of crossing the border. It doesn’t apply to those who passively allow illegal aliens to remain within the United States AFTER they’ve already entered.

    There’s some verbiage in Sec. 1234 that applies to anyone who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection” or “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States”. But even then, it would be a stretch to apply that to Sanctuary Cities. “Encourage or induce”, for example, really requires a direct offer of a material benefit.

    What we need is a statute that unambiguously applies to what Sanctuary City officials do (while still passing tests like anti-commandeering). Courts will not deprive a defendant of his liberty for ten years just because the statutory language COULD, arguably, maybe-kinda-sorta apply to him.

    Otherwise, Sanctuary Cities can simply respond that if Congress wanted to criminalize what they’re doing, it could have said so clearly — and they’ll be entirely correct.

    • Replies: @Kate
    @CPK

    If this Sec.1234 difined as such, then Obama should be prosecuted also for encouraging and inducing the illigals with food stamps, forcing American Military bases to house them, forcing cities both large and small to take them in for resettlement and I am sure much more.

  20. The Sanctuary Cities aid the cause of Secession. Post Imperial America will balkanize. Secession will be the way forward. It’s about saying NO to Washington.

  21. • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    @Kylie

    Perhaps the Violence Against Women act can be used against those sanctuary cities ... since they are encouraging violence against women.

    Replies: @Kylie

    , @currahee
    @Kylie

    why do i always seem to read about these incidents in a foreign newspaper?

    , @Dan Hayes
    @Kylie

    Kylie:

    Once again showing that if you wish to know what's happening in America read the Daily Mail!

  22. Sneakeasys

    illicities

  23. Tucker digs Sailer.

    bored prediction:
    Tucker will use this 1327 Code vignette to tear in pieces any echo-chambering legal zer-experts, such as this Treasonous , Alt-Schul ‘Making The Road’, Amherst/Oxford Talmudoid :

    Tucker: “Who’s a bigger threat to immigrant families ; The President, or MS-13?”

    Treasonous, Alt-Schul, Amherst/Oxford Talmudoid : “The President, without question !”

    • Replies: @AM
    @bored identity

    I love Tucker's expressions. He's just so dumbfounded by the the dumb. He's arguing though, so that's great.

  24. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    But Section 1324 fits the crime—it even uses the word shield—and provides penalties up to life imprisonment. Life > 10 years:

    (a) Criminal penalties
    (1)
    (A) Any person who—
    . . .
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
    (v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Alden
    @anonymous

    The "encourage or induce" part of the law could be used to convict and
    imprison every farmer, food processor, food market and restaurant owner in the country.

    I'd love to see ICE go after the employers of illegals. I don't mean small farmers and restaurant owners either. Go after Tyson, Farmer John, Jimmy Dean, Oscar Meyer, the big slaughter houses, Kern county land company, the Millers and Newhalls, Sunkist and every restaurant chain in the country.

    , @CPK
    @anonymous

    Problem is that this is clearly referring to physical concealment ("in any place, including any building or any means of transportation"). Failure to notify or share records with the Feds is not "shielding" in that sense. Or at least that's what the defense would argue; again, if Congress wanted to make Sanctuary Cities illegal, they could have done so unambiguously, and we wouldn't have to stretch the statutory language in this way.

    Don't get me wrong -- I'd love it if Congress would do that -- but unfortunately current law doesn't get us there.

    Replies: @HI, @Sammler

  25. Breitbart reports that DHS is preparing to arrest sanctuary city public officials. Let’s hope that is more than a rumor. When they arrest Ed Lee, I hope they body slam him on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @JimB


    Breitbart reports that DHS is preparing to arrest sanctuary city public officials.
     
    Man, that would Make My Day. I hope they perp walk them and hold them at least overnight in some Club Fed like Riker's Island. I volunteer my local County Board members to be first.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  26. TG says:

    “Prosecutorial discretion” is a bitch.

    There are so many laws on the books that, as one wit once said, all of us commit three felonies a day.

    The issue is what laws will be enforced.

    The issue is what laws the oligarchies/big money want enforced, and which they do not.

    Enforce the laws against illegal immigration into this country? No. Enforce the laws against poor American children going to school in rich districts? Yes.

    I live in a county currently saddled with billions of dollars in odious debt that we took on because some big banks bribed our public officials. The public officials are in jail for accepting bribes. The bankers who made these bribes, oddly, are not. And the debt collections roll on…

  27. @Moshe
    @Jack Hanson

    I'd love to hear your explanation about how exactly that went down.

    I mean, is Trump playing doing a good cop bad cop thing with Sessions that they're both in on?

    IOW what the hell are you talking about?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Jack Hanson

    So that when Senators are calling AG Sessions HitlerNaziBigot for enforcing the law this week, there’s plenty of positive headlines last week from this imaginary kayfabe to throw back into their faces.

    It ain’t rocket science, schlomo.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Jack Hanson

    Imaginary kayfabe is like fictitious writing: it does not exist; it did not happen (or, at any rate, it is not, in fact, kayfabe). One may certainly have kayfabe to convey disagreement which in fact will exist only in the imaginations of the onlooker (being an orchestrated ruse of the perpetrators), just as one may indeed write a book of fiction.

    Where in Hell is the Plutonium Kid, anyway? I was supposed to have Sunday off.

    Notwithstanding his torture of the English language, I want to warmly thank Mr. Hanson for his talents and hard work, being the only man in the world capable of ifentifying public and ubiquitously avaialble statutes, and sharing them with us benighted folk.

    How are the little ones doing today, anyway?

    , @Moshe
    @Jack Hanson

    Sure Jackshit but you don't know jack when you're jacking in the john

    OR

    We all HOPE that will happen but you are implying - and have priorly said clearly - that you think Trump

    Has immigration-stop near the top of his agenda

    And knows what he's doing

    In this instance you are saying the insane, which is that Trump is doing all of this badmouthing so that public figures will good mouth so that Sessions can then go and produce Operation Wetback II without these folk able to call him the devil.

    And THAT is crazy Jackyboy

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  28. @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    If that’s the hook you want to try and wriggle off of, good luck.

  29. OT: Diversity update on the FBI’s most wanted terrorist list. SoCal’s Daniel Andreas is the trend buster.

  30. This seems like it would provide a means for putting the mayors – and city councils – of San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and any number of other cities, in jail. Sounds good to me. What is the DoJ waiting for? Prosecute away. Send them all up the river.

    • Agree: James Richard
  31. @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    I suppose that offering a safe-house for escaped felons can be construed as aiding a jail-break. Running a fence-operation could be construed as aiding burglars. In short, running a service for criminals that makes it easier for them to break the law, can be construed as aiding those criminals in the breaking of that law. And making of your city a “sanctuary city” is providing a service for law-breakers.

  32. @Kylie
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4742896/Illegal-immigrant-freed-sanctuary-law-charged-rape.html

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @currahee, @Dan Hayes

    Perhaps the Violence Against Women act can be used against those sanctuary cities … since they are encouraging violence against women.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Peripatetic commenter

    Yes but remember, race trumps gender.

    What does the safety of some old (presumably white) woman count against the right of an Hispanic undocumented worker (and convicted felon) to remain in this country despite deportation orders?

    Also he has the right of free assembly which is presumably how sanctuary cities characterize the rape of citizens by non-citizens.

  33. Except that it’ll be the Feds who will have to enforce it, given that The Coalition of The Fringes and their allies control the administrations of Noo Yawk, LA, SanFran , etc.

    I won’t hold my breath.

  34. @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    It could be argued that granting sanctuary is permitting aliens to enter by granting them a place to be. There is also a conspiracy aspect that might apply, telling aliens, ngo’s coyotes that there is sanctuary in “our” city. Let a jury decide.

  35. HI says: • Website

    Seems to be the relevant statute is 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)-(v), which is about harboring rather than entry. See especially (iii) and (v). Interestingly, for violations that result in the death of a person, the death penalty is available. This sounds like strict liability, like the felony murder rule.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    (A) Any person who—
    […]
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)

    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @HI

    HI:

    Once again the erudition of UR denizens are on display. You and Anonymous (Comment #11) pointed out the more pertinent and powerful Section 1324 which is about harboring rather than entry.

    Hats off to both of you!

    Replies: @HI

  36. That law provides enhanced penalties for human smugglers who help convicted felons, spies, or terrorists cross the border and enter the country. Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border. I would be surprised if there were such a law, since ‘sanctuaries’ were until recently churches and the like. Sanctuary cities are, ironically, among the least religious places in the country. Unless you count virtue signalling as a religion.

    • Replies: @ia
    @A Nonymous


    Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border.
     
    Well, it covers aiding and abetting. "Encouraging" or "inducing" an alien to reside could be construed as illegal:

    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)
     
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    Replies: @Sammler

    , @ia
    @A Nonymous


    Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border.
     
    Well, it covers aiding and abetting. "Encouraging" or "inducing" an alien to reside could be construed as illegal:

    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)
     
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
  37. The Feds will never enforce that statue.

    No stomach for it. The same reason Trump won’t make doctors and hospitals publish their prices for all their procedures. By law they have to but they don’t and alter the price depending on the sort of insurance you have or if you don’t have any at all.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Rod1963

    "Trump will never be President!"

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

  38. Anonymous [AKA "waswas"] says:

    Sanctuary policies have nothing to do with helping someone enter the country… The left’s coup utilizes legalistic mechanisms written and defended by lawyers. They likely already knew of this law…

  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    I worked at DHS up until 2010. Under Bush and Obama there was a tacit SOP of not enforcing the ongoing movement of huge numbers of illegals. There would be large and systematic movements through major airports like LAS. In groups of 50 at a time with some do-gooder handler who would help them with communicating with CBP officers. They’d show a Mexican consular card and say the magic phrase (“The purpose of my travel is to self-deport.”). DHS: “Buenos dias. Adios.” Btw, we’d run criminal checks through federal law enforcement databases and find a quite a few of them would have federal warrants out for their arrest. Local law enforcement would never enforce and when we’d call the ICE fugitive unit they’d tell us they didn’t have anyone available to do the apprehension.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Anonymous

    Are you saying that groups of illegals entering the country would pretend to be leaving the country? And that even though Customs and Border Patrol knew that they were lying, there was nothing they could do about it?

    Also, what identifiers did you use to run criminal checks? Fingerprints? The identities on Mexican consular cards? Are those reliable?

    Would local law enforcement not make arrests because of their Dem political masters or was there another reason?

    Also, if you don't mind my asking, why did you stop working at DHS? "Frustration" would be understandable.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Anonymous

    , @bomag
    @Anonymous


    Under Bush and Obama there was a tacit SOP of not enforcing the ongoing movement of huge numbers of illegals... quite a few of them would have federal warrants out for their arrest. Local law enforcement would never enforce and when we’d call the ICE fugitive unit they’d tell us they didn’t have anyone available to do the apprehension.
     
    This is almost too horrible to contemplate.

    It probably falls under Immanentizing the Eschaton.

  40. @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    WTF? Given the way leftists have twisted every other law ever written, who cares? The difference between “entering” and “remaining” is minute in comparison.

  41. OT:

    Well it’s finally happened, intelligence is now considered a “privilege” according to SJW.

    https://www.infowars.com/not-being-stupid-is-cognitive-privilege-now/

    It may have ominous implications down the road given the mentality of the SJW. Smart white guy = someone with “master privilege” which brings out the local witch burners on the Left to drive this horrible person from campus. College should be for everyone regardless of their intellectual capacity.

    It’s coming. Once the SJW’s vilify smart as inherently racist and privileged every geek and book reader becomes the bad guy. Being dumb will be seen as a sign of virtue,

    It’s not the Marching Morons yet, but it’s never a good idea to underestimate the power of stupidity in the world.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Rod1963

    I'm glad you mentioned "The Marching Morons". Like many of you, I consumed a fair amount of 20th century science fiction as a youth. Needless to say, none of the whizz-bang utopianist stuff described in those stories ever came true.

    There were two stories, however, that were weirdly prescient, perhaps even dead-on prophetic, both dystopian: "The Marching Morons" and "A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy". The memory of the latter story, in particular, makes my hair stand on end to this day.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res, @SteveRogers42, @SteveRogers42

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Rod1963

    Schiller - "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" aka "against stupidity the gods themselves battle in vain".

    , @Anonymous
    @Rod1963

    And with privileges come responsibilities: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724105158.htm (Higher cognitive abilities linked to greater risk of stereotyping, new study finds)

    , @Negrolphin Pool
    @Rod1963


    Being dumb will be seen as a sign of virtue
     
    Sounds like jail or Zimbabwe.

    Guess it's inevitable in a society that beatifies criminals like St. Michael of Ferguson or Baby Trayvon that eventually the academy converges with the prison rec yard.

  42. Maybe we should encourage the trend of the left defying federal law. When the left assumes complete control of the government – executive, judiciary and legislature – which , due to demographics I think is inevitable, those of us on the right (who will yet occupy the much greater part of the American land mass) will have strong precedent to defy federal dictates, be it legislation or judicial fiat, and then we can bring on the ultimate culture clash.

    Keep Venezuela in mind. The Chavistas were supported and are still supported by the majority of the Venezuelan people.Demographics.

    • Replies: @StillCARealist
    @Daniel H

    But wasn't the whole point of the civil rights movement that the federal gov't could strike down state laws? They were the ones who wanted the feds to have the power so now they should live with it.

    Immigration law is one of those that the feds should be in charge of anyway. Schools and city buses, no.

    , @Random Dude on the Internet
    @Daniel H

    The other side is still too enamored with concepts like muh principles and muh respectability for accelerationism to work.

    , @Light Roast
    @Daniel H

    "Hey leftists now in control: Remember when we let you have Sanctuary Cities? Remember how nice we were to you? Now be nice to us and let us defy federal law too. Please?"

    Good luck with that.

  43. @Kylie
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4742896/Illegal-immigrant-freed-sanctuary-law-charged-rape.html

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @currahee, @Dan Hayes

    why do i always seem to read about these incidents in a foreign newspaper?

  44. I was hoping you were working on a big post about the Awan brothers.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    I figured it was the Takimag to end all Takimags.

  45. “Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter”

    I doubt the law would apply to government workers. And cities are not humans, so they cannot be charged with a crime. Rewriting the law to reduce federal census based aid formulas by the number of illegal aliens might be a bargaining chip.

    Sanctuary cities seem to have the tightest most expensive real estate markets. It is interesting that they go berzerk about alien AirBnB tourists supposedly taking real estate meant for locals off the market, but show no interest in illegal aliens doing the same thing. Me thinks the sanctuary thing is about lowering wages and raising rents.

  46. @Daniel H
    Maybe we should encourage the trend of the left defying federal law. When the left assumes complete control of the government - executive, judiciary and legislature - which , due to demographics I think is inevitable, those of us on the right (who will yet occupy the much greater part of the American land mass) will have strong precedent to defy federal dictates, be it legislation or judicial fiat, and then we can bring on the ultimate culture clash.

    Keep Venezuela in mind. The Chavistas were supported and are still supported by the majority of the Venezuelan people.Demographics.

    Replies: @StillCARealist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Light Roast

    But wasn’t the whole point of the civil rights movement that the federal gov’t could strike down state laws? They were the ones who wanted the feds to have the power so now they should live with it.

    Immigration law is one of those that the feds should be in charge of anyway. Schools and city buses, no.

  47. @JimB
    Breitbart reports that DHS is preparing to arrest sanctuary city public officials. Let's hope that is more than a rumor. When they arrest Ed Lee, I hope they body slam him on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Breitbart reports that DHS is preparing to arrest sanctuary city public officials.

    Man, that would Make My Day. I hope they perp walk them and hold them at least overnight in some Club Fed like Riker’s Island. I volunteer my local County Board members to be first.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Jim Don Bob

    ".....Club Fed like Riker’s Island."

    I suppose it acts as a Club Fed when it houses federal prisoners for a short period of time, if it ever does. Don't know if NYC has something like Chicago's Metropolitan Correctonal Center downtown near the Federal courthouse. (A short term Federal lockup.)

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

  48. @Daniel H
    Maybe we should encourage the trend of the left defying federal law. When the left assumes complete control of the government - executive, judiciary and legislature - which , due to demographics I think is inevitable, those of us on the right (who will yet occupy the much greater part of the American land mass) will have strong precedent to defy federal dictates, be it legislation or judicial fiat, and then we can bring on the ultimate culture clash.

    Keep Venezuela in mind. The Chavistas were supported and are still supported by the majority of the Venezuelan people.Demographics.

    Replies: @StillCARealist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Light Roast

    The other side is still too enamored with concepts like muh principles and muh respectability for accelerationism to work.

  49. @Anonymous
    @Mark Caplan


    8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
     
    I worked at DHS up until 2010. Under Bush and Obama there was a tacit SOP of not enforcing the ongoing movement of huge numbers of illegals. There would be large and systematic movements through major airports like LAS. In groups of 50 at a time with some do-gooder handler who would help them with communicating with CBP officers. They'd show a Mexican consular card and say the magic phrase ("The purpose of my travel is to self-deport."). DHS: "Buenos dias. Adios." Btw, we'd run criminal checks through federal law enforcement databases and find a quite a few of them would have federal warrants out for their arrest. Local law enforcement would never enforce and when we'd call the ICE fugitive unit they'd tell us they didn't have anyone available to do the apprehension.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    Are you saying that groups of illegals entering the country would pretend to be leaving the country? And that even though Customs and Border Patrol knew that they were lying, there was nothing they could do about it?

    Also, what identifiers did you use to run criminal checks? Fingerprints? The identities on Mexican consular cards? Are those reliable?

    Would local law enforcement not make arrests because of their Dem political masters or was there another reason?

    Also, if you don’t mind my asking, why did you stop working at DHS? “Frustration” would be understandable.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Almost Missouri

    He's referring to how they travel within the borders. Imagine the Churchians meeting a horde of invaders who all rendezous in Nogales, then driving them to Tuscon for flights and ultimate colonisation of Pocatello (more blonde toddlers to rape there, you see...). To get past the arched eyebrows of the DHS and CBP in Tuscon's airport, they all recite the magic incantation that they are traveling in order to self-deport.

    It's all horseshit on it's face, of course, as the writer is pointing out, but the jackasses in government demand that it be respected.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Anonymous
    @Almost Missouri


    Are you saying that groups of illegals entering the country would pretend to be leaving the country? And that even though Customs and Border Patrol knew that they were lying, there was nothing they could do about it?
     
    CBP and TSA. These are groups of illegals who are already in U.S. And for anyone traveling through a secure checkpoint a gov't-issued ID is needed.

    Also, what identifiers did you use to run criminal checks? Fingerprints? The identities on Mexican consular cards? Are those reliable?
     
    Most of the time they wouldn't have any identitification. We'd ask (through a Spanish-speaking officer or their handler) for name/AKAs/DOB/POB/etc. No biometrics. We'd run it through federal/int'l law enforcement databases. Highly unreliable.

    Would local law enforcement not make arrests because of their Dem political masters or was there another reason?
     
    Local LEOs don't want to be bothered with federal stuff. If pressed they'll say they have to run it through their higher ups. If you persist then they'll make a cursory NCIC check and always not get a hit. Then they'll say they didn't find anything and it's not their problem (jurisdiction).

    We'd also get constant orders and directives from our Asst. Director that we were no longer allowed to do or ask this or that. He'd come in and say, "Well, the ACLU is all over our ass about... So, starting today, do not..."

    Also, if you don’t mind my asking, why did you stop working at DHS? “Frustration” would be understandable.
     
    I left for a better job as an investigator for another agency.
  50. @RobertTaylor
    The public may soon accept punishing those who give material support to illegal aliens with serious prison time. Long sentences. Felonies.

    Because having millions of people invade your country is suddenly starting to feel creepy.

    Replies: @Random Dude on the Internet, @AM, @Anonymous, @Frau Katze

    The public may soon accept punishing those who give material support to illegal aliens with serious prison time. Long sentences. Felonies.

    The public is already there. We just need someone with the will to see it through since that means that the donation streams start to dry up.

  51. @Rod1963
    OT:

    Well it's finally happened, intelligence is now considered a "privilege" according to SJW.

    https://www.infowars.com/not-being-stupid-is-cognitive-privilege-now/

    It may have ominous implications down the road given the mentality of the SJW. Smart white guy = someone with "master privilege" which brings out the local witch burners on the Left to drive this horrible person from campus. College should be for everyone regardless of their intellectual capacity.

    It's coming. Once the SJW's vilify smart as inherently racist and privileged every geek and book reader becomes the bad guy. Being dumb will be seen as a sign of virtue,

    It's not the Marching Morons yet, but it's never a good idea to underestimate the power of stupidity in the world.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous, @Negrolphin Pool

    I’m glad you mentioned “The Marching Morons”. Like many of you, I consumed a fair amount of 20th century science fiction as a youth. Needless to say, none of the whizz-bang utopianist stuff described in those stories ever came true.

    There were two stories, however, that were weirdly prescient, perhaps even dead-on prophetic, both dystopian: “The Marching Morons” and “A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy”. The memory of the latter story, in particular, makes my hair stand on end to this day.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Almost Missouri

    Sounds like we'll all be wearing 'radio handicaps' soon.

    , @res
    @Almost Missouri

    The Marching Morons is talked about pretty commonly, but this is the first I remember hearing about “A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy”. I only see it appearing in one anthology: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?67980
    Do you know of any other publications?

    Thanks!

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Almost Missouri

    "Watchbird" predicted aerial drones, with a dose of dystopic AI.

    https://americanvision.org/1023/brave-technology/

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Almost Missouri

    AM -- I gotta think we'd have a lot of that whizz-bang utopianist stuff if the welfare state hadn't metastasized, starting in the mid-'60's. We'd have colonies on the moon and Mars by now, if we hadn't set fire to a trillion + dollars trying to polish poop.

  52. ia says:
    @A Nonymous
    That law provides enhanced penalties for human smugglers who help convicted felons, spies, or terrorists cross the border and enter the country. Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border. I would be surprised if there were such a law, since 'sanctuaries' were until recently churches and the like. Sanctuary cities are, ironically, among the least religious places in the country. Unless you count virtue signalling as a religion.

    Replies: @ia, @ia

    Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border.

    Well, it covers aiding and abetting. “Encouraging” or “inducing” an alien to reside could be construed as illegal:

    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    • Replies: @Sammler
    @ia

    Looking forward to a world where 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) will be as recognizable as 8675309...

    Replies: @Sammler

  53. ia says:
    @A Nonymous
    That law provides enhanced penalties for human smugglers who help convicted felons, spies, or terrorists cross the border and enter the country. Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border. I would be surprised if there were such a law, since 'sanctuaries' were until recently churches and the like. Sanctuary cities are, ironically, among the least religious places in the country. Unless you count virtue signalling as a religion.

    Replies: @ia, @ia

    Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border.

    Well, it covers aiding and abetting. “Encouraging” or “inducing” an alien to reside could be construed as illegal:

    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

  54. Slightly off topic: BBC women not overpaid? Was he fired for making that point, or for the immigration one?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/30/world/europe/uk-sunday-times-kevin-myers-anti-semitic.html

    Elsewhere he wrote:

    “Only one woman is among the top 10 best-paid BBC presenters. Now, why is this? Is it because men are more charismatic performers? Because they work harder? Because they are more driven? Possibly a bit of each. The human resources department — what used to be called “personnel” until people come to be considered as a metabolising, respiring form of mineral ore — will probably tell you that men usually work harder, get sick less frequently and seldom get pregnant.”

    The column, which had been commissioned for the print version of the outlet’s Irish edition, also attacked “the PC traitors who run BBC News and current affairs, which have stifled and corrupted all useful debate on national identity, immigration and race, thereby doing irreversible damage to British society.”

  55. If you want the illegals out, you have to start arresting employers. Then the bulk of the illegals will self-deport on their own.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Hear him, hear him!

  56. 18 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens is more relevant.

  57. The left knows there is zero chance they will be imprisoned. Only the left will imprision their opponents. The donor class of the GOP wants the cheap labor so the GOP establishment won’t go after the sanctuary city honchos and the mass of GOP legislators want to appear reasonable to the leftist press.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    @TheBoom

    In late 19th century the Czar handled dissidents (Bolsheviks and fellow travelers) with kid gloves compared to the way they Bolsheviks dealt with their enemies, yet to this day, we hear so much about Czarist cruelty. Even terrorist murders and plotters, bank robbers, etc were often punished no more harshly than sent into internal exile (from whence it was easy to escape) or had their sentences suspended after a few years. When the left gains complete control they will be merciless to their enemies. They will start out the easy way, but a way that will be painful to their victims: financial sanctions. Right-wingers who dare to challenge the monolithic leftist state will face ruinous fines and other sanction that will take away their entire life's savings and more. Then, I believe, the Saxon will begin to hate.

  58. • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @eah

    They are angry because Trump isn't one of the faces?

    Replies: @eah

    , @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    @eah

    I may not roam the entirety of the interwebs, but that picture sure has been making the rounds of my favorite haunts

    Replies: @eah

    , @eah, @SteveRogers42
    @eah

    Phoenix Program.

  59. @anonymous
    @Mark Caplan

    But Section 1324 fits the crime—it even uses the word shield—and provides penalties up to life imprisonment. Life > 10 years:


    (a) Criminal penalties
    (1)
    (A) Any person who—
    . . .
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
    (v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
     
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    Replies: @Alden, @CPK

    The “encourage or induce” part of the law could be used to convict and
    imprison every farmer, food processor, food market and restaurant owner in the country.

    I’d love to see ICE go after the employers of illegals. I don’t mean small farmers and restaurant owners either. Go after Tyson, Farmer John, Jimmy Dean, Oscar Meyer, the big slaughter houses, Kern county land company, the Millers and Newhalls, Sunkist and every restaurant chain in the country.

  60. @Daniel H
    Maybe we should encourage the trend of the left defying federal law. When the left assumes complete control of the government - executive, judiciary and legislature - which , due to demographics I think is inevitable, those of us on the right (who will yet occupy the much greater part of the American land mass) will have strong precedent to defy federal dictates, be it legislation or judicial fiat, and then we can bring on the ultimate culture clash.

    Keep Venezuela in mind. The Chavistas were supported and are still supported by the majority of the Venezuelan people.Demographics.

    Replies: @StillCARealist, @Random Dude on the Internet, @Light Roast

    “Hey leftists now in control: Remember when we let you have Sanctuary Cities? Remember how nice we were to you? Now be nice to us and let us defy federal law too. Please?”

    Good luck with that.

  61. @Rod1963
    OT:

    Well it's finally happened, intelligence is now considered a "privilege" according to SJW.

    https://www.infowars.com/not-being-stupid-is-cognitive-privilege-now/

    It may have ominous implications down the road given the mentality of the SJW. Smart white guy = someone with "master privilege" which brings out the local witch burners on the Left to drive this horrible person from campus. College should be for everyone regardless of their intellectual capacity.

    It's coming. Once the SJW's vilify smart as inherently racist and privileged every geek and book reader becomes the bad guy. Being dumb will be seen as a sign of virtue,

    It's not the Marching Morons yet, but it's never a good idea to underestimate the power of stupidity in the world.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous, @Negrolphin Pool

    Schiller – “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens” aka “against stupidity the gods themselves battle in vain”.

  62. @Jack Hanson
    @Moshe

    So that when Senators are calling AG Sessions HitlerNaziBigot for enforcing the law this week, there's plenty of positive headlines last week from this imaginary kayfabe to throw back into their faces.

    It ain't rocket science, schlomo.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Moshe

    Imaginary kayfabe is like fictitious writing: it does not exist; it did not happen (or, at any rate, it is not, in fact, kayfabe). One may certainly have kayfabe to convey disagreement which in fact will exist only in the imaginations of the onlooker (being an orchestrated ruse of the perpetrators), just as one may indeed write a book of fiction.

    Where in Hell is the Plutonium Kid, anyway? I was supposed to have Sunday off.

    Notwithstanding his torture of the English language, I want to warmly thank Mr. Hanson for his talents and hard work, being the only man in the world capable of ifentifying public and ubiquitously avaialble statutes, and sharing them with us benighted folk.

    How are the little ones doing today, anyway?

  63. @Rod1963
    OT:

    Well it's finally happened, intelligence is now considered a "privilege" according to SJW.

    https://www.infowars.com/not-being-stupid-is-cognitive-privilege-now/

    It may have ominous implications down the road given the mentality of the SJW. Smart white guy = someone with "master privilege" which brings out the local witch burners on the Left to drive this horrible person from campus. College should be for everyone regardless of their intellectual capacity.

    It's coming. Once the SJW's vilify smart as inherently racist and privileged every geek and book reader becomes the bad guy. Being dumb will be seen as a sign of virtue,

    It's not the Marching Morons yet, but it's never a good idea to underestimate the power of stupidity in the world.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous, @Negrolphin Pool

    And with privileges come responsibilities: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724105158.htm (Higher cognitive abilities linked to greater risk of stereotyping, new study finds)

  64. Yes, section 1324 (the provision excerpted by Anonymous and HI) is the one. Note especially

    in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, [the violator shall] be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

    I doubt it has been applied to public officials before, but in principle, I don’t see why they’d be above it.

  65. @Kylie
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4742896/Illegal-immigrant-freed-sanctuary-law-charged-rape.html

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @currahee, @Dan Hayes

    Kylie:

    Once again showing that if you wish to know what’s happening in America read the Daily Mail!

  66. @Peripatetic commenter
    @Kylie

    Perhaps the Violence Against Women act can be used against those sanctuary cities ... since they are encouraging violence against women.

    Replies: @Kylie

    Yes but remember, race trumps gender.

    What does the safety of some old (presumably white) woman count against the right of an Hispanic undocumented worker (and convicted felon) to remain in this country despite deportation orders?

    Also he has the right of free assembly which is presumably how sanctuary cities characterize the rape of citizens by non-citizens.

    • LOL: PV van der Byl
  67. @HI
    Seems to be the relevant statute is 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)-(v), which is about harboring rather than entry. See especially (iii) and (v). Interestingly, for violations that result in the death of a person, the death penalty is available. This sounds like strict liability, like the felony murder rule.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    (A) Any person who—
    [...]
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)

    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    HI:

    Once again the erudition of UR denizens are on display. You and Anonymous (Comment #11) pointed out the more pertinent and powerful Section 1324 which is about harboring rather than entry.

    Hats off to both of you!

    • Replies: @HI
    @Dan Hayes

    I appreciate the compliment, Dan, but I think that what distinguishes UR denizens is not erudition, but thinking for oneself. You can think for yourself without the practice of looking up statutory provisions, and lots of people with a formal legal education are lemmings. Sailer's commenters are by and large people who think for themselves, which is why this is one of the few blogs where I read the comments and not just the main posts. And now, after we've patted each other on the back, I'll go troll some SJWs--that's fun too, sometimes.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

  68. Lock em up. It would be the greatest action taken by any politician in this once great nation in the last 30 years.

  69. @Almost Missouri
    @Anonymous

    Are you saying that groups of illegals entering the country would pretend to be leaving the country? And that even though Customs and Border Patrol knew that they were lying, there was nothing they could do about it?

    Also, what identifiers did you use to run criminal checks? Fingerprints? The identities on Mexican consular cards? Are those reliable?

    Would local law enforcement not make arrests because of their Dem political masters or was there another reason?

    Also, if you don't mind my asking, why did you stop working at DHS? "Frustration" would be understandable.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Anonymous

    He’s referring to how they travel within the borders. Imagine the Churchians meeting a horde of invaders who all rendezous in Nogales, then driving them to Tuscon for flights and ultimate colonisation of Pocatello (more blonde toddlers to rape there, you see…). To get past the arched eyebrows of the DHS and CBP in Tuscon’s airport, they all recite the magic incantation that they are traveling in order to self-deport.

    It’s all horseshit on it’s face, of course, as the writer is pointing out, but the jackasses in government demand that it be respected.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Autochthon

    So I guess "Churchians" don't use the Ninth Commandment anymore. How very modern.

    Also not in use: rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

  70. @Rod1963
    The Feds will never enforce that statue.

    No stomach for it. The same reason Trump won't make doctors and hospitals publish their prices for all their procedures. By law they have to but they don't and alter the price depending on the sort of insurance you have or if you don't have any at all.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    “Trump will never be President!”

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    @Jack Hanson

    And before that it was "Trump will never run for President" and then "Trump will never win the primary" ...

    More here: https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-trump-establishment.html

    Replies: @res

  71. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I was hoping you were working on a big post about the Awan brothers.

    Replies: @Anonym

    I figured it was the Takimag to end all Takimags.

  72. @Mark Caplan
    The statute penalizes those who help illegal aliens enter the country. Shielding aliens who are already here falls outside its purview.

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter, @anonymous, @Jack Hanson, @Mr. Anon, @Front toward enemy, @Anonymous, @Wilkey, @Greg Pandatshang

    If this were a law that liberals wanted to use against their enemies, then for sure it would be interpreted as broadly as necessary. “Oh, come on,” they would insinuate, “we all know who is a who here and who a whom.” But if the Trump administration tried to use this for their purposes, then quite possibly judges would refuse to allow it.

  73. AM says:
    @RobertTaylor
    The public may soon accept punishing those who give material support to illegal aliens with serious prison time. Long sentences. Felonies.

    Because having millions of people invade your country is suddenly starting to feel creepy.

    Replies: @Random Dude on the Internet, @AM, @Anonymous, @Frau Katze

    Helping one or a few illegals into the country during more normal times – yeah, that’s properly a felony, 10 years is about right. Helping illegals during a massive invasion? That looks to me like treason, sedition, conspiracy, collusion, etc. Death penalty and forfeiture of right to pass on one’s estate sounds about right.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @AM


    ...treason, sedition, conspiracy, collusion, etc.
     
    I figure we should strip them of citizenship and deport them, thus allowing them to grow another countries GDP.
  74. Moshe says:
    @Jack Hanson
    @Moshe

    So that when Senators are calling AG Sessions HitlerNaziBigot for enforcing the law this week, there's plenty of positive headlines last week from this imaginary kayfabe to throw back into their faces.

    It ain't rocket science, schlomo.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Moshe

    Sure Jackshit but you don’t know jack when you’re jacking in the john

    OR

    We all HOPE that will happen but you are implying – and have priorly said clearly – that you think Trump

    Has immigration-stop near the top of his agenda

    And knows what he’s doing

    In this instance you are saying the insane, which is that Trump is doing all of this badmouthing so that public figures will good mouth so that Sessions can then go and produce Operation Wetback II without these folk able to call him the devil.

    And THAT is crazy Jackyboy

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Moshe


    In this instance you are saying the insane, which is that Trump is doing all of this badmouthing so that public figures will good mouth so that Sessions can then go and produce Operation Wetback II without these folk able to call him the devil.

    And THAT is crazy Jackyboy
     

    Actually, it doesn't seem so crazy. It could be down-and-dirty office politics played out in the national media. Heck, Mao and Stalin used to do this kind of thing. The difference is that Trump's maneuvers haven't caused any of the players to end up with a bullet to the back of the head or the gulag. And unlike Mao and Stalin, Trump doesn't have a tame media (on pain of death). Whatever you might say about Trump - he's not the normal run of politician, which actually makes a lot of sense, since he wasn't a politician until about 2 years ago.
  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @RobertTaylor
    The public may soon accept punishing those who give material support to illegal aliens with serious prison time. Long sentences. Felonies.

    Because having millions of people invade your country is suddenly starting to feel creepy.

    Replies: @Random Dude on the Internet, @AM, @Anonymous, @Frau Katze

    I think the public already feels comfortable with punishing the treasonous elites for this and many other things.

    Its only the false illusion created by control of the media, entertainment, etc. that gives people the impression that “everyone’ agrees with leftism.

    The enormous showings at Trump rallies and the election of the man himself, are only one of many clear pictures of this.

    When honest polls and assessments are taken of these ‘brillant’ liberal social cures for problems that were never really there in the first place, time after time, the majority of the population is against them.

  76. @Almost Missouri
    @Rod1963

    I'm glad you mentioned "The Marching Morons". Like many of you, I consumed a fair amount of 20th century science fiction as a youth. Needless to say, none of the whizz-bang utopianist stuff described in those stories ever came true.

    There were two stories, however, that were weirdly prescient, perhaps even dead-on prophetic, both dystopian: "The Marching Morons" and "A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy". The memory of the latter story, in particular, makes my hair stand on end to this day.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res, @SteveRogers42, @SteveRogers42

    Sounds like we’ll all be wearing ‘radio handicaps’ soon.

  77. Don’t bother with criminal law – when city governments commit felonies publicly, and the President of the US (when that was Obama) refuses to prosecute, the system is too badly broken.

    I want to see her family sue the city in civil court for 100$ million for wrongful death-

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Jim Given

    Read up on soverign immunity while you are holding your breath.

    Replies: @res

  78. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    @Anonymous

    Are you saying that groups of illegals entering the country would pretend to be leaving the country? And that even though Customs and Border Patrol knew that they were lying, there was nothing they could do about it?

    Also, what identifiers did you use to run criminal checks? Fingerprints? The identities on Mexican consular cards? Are those reliable?

    Would local law enforcement not make arrests because of their Dem political masters or was there another reason?

    Also, if you don't mind my asking, why did you stop working at DHS? "Frustration" would be understandable.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Anonymous

    Are you saying that groups of illegals entering the country would pretend to be leaving the country? And that even though Customs and Border Patrol knew that they were lying, there was nothing they could do about it?

    CBP and TSA. These are groups of illegals who are already in U.S. And for anyone traveling through a secure checkpoint a gov’t-issued ID is needed.

    Also, what identifiers did you use to run criminal checks? Fingerprints? The identities on Mexican consular cards? Are those reliable?

    Most of the time they wouldn’t have any identitification. We’d ask (through a Spanish-speaking officer or their handler) for name/AKAs/DOB/POB/etc. No biometrics. We’d run it through federal/int’l law enforcement databases. Highly unreliable.

    Would local law enforcement not make arrests because of their Dem political masters or was there another reason?

    Local LEOs don’t want to be bothered with federal stuff. If pressed they’ll say they have to run it through their higher ups. If you persist then they’ll make a cursory NCIC check and always not get a hit. Then they’ll say they didn’t find anything and it’s not their problem (jurisdiction).

    We’d also get constant orders and directives from our Asst. Director that we were no longer allowed to do or ask this or that. He’d come in and say, “Well, the ACLU is all over our ass about… So, starting today, do not…”

    Also, if you don’t mind my asking, why did you stop working at DHS? “Frustration” would be understandable.

    I left for a better job as an investigator for another agency.

  79. As long as the left controls the judiciary, they’ll never be prosecuted.

    We aren’t going to win through voting or demographics. That ship sailed already. We aren’t going to win by appeals to our laws. The court’s operate on who/whom. We aren’t going to win by the constitution. We aren’t going to win through the treasonous GOP being in power.

    We may win through societal collapse due to economic failure, epidemics, an asteroid or solar flare, perhaps some way even uglier. Or we will just disappear.

  80. Ten years is a lot.

    But first you have to be charged, prosecuted and convicted and then actually sentenced to it.

    But if none of that will actually happen. Who cares? Carry on with what you’re doing.

  81. @JohnnyWalker123
    If you want the illegals out, you have to start arresting employers. Then the bulk of the illegals will self-deport on their own.

    Replies: @Hunsdon

    Hear him, hear him!

  82. Steve, that’s quaint. The law is whatever a Judge says it is, and clearly the law states that no person outside the US who is both Vibrant and a potential criminal can ever be kept out. Because racism, and icky nerdy smart White guys, that’s why! Don’t be a Deplorable!

    Somewhat related, Hillary has her sob story autobiography of all her hardship, the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam. How … DEPLORABLE! After all, it is the duty of every White dude to just lay down and die for every entitled rich dude’s daughter like Hillary!

    And this is why we cannot win … ever. That battle was lost fifty years ago when rich men’s Daughters became lawyers and judges and the like. There is no end to the ways in which Upper class White women are the forever enemy of most White men (those not born Alpha anyways).

    Rather, it is FEAR AND FEAR ALONE that will allow survival. The battle is lost, there is no zilch zero nada chance of Trump ever building that wall and he never ever meant it in the first place. He’ll go on about abolishing ObamaCare until late Fall when he’s impeached and removed and Paul Ryan “gracefully” steps aside so Madame Supreme Dowager Empress Hillary! can take power and deal with all you deplorables.

    Rather, it should be made clear to every smart, young White man that the entire system including college, universities, government, their female peers, etc. wants their annihilation or at best permanent serfdom while they generate the wealth others spend. We must cultivate the raw, naked fear of White men in the face of our many, many enemies: Muslims, Africans, and other innately White male hostile aliens, and of course the women who can’t get enough of rapefugees.

    Just imagine how much BETTER public life would be if Hillary! had simply been bounced out of that exam room by every male in there — helping each other avoid the draft and bouncing out Madame Privilege and the other rich White women in there seeking to punish the Deplorables.

    • Replies: @anonguy
    @Whiskey


    Somewhat related, Hillary has her sob story autobiography of all her hardship, the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam. How … DEPLORABLE! After all, it is the duty of every White dude to just lay down and die for every entitled rich dude’s daughter like Hillary!
     
    I'm no Hillary fan, but female contempt for weak, puling males, regardless of race, is always a good thing. It is part of how the system works.

    Replies: @Daniel H

  83. I doubt a judge would consider this facilitating “entry,” since they’re already here. This appears geared to coyotes.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Broski

    No, guides get hammered with 1324.

  84. @anonymous
    @Mark Caplan

    But Section 1324 fits the crime—it even uses the word shield—and provides penalties up to life imprisonment. Life > 10 years:


    (a) Criminal penalties
    (1)
    (A) Any person who—
    . . .
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
    (v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
     
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    Replies: @Alden, @CPK

    Problem is that this is clearly referring to physical concealment (“in any place, including any building or any means of transportation”). Failure to notify or share records with the Feds is not “shielding” in that sense. Or at least that’s what the defense would argue; again, if Congress wanted to make Sanctuary Cities illegal, they could have done so unambiguously, and we wouldn’t have to stretch the statutory language in this way.

    Don’t get me wrong — I’d love it if Congress would do that — but unfortunately current law doesn’t get us there.

    • Replies: @HI
    @CPK

    CPK, if I understand your argument correctly, it's that a city or state is not a place. A results-oriented judge may agree with that, but the result doesn't flow from the language.

    Replies: @CPK

    , @Sammler
    @CPK

    It looks like you are right, except for (A)(iv). That is just about encouraging illegal persons to enter or remain, and does seem directly applicable.

  85. @Jack Hanson
    @Rod1963

    "Trump will never be President!"

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    And before that it was “Trump will never run for President” and then “Trump will never win the primary” …

    More here: https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-trump-establishment.html

    • Replies: @res
    @Peripatetic commenter

    This seems highly relevant (including the top rated comment which has a number of fun additions): https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5gdwgs/president_trumps_will_never_list_updated/

  86. @CPK
    @anonymous

    Problem is that this is clearly referring to physical concealment ("in any place, including any building or any means of transportation"). Failure to notify or share records with the Feds is not "shielding" in that sense. Or at least that's what the defense would argue; again, if Congress wanted to make Sanctuary Cities illegal, they could have done so unambiguously, and we wouldn't have to stretch the statutory language in this way.

    Don't get me wrong -- I'd love it if Congress would do that -- but unfortunately current law doesn't get us there.

    Replies: @HI, @Sammler

    CPK, if I understand your argument correctly, it’s that a city or state is not a place. A results-oriented judge may agree with that, but the result doesn’t flow from the language.

    • Replies: @CPK
    @HI

    Certainly a city is a "place" in plain English. So's the whole United States, for that matter. By definition, every illegal alien occupies some volume of three-dimensional space within the United States. So this renders the whole "in any place" clause redundant. Congress nonetheless included that clause, which suggests they weren't using "place" in that broad sense.

    Generally "place" (in Federal statutes) refers to a particular, immediate location (such as a "place of business") -- in this context, locations where an illegal alien might be concealed, such as a building or vehicle. We can't really describe someone as "concealed" when he can walk around a whole city openly and in plain sight. What Sanctuary Cities are concealing is information about people's immigration status, not the people themselves. This is an important distinction.

    However, even if we construe "shield from detection" to include withholding such information, and not just physical concealment of the individual alien, we run into the anti-commandeering doctrine. The Feds can't force local governments to provide this information, and the Tenth Amendment overcomes any statute.

    Really, I'm all for cracking down on Sanctuary Cities -- but 8 USC 1324 isn't the tool.

    Replies: @Hi

  87. HI says:
    @Dan Hayes
    @HI

    HI:

    Once again the erudition of UR denizens are on display. You and Anonymous (Comment #11) pointed out the more pertinent and powerful Section 1324 which is about harboring rather than entry.

    Hats off to both of you!

    Replies: @HI

    I appreciate the compliment, Dan, but I think that what distinguishes UR denizens is not erudition, but thinking for oneself. You can think for yourself without the practice of looking up statutory provisions, and lots of people with a formal legal education are lemmings. Sailer’s commenters are by and large people who think for themselves, which is why this is one of the few blogs where I read the comments and not just the main posts. And now, after we’ve patted each other on the back, I’ll go troll some SJWs–that’s fun too, sometimes.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @HI

    HI:

    You deserve the compliment.

    Can we split the difference by stating that many (not all) UR denizens are distinguished by both erudition and thinking for themselves.

    I too assiduously read the comments section because of the quality of many (not all) of the commentators. I've learned a lot from many of them.

  88. @TheBoom
    The left knows there is zero chance they will be imprisoned. Only the left will imprision their opponents. The donor class of the GOP wants the cheap labor so the GOP establishment won't go after the sanctuary city honchos and the mass of GOP legislators want to appear reasonable to the leftist press.

    Replies: @Daniel H

    In late 19th century the Czar handled dissidents (Bolsheviks and fellow travelers) with kid gloves compared to the way they Bolsheviks dealt with their enemies, yet to this day, we hear so much about Czarist cruelty. Even terrorist murders and plotters, bank robbers, etc were often punished no more harshly than sent into internal exile (from whence it was easy to escape) or had their sentences suspended after a few years. When the left gains complete control they will be merciless to their enemies. They will start out the easy way, but a way that will be painful to their victims: financial sanctions. Right-wingers who dare to challenge the monolithic leftist state will face ruinous fines and other sanction that will take away their entire life’s savings and more. Then, I believe, the Saxon will begin to hate.

  89. @Broski
    I doubt a judge would consider this facilitating "entry," since they're already here. This appears geared to coyotes.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    No, guides get hammered with 1324.

  90. @Thea
    In Britain, police departments are dedicated to fighting right wind extremism on Twitter. Will we follow will making the arrest of Roman saluting digs a priority over arresting violent criminals?

    Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    In Britain, police departments are dedicated to fighting right wind extremism on Twitter.

    The smelly, wrong wind, on the other hand, is OK.

  91. @AM
    @RobertTaylor

    Helping one or a few illegals into the country during more normal times - yeah, that's properly a felony, 10 years is about right. Helping illegals during a massive invasion? That looks to me like treason, sedition, conspiracy, collusion, etc. Death penalty and forfeiture of right to pass on one's estate sounds about right.

    Replies: @bomag

    …treason, sedition, conspiracy, collusion, etc.

    I figure we should strip them of citizenship and deport them, thus allowing them to grow another countries GDP.

  92. @Jonathan Mason

    Any person who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States
     
    How are sanctuary cities assisting aliens to ENTER the US? That means helping them to cross the border, disembark in a port, or land in an aircraft. The aliens in sanctuary cities are already here.

    Yes, Dominican fisherman who try to smuggle paying passengers into Puerto Rico, from whence they can fly unimpeded to the US, might fall into this category.

    Also, it is doubtful if sanctuary cities are defined as persons, although with the Supreme Court that we have, anything is possible when it comes to defining what is a person, and if they are incorporated, then perhaps they are persons.

    Replies: @bomag, @Tim Howells

    How are sanctuary cities assisting aliens to ENTER the US?

    Well, if you are building them a landing pad, you certainly have some culpability.

  93. @Anonymous
    @Mark Caplan


    8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
     
    I worked at DHS up until 2010. Under Bush and Obama there was a tacit SOP of not enforcing the ongoing movement of huge numbers of illegals. There would be large and systematic movements through major airports like LAS. In groups of 50 at a time with some do-gooder handler who would help them with communicating with CBP officers. They'd show a Mexican consular card and say the magic phrase ("The purpose of my travel is to self-deport."). DHS: "Buenos dias. Adios." Btw, we'd run criminal checks through federal law enforcement databases and find a quite a few of them would have federal warrants out for their arrest. Local law enforcement would never enforce and when we'd call the ICE fugitive unit they'd tell us they didn't have anyone available to do the apprehension.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    Under Bush and Obama there was a tacit SOP of not enforcing the ongoing movement of huge numbers of illegals… quite a few of them would have federal warrants out for their arrest. Local law enforcement would never enforce and when we’d call the ICE fugitive unit they’d tell us they didn’t have anyone available to do the apprehension.

    This is almost too horrible to contemplate.

    It probably falls under Immanentizing the Eschaton.

  94. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Bolsheviks have malfunctioning brains. It is psychopathology. If you have a brain tumor pressing on your temporal lobe then Bolshevism seems like the only way to fly. Like the lady journalist in Germany who joined the lunatic Red Army Faction…

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrike_Meinhof

    Strelnikov character in Dr Zhivago is the typical Bolshevik. Revenge, murder, torture, imprisonment. The four food groups… are all that matters.


    In late 19th century the Czar handled dissidents (Bolsheviks and fellow travelers) with kid gloves compared to the way they Bolsheviks dealt with their enemies…

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    @Anonymous

    Those "anti-fascist" Germans like Ulrike Meinhof are unbelievably awful. Yet even now, there is no agreement that they were awful.

    After all, they were fighting the good fight, weren't they?

    Same argument for the Communists.

  95. @HI
    @Dan Hayes

    I appreciate the compliment, Dan, but I think that what distinguishes UR denizens is not erudition, but thinking for oneself. You can think for yourself without the practice of looking up statutory provisions, and lots of people with a formal legal education are lemmings. Sailer's commenters are by and large people who think for themselves, which is why this is one of the few blogs where I read the comments and not just the main posts. And now, after we've patted each other on the back, I'll go troll some SJWs--that's fun too, sometimes.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    HI:

    You deserve the compliment.

    Can we split the difference by stating that many (not all) UR denizens are distinguished by both erudition and thinking for themselves.

    I too assiduously read the comments section because of the quality of many (not all) of the commentators. I’ve learned a lot from many of them.

  96. @Tim Howells
    This is probably a stupid question, but what checks exist when the courts' "interpretations" get so broad that they start arrogating congressional and executive authority? It really seems like it doesn't matter in the least any more what statutes exist, or how unequivocal they appear to the untrained eye.

    Replies: @Daniel H, @Joseph Doaks

    >>This is probably a stupid question, but what checks exist when the courts’ “interpretations” get so broad that they start arrogating congressional and executive authority?

    Resistance. Fighting back. Physical if necessary.

  97. @Rod1963
    OT:

    Well it's finally happened, intelligence is now considered a "privilege" according to SJW.

    https://www.infowars.com/not-being-stupid-is-cognitive-privilege-now/

    It may have ominous implications down the road given the mentality of the SJW. Smart white guy = someone with "master privilege" which brings out the local witch burners on the Left to drive this horrible person from campus. College should be for everyone regardless of their intellectual capacity.

    It's coming. Once the SJW's vilify smart as inherently racist and privileged every geek and book reader becomes the bad guy. Being dumb will be seen as a sign of virtue,

    It's not the Marching Morons yet, but it's never a good idea to underestimate the power of stupidity in the world.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @YetAnotherAnon, @Anonymous, @Negrolphin Pool

    Being dumb will be seen as a sign of virtue

    Sounds like jail or Zimbabwe.

    Guess it’s inevitable in a society that beatifies criminals like St. Michael of Ferguson or Baby Trayvon that eventually the academy converges with the prison rec yard.

  98. @Jack Hanson
    Honest Q: Did you ever hear of 1327 before I mentioned it in the Churchill thread?

    Replies: @Colleen Pater, @Anonymous

    Enforcing immigration laws sound like a good idea. When Democrats pass laws, like the gay marriage law, they make examples of people who don’t follow them, in order to get compliance.

  99. @RobertTaylor
    The public may soon accept punishing those who give material support to illegal aliens with serious prison time. Long sentences. Felonies.

    Because having millions of people invade your country is suddenly starting to feel creepy.

    Replies: @Random Dude on the Internet, @AM, @Anonymous, @Frau Katze

    I’ll believe it when I see it. (I’m a pessimist.)

    There’s an analogy with marijuana. It’s still illegal at the federal level. But several states have legalized it, albeit with restrictions.

    The new pattern seems to be: if you dislike a federal law, at the state level you can ignore it.

    I could be wrong (I’m not an American) but that’s what I’ve gathered from reading US news.

    But letting states set their own immigration policy is a complete disaster as the migrants are free to move on from the state that gave them sanctuary.

    And their children, born in the sanctuary city are brand new Americans of course.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Frau Katze

    This is called nullification and is generally thought to have been ended during the Civil War.

  100. @Whiskey
    Steve, that's quaint. The law is whatever a Judge says it is, and clearly the law states that no person outside the US who is both Vibrant and a potential criminal can ever be kept out. Because racism, and icky nerdy smart White guys, that's why! Don't be a Deplorable!

    Somewhat related, Hillary has her sob story autobiography of all her hardship, the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam. How ... DEPLORABLE! After all, it is the duty of every White dude to just lay down and die for every entitled rich dude's daughter like Hillary!

    And this is why we cannot win ... ever. That battle was lost fifty years ago when rich men's Daughters became lawyers and judges and the like. There is no end to the ways in which Upper class White women are the forever enemy of most White men (those not born Alpha anyways).

    Rather, it is FEAR AND FEAR ALONE that will allow survival. The battle is lost, there is no zilch zero nada chance of Trump ever building that wall and he never ever meant it in the first place. He'll go on about abolishing ObamaCare until late Fall when he's impeached and removed and Paul Ryan "gracefully" steps aside so Madame Supreme Dowager Empress Hillary! can take power and deal with all you deplorables.

    Rather, it should be made clear to every smart, young White man that the entire system including college, universities, government, their female peers, etc. wants their annihilation or at best permanent serfdom while they generate the wealth others spend. We must cultivate the raw, naked fear of White men in the face of our many, many enemies: Muslims, Africans, and other innately White male hostile aliens, and of course the women who can't get enough of rapefugees.

    Just imagine how much BETTER public life would be if Hillary! had simply been bounced out of that exam room by every male in there -- helping each other avoid the draft and bouncing out Madame Privilege and the other rich White women in there seeking to punish the Deplorables.

    Replies: @anonguy

    Somewhat related, Hillary has her sob story autobiography of all her hardship, the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam. How … DEPLORABLE! After all, it is the duty of every White dude to just lay down and die for every entitled rich dude’s daughter like Hillary!

    I’m no Hillary fan, but female contempt for weak, puling males, regardless of race, is always a good thing. It is part of how the system works.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    @anonguy

    >> the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam.

    I don't believe one word of Hillary's story.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Daniel H

  101. @Anonymous
    @Daniel H

    Bolsheviks have malfunctioning brains. It is psychopathology. If you have a brain tumor pressing on your temporal lobe then Bolshevism seems like the only way to fly. Like the lady journalist in Germany who joined the lunatic Red Army Faction...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrike_Meinhof

    Strelnikov character in Dr Zhivago is the typical Bolshevik. Revenge, murder, torture, imprisonment. The four food groups... are all that matters.



    In late 19th century the Czar handled dissidents (Bolsheviks and fellow travelers) with kid gloves compared to the way they Bolsheviks dealt with their enemies...

    Replies: @Frau Katze

    Those “anti-fascist” Germans like Ulrike Meinhof are unbelievably awful. Yet even now, there is no agreement that they were awful.

    After all, they were fighting the good fight, weren’t they?

    Same argument for the Communists.

  102. @anonguy
    @Whiskey


    Somewhat related, Hillary has her sob story autobiography of all her hardship, the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam. How … DEPLORABLE! After all, it is the duty of every White dude to just lay down and die for every entitled rich dude’s daughter like Hillary!
     
    I'm no Hillary fan, but female contempt for weak, puling males, regardless of race, is always a good thing. It is part of how the system works.

    Replies: @Daniel H

    >> the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam.

    I don’t believe one word of Hillary’s story.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Daniel H

    Hillary did fail the D.C. bar exam the one time she attempted it. Interestingly, that was not mentioned in the media until her autobiography in the 2000s.

    , @Daniel H
    @Daniel H

    Furthermore, there was no draft deferment for passing the bar exam and becoming a practicing lawyer. In the early part of the war deferments were granted to undergraduates and graduates. Later in the war, (when the draft was winding down) grads students weren't granted deferments. There were deferments for some specialized occupations: teacher, MD. But there was never a deferment for lawyers. So her point makes no sense. And it makes no sense because she fabricated the entire story.

    Replies: @Pericles, @SteveRogers42

  103. @Daniel H
    @anonguy

    >> the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam.

    I don't believe one word of Hillary's story.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Daniel H

    Hillary did fail the D.C. bar exam the one time she attempted it. Interestingly, that was not mentioned in the media until her autobiography in the 2000s.

  104. Bar exams are not easy. However, neither are they exceedingly difficult; I estimate anyone with an intelligence quotient of about 130 should be able to pass them with aany reasonable effort made. I myself dat the bar exam three years after graduating law school, and prepared by cramming each day ag a coffee shop for eight hours for one week before the exam, with a set of review books I’d bought. Realise that the overwhelming majority sit the exam immediately after law school and a summer of professionally taught bar-review classes, with it all fresh in mind, etc.

    I’m a bright guy, but I’m no Thomas Jefferson. My point is that we now have a person too stupid to pass what amounts to a moderately difficult civil-service exam who are being seriously considered as fit to be president (and who was in fact appointed and confirmed to the cabinet, and indeed elected to the senate, representing a state with which she’d only tenuous connections!).

    The people indeed have the government they deserve.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Autochthon

    What would you say your IQ is?

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Opinionator

  105. @Daniel H
    @anonguy

    >> the incident where she studied for her bar exam and White dudes yelled at her saying she did not need the bar exam, while if they did not pass it they would be drafted and die in Vietnam.

    I don't believe one word of Hillary's story.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Daniel H

    Furthermore, there was no draft deferment for passing the bar exam and becoming a practicing lawyer. In the early part of the war deferments were granted to undergraduates and graduates. Later in the war, (when the draft was winding down) grads students weren’t granted deferments. There were deferments for some specialized occupations: teacher, MD. But there was never a deferment for lawyers. So her point makes no sense. And it makes no sense because she fabricated the entire story.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    @Daniel H


    But there was never a deferment for lawyers. So her point makes no sense. And it makes no sense because she fabricated the entire story.

     

    It was no doubt shouted at Hillary while she was dodging bullets in Sarajevo. Simple mistake to make.
    , @SteveRogers42
    @Daniel H

    Wasn't that the same time she was blazing through the obstacle course at Marine OCS?

  106. CPK says:
    @HI
    @CPK

    CPK, if I understand your argument correctly, it's that a city or state is not a place. A results-oriented judge may agree with that, but the result doesn't flow from the language.

    Replies: @CPK

    Certainly a city is a “place” in plain English. So’s the whole United States, for that matter. By definition, every illegal alien occupies some volume of three-dimensional space within the United States. So this renders the whole “in any place” clause redundant. Congress nonetheless included that clause, which suggests they weren’t using “place” in that broad sense.

    Generally “place” (in Federal statutes) refers to a particular, immediate location (such as a “place of business”) — in this context, locations where an illegal alien might be concealed, such as a building or vehicle. We can’t really describe someone as “concealed” when he can walk around a whole city openly and in plain sight. What Sanctuary Cities are concealing is information about people’s immigration status, not the people themselves. This is an important distinction.

    However, even if we construe “shield from detection” to include withholding such information, and not just physical concealment of the individual alien, we run into the anti-commandeering doctrine. The Feds can’t force local governments to provide this information, and the Tenth Amendment overcomes any statute.

    Really, I’m all for cracking down on Sanctuary Cities — but 8 USC 1324 isn’t the tool.

    • Replies: @Hi
    @CPK

    I haven't done any research on this, so I speak from first principles.

    Place has to mean explicitly more than a building or means of transportation. It may be that the statute distinguishes between generalized actions that apply to the whole United States (e.g. a lobbying or media program of the Soros Open Society) and those that are more localized than that. And I could describe someone in San Francisco, whether waiting to be released in County Jail (that's a building), in a state judge's chambers (building too), or walking openly in the city, as concealed from the Feds. I could also really look at (iv), which talked about encouraging/inducing. Sanctuary cities have been fairly explicit about their knowledge that their policies are about illegal aliens.

    The commandeering doctrine issue is interesting, and would require some thought. The argument that first comes to mind is that the states aren't being ordered to do something, but rather their citizens are being punished for affirmatively doing something. There is a difference between a law that prohibits murder and one that mandates that you be a good samaritan. The state officials are being punished for acting, not for failing to act.

    So 8 USC 1324 seems to fit fairly well. That doesn't mean, of course, that a judge will agree. I'm sure Judge Derrick Watson would find some reason that the law doesn't apply here.

    Replies: @CPK

  107. @Autochthon
    Bar exams are not easy. However, neither are they exceedingly difficult; I estimate anyone with an intelligence quotient of about 130 should be able to pass them with aany reasonable effort made. I myself dat the bar exam three years after graduating law school, and prepared by cramming each day ag a coffee shop for eight hours for one week before the exam, with a set of review books I'd bought. Realise that the overwhelming majority sit the exam immediately after law school and a summer of professionally taught bar-review classes, with it all fresh in mind, etc.

    I'm a bright guy, but I'm no Thomas Jefferson. My point is that we now have a person too stupid to pass what amounts to a moderately difficult civil-service exam who are being seriously considered as fit to be president (and who was in fact appointed and confirmed to the cabinet, and indeed elected to the senate, representing a state with which she'd only tenuous connections!).

    The people indeed have the government they deserve.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    What would you say your IQ is?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    I honestly don't know. I was tested ad a small child (I'd been identified as what they used to call "gifted," and singled out for special programmes to cultivate my intellect, etc.; though now I expect such children are singled out to be abused for daring to have "privilege") so presumably some record exists someplace.

    An ex, a gal I went to law school with, who claimed to have an IQ around 160, and she was one of the only people I ever dated who I didn't find insufferably stupid, so perhaps mine is around that, too.

    I don't think about it, honestly. I learned early on, and painfully, that beyond a certain baseline intelligence has nothing to do with professional and interpersonal success; indeed, it hinders it a great deal. People quickly identify the freakishly intelligent, and generally treat us like shit, and likewise we don't deal well with normal persons. Besides, too, sociopathy, cronyism, etc. long ago replaced any semblance of meritocracy in the world, if indeed meritocracy were ever much more than an imagined thing from The Good Old Days that never were. And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive. I hate it. I'd trade it all to have been born stupid and thus capable of a happier life.

    Often, as I realised all these things during my youth, I would think of Derek Webb's words from "Can't Lose You":


    [M]aybe I have the gift that everyone speaks so highly of:
    Funny how nobody wants it....
     

    Replies: @anonguy, @Opinionator, @SteveRogers42

    , @Opinionator
    @Opinionator

    Thanks. Interesting.

  108. @Jim Given
    Don't bother with criminal law - when city governments commit felonies publicly, and the President of the US (when that was Obama) refuses to prosecute, the system is too badly broken.

    I want to see her family sue the city in civil court for 100$ million for wrongful death-

    Replies: @Autochthon

    Read up on soverign immunity while you are holding your breath.

    • Replies: @res
    @Autochthon

    Is there any legal (excluding voting) recourse when a city knowingly and intentionally breaks the law? The feds obviously have the power to change things (e.g. civil rights era). Do individual states? If not, can this reality be reconciled with the tenth amendment? Any other entities or approaches?

    Does there come a point where legal action could be taken against the officials themselves? It seems like advocating for sanctuary laws could extend to the individuals (something like enabling or abetting). How to distinguish that from being prosecuted for corruption?

    Obviously IANAL. Sorry about all the (probably) basic questions, but I would appreciate gaining some idea of both the legal aspects and reality of this.

    P.S. I did a quick search and (I know Wikipedia is not the best source which is why I am asking) I see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States


    However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of preratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'".
     
    What is up with that?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Autochthon

  109. I dunno if it’s just me, but I van no longer edit comments for four minutes after I submit them. I miss that feature, since I am a really shitty typist at the best of timess, and therefore downright worthless with a phone.

  110. @Jonathan Mason

    Any person who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States
     
    How are sanctuary cities assisting aliens to ENTER the US? That means helping them to cross the border, disembark in a port, or land in an aircraft. The aliens in sanctuary cities are already here.

    Yes, Dominican fisherman who try to smuggle paying passengers into Puerto Rico, from whence they can fly unimpeded to the US, might fall into this category.

    Also, it is doubtful if sanctuary cities are defined as persons, although with the Supreme Court that we have, anything is possible when it comes to defining what is a person, and if they are incorporated, then perhaps they are persons.

    Replies: @bomag, @Tim Howells

    The officials implementing the sanctuary policies are accessories after the fact then.

  111. @Opinionator
    @Autochthon

    What would you say your IQ is?

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Opinionator

    I honestly don’t know. I was tested ad a small child (I’d been identified as what they used to call “gifted,” and singled out for special programmes to cultivate my intellect, etc.; though now I expect such children are singled out to be abused for daring to have “privilege”) so presumably some record exists someplace.

    An ex, a gal I went to law school with, who claimed to have an IQ around 160, and she was one of the only people I ever dated who I didn’t find insufferably stupid, so perhaps mine is around that, too.

    I don’t think about it, honestly. I learned early on, and painfully, that beyond a certain baseline intelligence has nothing to do with professional and interpersonal success; indeed, it hinders it a great deal. People quickly identify the freakishly intelligent, and generally treat us like shit, and likewise we don’t deal well with normal persons. Besides, too, sociopathy, cronyism, etc. long ago replaced any semblance of meritocracy in the world, if indeed meritocracy were ever much more than an imagined thing from The Good Old Days that never were. And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive. I hate it. I’d trade it all to have been born stupid and thus capable of a happier life.

    Often, as I realised all these things during my youth, I would think of Derek Webb’s words from “Can’t Lose You”:

    [M]aybe I have the gift that everyone speaks so highly of:
    Funny how nobody wants it….

    • Replies: @anonguy
    @Autochthon


    And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive.
     
    For guys claiming to be smart, Whiskey, et al, sure don't learn much.

    Women aren't repelled by intelligence. They are repelled by what is often collateral to intelligence, i.e, nerdiness.

    Any guy who disputes this should consider, ok, if all other things were equal, except that I was dumber, would women like me more. That means you still do all the nerdy things you do, whether it is being childishly argumentative, obsessed with video games or stamp collecting or whatever.

    The answer is no, women, generally but with plenty of exceptions, don't care for dumb nerds either.

    OTOH, plenty of sexy, smart guys. James Woods, for instance, falsifies your theory although I'm merely assuming without evidence the guy has no problem with women.

    Leave the nerdiness, take the intelligence. Simple as that.

    It always mystifies me that supposedly intelligent guys can't figure out this basic life problem.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    , @Opinionator
    @Autochthon

    Thanks. Interesting.

    , @SteveRogers42
    @Autochthon

    True dat.

  112. Let’s start making the preening leftists pay a price for their cost-free fake-moral grandstanding.

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/07/against-anti-racism-and-hemeneutics-of.html

  113. “beyond a certain baseline intelligence has nothing to do with professional and interpersonal success; indeed, it hinders it a great deal”

    Income above 150 IQ
    According to scholar Arthur Jensen, the correlation between IQ and income is 0.4, so we should expect people with IQs of +3.53 Standard Deviations (SD) to have NORMALIZED incomes of 0.4(3.53 SD) = +1.41 SD. They actually exceeded this expectation because if we force income to fit the bell curve, then the 95 percentile is +1.73 SD.

  114. @bored identity
    Tucker digs Sailer.


    bored prediction:
    Tucker will use this 1327 Code vignette to tear in pieces any echo-chambering legal zer-experts, such as this Treasonous , Alt-Schul 'Making The Road', Amherst/Oxford Talmudoid :






    Tucker: "Who's a bigger threat to immigrant families ; The President, or MS-13?"

    Treasonous, Alt-Schul, Amherst/Oxford Talmudoid : "The President, without question !"


    https://youtu.be/thaLeZWGqus?t=4m56s


    https://twitter.com/altochulo/status/891396678489604098

     

    Replies: @AM

    I love Tucker’s expressions. He’s just so dumbfounded by the the dumb. He’s arguing though, so that’s great.

  115. Hi says:
    @CPK
    @HI

    Certainly a city is a "place" in plain English. So's the whole United States, for that matter. By definition, every illegal alien occupies some volume of three-dimensional space within the United States. So this renders the whole "in any place" clause redundant. Congress nonetheless included that clause, which suggests they weren't using "place" in that broad sense.

    Generally "place" (in Federal statutes) refers to a particular, immediate location (such as a "place of business") -- in this context, locations where an illegal alien might be concealed, such as a building or vehicle. We can't really describe someone as "concealed" when he can walk around a whole city openly and in plain sight. What Sanctuary Cities are concealing is information about people's immigration status, not the people themselves. This is an important distinction.

    However, even if we construe "shield from detection" to include withholding such information, and not just physical concealment of the individual alien, we run into the anti-commandeering doctrine. The Feds can't force local governments to provide this information, and the Tenth Amendment overcomes any statute.

    Really, I'm all for cracking down on Sanctuary Cities -- but 8 USC 1324 isn't the tool.

    Replies: @Hi

    I haven’t done any research on this, so I speak from first principles.

    Place has to mean explicitly more than a building or means of transportation. It may be that the statute distinguishes between generalized actions that apply to the whole United States (e.g. a lobbying or media program of the Soros Open Society) and those that are more localized than that. And I could describe someone in San Francisco, whether waiting to be released in County Jail (that’s a building), in a state judge’s chambers (building too), or walking openly in the city, as concealed from the Feds. I could also really look at (iv), which talked about encouraging/inducing. Sanctuary cities have been fairly explicit about their knowledge that their policies are about illegal aliens.

    The commandeering doctrine issue is interesting, and would require some thought. The argument that first comes to mind is that the states aren’t being ordered to do something, but rather their citizens are being punished for affirmatively doing something. There is a difference between a law that prohibits murder and one that mandates that you be a good samaritan. The state officials are being punished for acting, not for failing to act.

    So 8 USC 1324 seems to fit fairly well. That doesn’t mean, of course, that a judge will agree. I’m sure Judge Derrick Watson would find some reason that the law doesn’t apply here.

    • Replies: @CPK
    @Hi

    Sanctuary Cities (as I understand it) aren't true sanctuaries. Federal officers can still go into them and detain people who are in the country unlawfully. So long as they can do so, I don't think we can reasonably describe an entire city as a place of concealment, certainly not in the sense that a building or vehicle could be.

    Clearly it's a lot easier for Federal officers to do this when the local authorities cooperate and assist, but their refusal to cooperate and assist (that is, to be commandeered) can't be a Federal crime. Of course, if those local authorities go beyond merely refusing to help, and actively obstruct Federal officers in the course of their duties, that would potentially be very different.

    We should be careful about giving the Feds too much police power, even in a good cause. Remember that SCOTUS articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine to stop the Clinton administration trying to conscript local police in enforcing Federal gun control.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  116. @CPK
    @anonymous

    Problem is that this is clearly referring to physical concealment ("in any place, including any building or any means of transportation"). Failure to notify or share records with the Feds is not "shielding" in that sense. Or at least that's what the defense would argue; again, if Congress wanted to make Sanctuary Cities illegal, they could have done so unambiguously, and we wouldn't have to stretch the statutory language in this way.

    Don't get me wrong -- I'd love it if Congress would do that -- but unfortunately current law doesn't get us there.

    Replies: @HI, @Sammler

    It looks like you are right, except for (A)(iv). That is just about encouraging illegal persons to enter or remain, and does seem directly applicable.

  117. @ia
    @A Nonymous


    Unfortunately, it says nothing about those who help them once they have successfully crossed the border.
     
    Well, it covers aiding and abetting. "Encouraging" or "inducing" an alien to reside could be construed as illegal:

    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)
     
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    Replies: @Sammler

    Looking forward to a world where 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) will be as recognizable as 8675309…

    • Replies: @Sammler
    @Sammler

    Thirteen, twenty-four!
    A One A Four!

    Like "YMCA", innit? Or the MIT fight song.

  118. @Daniel H
    @Daniel H

    Furthermore, there was no draft deferment for passing the bar exam and becoming a practicing lawyer. In the early part of the war deferments were granted to undergraduates and graduates. Later in the war, (when the draft was winding down) grads students weren't granted deferments. There were deferments for some specialized occupations: teacher, MD. But there was never a deferment for lawyers. So her point makes no sense. And it makes no sense because she fabricated the entire story.

    Replies: @Pericles, @SteveRogers42

    But there was never a deferment for lawyers. So her point makes no sense. And it makes no sense because she fabricated the entire story.

    It was no doubt shouted at Hillary while she was dodging bullets in Sarajevo. Simple mistake to make.

  119. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DF8WGjKXUAAGJBq.jpg

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @JeremiahJohnbalaya, @eah, @SteveRogers42

    They are angry because Trump isn’t one of the faces?

    • Replies: @eah
    @Chrisnonymous

    I was thinking more along the lines of 'here are several of the deserving and grateful beneficiaries of sanctuary policies'.

  120. @Frau Katze
    @RobertTaylor

    I'll believe it when I see it. (I'm a pessimist.)

    There's an analogy with marijuana. It's still illegal at the federal level. But several states have legalized it, albeit with restrictions.

    The new pattern seems to be: if you dislike a federal law, at the state level you can ignore it.

    I could be wrong (I'm not an American) but that's what I've gathered from reading US news.

    But letting states set their own immigration policy is a complete disaster as the migrants are free to move on from the state that gave them sanctuary.

    And their children, born in the sanctuary city are brand new Americans of course.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    This is called nullification and is generally thought to have been ended during the Civil War.

  121. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DF8WGjKXUAAGJBq.jpg

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @JeremiahJohnbalaya, @eah, @SteveRogers42

    I may not roam the entirety of the interwebs, but that picture sure has been making the rounds of my favorite haunts

    • Replies: @eah
    @JeremiahJohnbalaya

    Good -- I wish every white person in America would, and hope every white person will, take a good look at that foto -- especially white parents, who should then imagine what life will be like for their children as minorities in America.

  122. @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    I honestly don't know. I was tested ad a small child (I'd been identified as what they used to call "gifted," and singled out for special programmes to cultivate my intellect, etc.; though now I expect such children are singled out to be abused for daring to have "privilege") so presumably some record exists someplace.

    An ex, a gal I went to law school with, who claimed to have an IQ around 160, and she was one of the only people I ever dated who I didn't find insufferably stupid, so perhaps mine is around that, too.

    I don't think about it, honestly. I learned early on, and painfully, that beyond a certain baseline intelligence has nothing to do with professional and interpersonal success; indeed, it hinders it a great deal. People quickly identify the freakishly intelligent, and generally treat us like shit, and likewise we don't deal well with normal persons. Besides, too, sociopathy, cronyism, etc. long ago replaced any semblance of meritocracy in the world, if indeed meritocracy were ever much more than an imagined thing from The Good Old Days that never were. And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive. I hate it. I'd trade it all to have been born stupid and thus capable of a happier life.

    Often, as I realised all these things during my youth, I would think of Derek Webb's words from "Can't Lose You":


    [M]aybe I have the gift that everyone speaks so highly of:
    Funny how nobody wants it....
     

    Replies: @anonguy, @Opinionator, @SteveRogers42

    And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive.

    For guys claiming to be smart, Whiskey, et al, sure don’t learn much.

    Women aren’t repelled by intelligence. They are repelled by what is often collateral to intelligence, i.e, nerdiness.

    Any guy who disputes this should consider, ok, if all other things were equal, except that I was dumber, would women like me more. That means you still do all the nerdy things you do, whether it is being childishly argumentative, obsessed with video games or stamp collecting or whatever.

    The answer is no, women, generally but with plenty of exceptions, don’t care for dumb nerds either.

    OTOH, plenty of sexy, smart guys. James Woods, for instance, falsifies your theory although I’m merely assuming without evidence the guy has no problem with women.

    Leave the nerdiness, take the intelligence. Simple as that.

    It always mystifies me that supposedly intelligent guys can’t figure out this basic life problem.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    Video games? Philetely?

    I don't know who you think you're talkin' to, but I'm not him, alright, Slim?

    I do like to argue in this forum at times, mostly just to get a rise from the jerks; it makes me chuckle. If you ever met me, you'd find I am as much Autochthon the Contrarian as Paul Stanley is the Star Child, a wantonly hedonistic party-animal.

    Indeed, for anyone who knows the least bit of my life history, activities and personality, the last word brought to mind is "nerd." The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians. ("My band is so esoteric and opposed to commercialism, we haven't even sold an album, man!")

    The truly highly intelligent peolple I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).

    Carry on, Ogre; Booger wants bullying.

    Replies: @anonymous, @res, @anonguy

  123. @Chrisnonymous
    @eah

    They are angry because Trump isn't one of the faces?

    Replies: @eah

    I was thinking more along the lines of ‘here are several of the deserving and grateful beneficiaries of sanctuary policies’.

  124. @Tim Howells
    This is probably a stupid question, but what checks exist when the courts' "interpretations" get so broad that they start arrogating congressional and executive authority? It really seems like it doesn't matter in the least any more what statutes exist, or how unequivocal they appear to the untrained eye.

    Replies: @Daniel H, @Joseph Doaks

    Impeach the judges! Unfortunately, Congress is full of cowards.

  125. CPK says:
    @Hi
    @CPK

    I haven't done any research on this, so I speak from first principles.

    Place has to mean explicitly more than a building or means of transportation. It may be that the statute distinguishes between generalized actions that apply to the whole United States (e.g. a lobbying or media program of the Soros Open Society) and those that are more localized than that. And I could describe someone in San Francisco, whether waiting to be released in County Jail (that's a building), in a state judge's chambers (building too), or walking openly in the city, as concealed from the Feds. I could also really look at (iv), which talked about encouraging/inducing. Sanctuary cities have been fairly explicit about their knowledge that their policies are about illegal aliens.

    The commandeering doctrine issue is interesting, and would require some thought. The argument that first comes to mind is that the states aren't being ordered to do something, but rather their citizens are being punished for affirmatively doing something. There is a difference between a law that prohibits murder and one that mandates that you be a good samaritan. The state officials are being punished for acting, not for failing to act.

    So 8 USC 1324 seems to fit fairly well. That doesn't mean, of course, that a judge will agree. I'm sure Judge Derrick Watson would find some reason that the law doesn't apply here.

    Replies: @CPK

    Sanctuary Cities (as I understand it) aren’t true sanctuaries. Federal officers can still go into them and detain people who are in the country unlawfully. So long as they can do so, I don’t think we can reasonably describe an entire city as a place of concealment, certainly not in the sense that a building or vehicle could be.

    Clearly it’s a lot easier for Federal officers to do this when the local authorities cooperate and assist, but their refusal to cooperate and assist (that is, to be commandeered) can’t be a Federal crime. Of course, if those local authorities go beyond merely refusing to help, and actively obstruct Federal officers in the course of their duties, that would potentially be very different.

    We should be careful about giving the Feds too much police power, even in a good cause. Remember that SCOTUS articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine to stop the Clinton administration trying to conscript local police in enforcing Federal gun control.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @CPK


    We should be careful about giving the Feds too much police power, even in a good cause. Remember that SCOTUS articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine to stop the Clinton administration trying to conscript local police in enforcing Federal gun control.
     
    That is an important point. But you are being too pessimistic about the statute's applicability. For example, here is New York City's mayor:

    Here in New York—the safest big city in America—we will always protect our neighbors, no matter where they came from or when they got here . . . There’s a lot of people in the city right now who fear for what’s happening. . . . I want to say clearly to all of them, New York City will have your back.
     
    Rahm hit similar notes the week after the election:

    To all those who are, after Tuesday's election, very nervous and filled with anxiety as we've spoken to, you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago. . . Chicago will always be a sanctuary city
     
    Even James Comey would struggle not to find any encouragement or inducement there. Now, in fairness, you were merely highlighting the difficulties presented by the attendant circumstances of (iii). But with no difference in the penalties between (iii) and (iv), does it really matter which subsection you use?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/can-new-yorks-mayor-protect-immigrants-from-donald-trumps-deportation-machine/

    Replies: @SteveRogers42, @CPK

  126. @Almost Missouri
    @Rod1963

    I'm glad you mentioned "The Marching Morons". Like many of you, I consumed a fair amount of 20th century science fiction as a youth. Needless to say, none of the whizz-bang utopianist stuff described in those stories ever came true.

    There were two stories, however, that were weirdly prescient, perhaps even dead-on prophetic, both dystopian: "The Marching Morons" and "A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy". The memory of the latter story, in particular, makes my hair stand on end to this day.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res, @SteveRogers42, @SteveRogers42

    The Marching Morons is talked about pretty commonly, but this is the first I remember hearing about “A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy”. I only see it appearing in one anthology: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?67980
    Do you know of any other publications?

    Thanks!

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @res

    No, that's the one I read it in as a middle-schooler.

    I notice there's a German translation, though. I guess the country of Schopenhauer just can't get enough dystopia, fact or fiction.

  127. @CPK
    Doesn't work (alas):
    (1) "Enter" and "remain within" are different acts.
    (2) "Aid/assist" requires an affirmative act.

    So this applies to those who actively help illegal aliens with the specific act of crossing the border. It doesn't apply to those who passively allow illegal aliens to remain within the United States AFTER they've already entered.

    There's some verbiage in Sec. 1234 that applies to anyone who "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection" or "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States". But even then, it would be a stretch to apply that to Sanctuary Cities. "Encourage or induce", for example, really requires a direct offer of a material benefit.

    What we need is a statute that unambiguously applies to what Sanctuary City officials do (while still passing tests like anti-commandeering). Courts will not deprive a defendant of his liberty for ten years just because the statutory language COULD, arguably, maybe-kinda-sorta apply to him.

    Otherwise, Sanctuary Cities can simply respond that if Congress wanted to criminalize what they're doing, it could have said so clearly -- and they'll be entirely correct.

    Replies: @Kate

    If this Sec.1234 difined as such, then Obama should be prosecuted also for encouraging and inducing the illigals with food stamps, forcing American Military bases to house them, forcing cities both large and small to take them in for resettlement and I am sure much more.

  128. @Peripatetic commenter
    @Jack Hanson

    And before that it was "Trump will never run for President" and then "Trump will never win the primary" ...

    More here: https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-trump-establishment.html

    Replies: @res

    This seems highly relevant (including the top rated comment which has a number of fun additions): https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5gdwgs/president_trumps_will_never_list_updated/

  129. res says:
    @Autochthon
    @Jim Given

    Read up on soverign immunity while you are holding your breath.

    Replies: @res

    Is there any legal (excluding voting) recourse when a city knowingly and intentionally breaks the law? The feds obviously have the power to change things (e.g. civil rights era). Do individual states? If not, can this reality be reconciled with the tenth amendment? Any other entities or approaches?

    Does there come a point where legal action could be taken against the officials themselves? It seems like advocating for sanctuary laws could extend to the individuals (something like enabling or abetting). How to distinguish that from being prosecuted for corruption?

    Obviously IANAL. Sorry about all the (probably) basic questions, but I would appreciate gaining some idea of both the legal aspects and reality of this.

    P.S. I did a quick search and (I know Wikipedia is not the best source which is why I am asking) I see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States

    However, a “consequence of [the] Court’s recognition of preratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law.” Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they “exercise a ‘slice of state power’”.

    What is up with that?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @res


    "Is there any legal (excluding voting) recourse when a city knowingly and intentionally breaks the law?"
     
    Mandamus: a court order to a public official to force performance of his legal duty.

    I don't know why all levels of government are not drowning under mandamus suits regarding illegal alien enforcement right now. Well, maybe they will be soon if those with standing start filing them. (To have standing, I think you have to show that you are being injured by the official's failure to perform his duty.)

    I understand that US federal law has drifted somewhat from the clear-eyed common law roots of mandamus, but it has generally supplanted it with similar remedies.

    IAalsoNAL, but maybe someone who is can explain in more detail.
    , @Autochthon
    @res

    Cities, counties, school districts, and other such municipalities are wholly creatures of their respective states; they exist entirely at the pleasure of those sovereigns (states have de jure sovereignty, but de facto, since 1865, they've been de facto beholden to the federal government – itself ostensibly a government of enumerated powere delegated to it by the states; even this arrangement is selectively reversing itself, as with the defiance of federal laws about drugs and immigration...).

    The legislature of California could dismantle the city of San Francisco tomorrow in one fell swoop, so long as any relevant provisions of California's constitution are not violated.

    Soverign immunity applied to officials of municipalities in their capacities as agents of the state (remember, the municipality is merely a delegated, devolved administrative unit of the state, much like a territorial governor of Guam or a ranger in a national park is of the U.S.A.).

    These matters are all abstractions: the realpolitick is that the folks in Sacramento are all in on the shenanigans of San Francisco; the constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.

    Read the old constitutional guarantees of rights and freedoms in the U.S.S.R. sometime: you never saw such an inviolable defense of individual liberty as those documents guaranteed....

    I'm leaving it at that in the interest of being concise.

    Replies: @res

  130. @Sammler
    @ia

    Looking forward to a world where 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) will be as recognizable as 8675309...

    Replies: @Sammler

    Thirteen, twenty-four!
    A One A Four!

    Like “YMCA”, innit? Or the MIT fight song.

  131. @Henrico Otto
    The statute focuses on aiding illegal aliens "to enter" the U.S. Not clear that it applies to assistance after they are already here.

    Replies: @Sideways

    Right, it doesn’t.

  132. @res
    @Almost Missouri

    The Marching Morons is talked about pretty commonly, but this is the first I remember hearing about “A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy”. I only see it appearing in one anthology: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?67980
    Do you know of any other publications?

    Thanks!

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    No, that’s the one I read it in as a middle-schooler.

    I notice there’s a German translation, though. I guess the country of Schopenhauer just can’t get enough dystopia, fact or fiction.

  133. @Autochthon
    @Almost Missouri

    He's referring to how they travel within the borders. Imagine the Churchians meeting a horde of invaders who all rendezous in Nogales, then driving them to Tuscon for flights and ultimate colonisation of Pocatello (more blonde toddlers to rape there, you see...). To get past the arched eyebrows of the DHS and CBP in Tuscon's airport, they all recite the magic incantation that they are traveling in order to self-deport.

    It's all horseshit on it's face, of course, as the writer is pointing out, but the jackasses in government demand that it be respected.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    So I guess “Churchians” don’t use the Ninth Commandment anymore. How very modern.

    Also not in use: rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

  134. @res
    @Autochthon

    Is there any legal (excluding voting) recourse when a city knowingly and intentionally breaks the law? The feds obviously have the power to change things (e.g. civil rights era). Do individual states? If not, can this reality be reconciled with the tenth amendment? Any other entities or approaches?

    Does there come a point where legal action could be taken against the officials themselves? It seems like advocating for sanctuary laws could extend to the individuals (something like enabling or abetting). How to distinguish that from being prosecuted for corruption?

    Obviously IANAL. Sorry about all the (probably) basic questions, but I would appreciate gaining some idea of both the legal aspects and reality of this.

    P.S. I did a quick search and (I know Wikipedia is not the best source which is why I am asking) I see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States


    However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of preratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'".
     
    What is up with that?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Autochthon

    “Is there any legal (excluding voting) recourse when a city knowingly and intentionally breaks the law?”

    Mandamus: a court order to a public official to force performance of his legal duty.

    I don’t know why all levels of government are not drowning under mandamus suits regarding illegal alien enforcement right now. Well, maybe they will be soon if those with standing start filing them. (To have standing, I think you have to show that you are being injured by the official’s failure to perform his duty.)

    I understand that US federal law has drifted somewhat from the clear-eyed common law roots of mandamus, but it has generally supplanted it with similar remedies.

    IAalsoNAL, but maybe someone who is can explain in more detail.

  135. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    @eah

    I may not roam the entirety of the interwebs, but that picture sure has been making the rounds of my favorite haunts

    Replies: @eah

    Good — I wish every white person in America would, and hope every white person will, take a good look at that foto — especially white parents, who should then imagine what life will be like for their children as minorities in America.

  136. @anonguy
    @Autochthon


    And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive.
     
    For guys claiming to be smart, Whiskey, et al, sure don't learn much.

    Women aren't repelled by intelligence. They are repelled by what is often collateral to intelligence, i.e, nerdiness.

    Any guy who disputes this should consider, ok, if all other things were equal, except that I was dumber, would women like me more. That means you still do all the nerdy things you do, whether it is being childishly argumentative, obsessed with video games or stamp collecting or whatever.

    The answer is no, women, generally but with plenty of exceptions, don't care for dumb nerds either.

    OTOH, plenty of sexy, smart guys. James Woods, for instance, falsifies your theory although I'm merely assuming without evidence the guy has no problem with women.

    Leave the nerdiness, take the intelligence. Simple as that.

    It always mystifies me that supposedly intelligent guys can't figure out this basic life problem.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    Video games? Philetely?

    I don’t know who you think you’re talkin’ to, but I’m not him, alright, Slim?

    I do like to argue in this forum at times, mostly just to get a rise from the jerks; it makes me chuckle. If you ever met me, you’d find I am as much Autochthon the Contrarian as Paul Stanley is the Star Child, a wantonly hedonistic party-animal.

    Indeed, for anyone who knows the least bit of my life history, activities and personality, the last word brought to mind is “nerd.” The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians. (“My band is so esoteric and opposed to commercialism, we haven’t even sold an album, man!”)

    The truly highly intelligent peolple I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).

    Carry on, Ogre; Booger wants bullying.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Autochthon

    You seem a little defensive.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    , @res
    @Autochthon

    I actually think your comment and anonguy's comment are fairly consistent (i.e. I see much truth in both). Just from vastly different perspectives.


    the last word brought to mind is “nerd.” The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians.
     
    That jibes with the sense I have from your comments. The thing is, I think you:
    1. Know enough to turn off (what I would call) your inner nerd (e.g. hyper analytical or minutiae oriented side, whatever the application) when appropriate.
    2. Have enough interests which are palatable to more average people to get by in casual conversation (IMHO not always true of genius academics, etc.). Some of those interests being things which tend to serve as an inoculation against nerdiness accusations.

    Additionally, whether or not your Dr. Who/specialist case may not be a genius, there are people like that who are geniuses IMHO. I roomed with someone like that once. FWIW my definition of genius here is someone sufficiently beyond me intellectually to inspire a bit of awe. One can play No True Scotsman with "genius" of course. If we want to engage on this should probably talk a bit about what kind of skills and rarity are associated with "genius."

    The issue I see (which I think is what underlies anonguy's position in this conversation) is that I think most people are unable to distinguish your definition of nerd (say, hipster doofuses obsessed with obscurity) from your definition of very smart non-nerd (breadth of interests? perhaps requiring at least one to be "normal"?) from a more popular concept of those who are either:
    1. Smart and excessively focused on academics.
    2. Obsessed with minutiae like Dr. Who or excessively analytical.
    and conflate all three of those. I think the lack of discrimination ability comes from not being able to judge smart well (whereas you probably can, hard to understand those more than about 2SD away in IQ IMHO) and their lack of enough breadth of interest to find common ground. "Normal" people seem more able to make the appropriate discrimination in music because they can better judge meeting the success criteria (the actual music, compared to IQ or high end intellectual achievement). How many people watching Magnus Carlsen play chess would realize how good he was until they noticed him winning almost every game? Of course there are different levels of musical discernment. I am comparing the typical abilities of normal people here and I think most people discern musical quality better than these other areas.

    If anyone actually wants to try to resolve this debate into a shared perspective I suspect it involves scrutinizing this bit: "vast majority of very intelligent people". I think that varies greatly by subgroup one is exposed to. I have been in groups where I would agree with your statement (shared non-intellectual interest) and groups where I think most are what I would call "nerds", but the kind I like, with a fascinating depth and breadth of interests as long as common ground is available. I am truly not sure about overall, and I think I have a better sense of that than most people. Though you may be better still.

    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: "learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don't enjoy it."

    That said, I would say one area where "intelligence" and "women" don't mix is trying to apply analytical intelligence to feelings based arguments (obviously both women and men differ in preference for analytical/emotional based perception and argument, talking averages here). Of course one can argue a truly intelligent person can understand and deal with this. I suppose it is hard though when one has a really awesome hammer and a relatively moth eaten velvet glove ; ) I am not sure if this is part of what Whiskey meant.

    P.S. If I wanted to make a negative definition of "nerd" it would probably have to do with excessive depth of interest in minutiae accompanied by a lack of breadth of interest (especially regarding topics more important to real life). This might be either in reality or in appearance. Sorry, if all someone wants to talk about is Doctor Who they are a nerd regardless of genius and/or actual breadth of interest. FWIW I suspect if you and I engaged in an area of mutual interest (such as here? ; ) we would look like nerds to most third parties (kind of explaining the defensiveness response you got). Yeah, I'm a nerd. I'll leave it to others to judge my positive qualities in that vein and my ability at shutting it off when needed.

    Replies: @anonguy

    , @anonguy
    @Autochthon


    Video games? Philetely?

    I don’t know who you think you’re talkin’ to, but I’m not him, alright, Slim?
     
    Sorry about touching that nerve.

    The truly highly intelligent people I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).
     
    Freudian slip much?

    Anyhow, seems like it should be easy, then. By your thesis, you should just have to pretend to be stupid and the ladies will come flocking. And I'm reckoning you won't have to pretend as hard as you think you may have to.

    Replies: @Autochthon

  137. @res
    @Autochthon

    Is there any legal (excluding voting) recourse when a city knowingly and intentionally breaks the law? The feds obviously have the power to change things (e.g. civil rights era). Do individual states? If not, can this reality be reconciled with the tenth amendment? Any other entities or approaches?

    Does there come a point where legal action could be taken against the officials themselves? It seems like advocating for sanctuary laws could extend to the individuals (something like enabling or abetting). How to distinguish that from being prosecuted for corruption?

    Obviously IANAL. Sorry about all the (probably) basic questions, but I would appreciate gaining some idea of both the legal aspects and reality of this.

    P.S. I did a quick search and (I know Wikipedia is not the best source which is why I am asking) I see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States


    However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of preratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'".
     
    What is up with that?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Autochthon

    Cities, counties, school districts, and other such municipalities are wholly creatures of their respective states; they exist entirely at the pleasure of those sovereigns (states have de jure sovereignty, but de facto, since 1865, they’ve been de facto beholden to the federal government – itself ostensibly a government of enumerated powere delegated to it by the states; even this arrangement is selectively reversing itself, as with the defiance of federal laws about drugs and immigration…).

    The legislature of California could dismantle the city of San Francisco tomorrow in one fell swoop, so long as any relevant provisions of California’s constitution are not violated.

    Soverign immunity applied to officials of municipalities in their capacities as agents of the state (remember, the municipality is merely a delegated, devolved administrative unit of the state, much like a territorial governor of Guam or a ranger in a national park is of the U.S.A.).

    These matters are all abstractions: the realpolitick is that the folks in Sacramento are all in on the shenanigans of San Francisco; the constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.

    Read the old constitutional guarantees of rights and freedoms in the U.S.S.R. sometime: you never saw such an inviolable defense of individual liberty as those documents guaranteed….

    I’m leaving it at that in the interest of being concise.

    • Replies: @res
    @Autochthon


    These matters are all abstractions: the realpolitick is that the folks in Sacramento are all in on the shenanigans of San Francisco; the constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.
     
    Thanks for confirming my impressions ; ) Any thoughts on how this sort of thing will play out for blue cities in red states (which seem to be becoming a thing)? Under Obama I thought the game was rigged against the states, but I'm not sure about the present. I wonder how much effect the resolution of this will have on the positive feedback loop caused by the local environment selecting for certain types of (out of state) migrants to the cities?

    A recent NYT article about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/upshot/blue-cities-want-to-make-their-own-rules-red-states-wont-let-them.html
    Of course that article is written from the perspective that we are in a crisis because the blue agenda can't run roughshod over everything else if even one level wants it (imagine the response to a red city in a blue state, does such a thing exist?).

    I’m leaving it at that in the interest of being concise.
     
    Got it. I think you hit about the right level for me. One additional question though. What do you think about mandamus as mentioned above? My quick look made me suspect it would be an option with an amenable court system, but there is too much fudgeable detail subject to unfavorable interpretation to work at present in most jurisdictions that would do that sort of thing in the first place.

    Replies: @Autochthon

  138. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DF8WGjKXUAAGJBq.jpg

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @JeremiahJohnbalaya, @eah, @SteveRogers42

  139. @Opinionator
    @Autochthon

    What would you say your IQ is?

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Opinionator

    Thanks. Interesting.

  140. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CPK
    @Hi

    Sanctuary Cities (as I understand it) aren't true sanctuaries. Federal officers can still go into them and detain people who are in the country unlawfully. So long as they can do so, I don't think we can reasonably describe an entire city as a place of concealment, certainly not in the sense that a building or vehicle could be.

    Clearly it's a lot easier for Federal officers to do this when the local authorities cooperate and assist, but their refusal to cooperate and assist (that is, to be commandeered) can't be a Federal crime. Of course, if those local authorities go beyond merely refusing to help, and actively obstruct Federal officers in the course of their duties, that would potentially be very different.

    We should be careful about giving the Feds too much police power, even in a good cause. Remember that SCOTUS articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine to stop the Clinton administration trying to conscript local police in enforcing Federal gun control.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    We should be careful about giving the Feds too much police power, even in a good cause. Remember that SCOTUS articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine to stop the Clinton administration trying to conscript local police in enforcing Federal gun control.

    That is an important point. But you are being too pessimistic about the statute’s applicability. For example, here is New York City’s mayor:

    Here in New York—the safest big city in America—we will always protect our neighbors, no matter where they came from or when they got here . . . There’s a lot of people in the city right now who fear for what’s happening. . . . I want to say clearly to all of them, New York City will have your back.

    Rahm hit similar notes the week after the election:

    To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety as we’ve spoken to, you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago. . . Chicago will always be a sanctuary city

    Even James Comey would struggle not to find any encouragement or inducement there. Now, in fairness, you were merely highlighting the difficulties presented by the attendant circumstances of (iii). But with no difference in the penalties between (iii) and (iv), does it really matter which subsection you use?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/can-new-yorks-mayor-protect-immigrants-from-donald-trumps-deportation-machine/

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    @Anonymous

    "Safe in Chicago".

    http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/crime-on-cta-l-trains-buses-up-but-90-percent-of-serious-incidents-go-unsolved-the-watchdogs/

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-violence-20170729-story.html

    , @CPK
    @Anonymous

    So far as I can tell, "inducing or encouraging" has always been understood to mean a direct offer of some objective material benefit, such as an employer offering wages. When it's just vague verbal reassurance, there's not only a First Amendment issue, but the problem of subjective interpretation. For example, the two quotes you cite aren't explicitly addressed to illegal aliens. Can we reasonably interpret them that way? Sure -- but we can't throw someone in prison for ten years because we could construe his statements a certain way.

    Compare the way lefties talk about "treason" and Russia. Facts aside, what they don't get is that terms like "aid and comfort" and "enemy" actually mean something specific. Maybe one could argue that saying positive things about Russia was "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" as a figure of speech, but not as an actual legal charge. People who claim otherwise are trying to shoehorn policy disagreements into criminal law. That's pretty much of what we're doing here with 8 USC 1324.

    Granted, this is just amateur kibitzing, but that cuts both ways: a real no-kidding qualified defense lawyer could make the case far better than I could. And again, this is assuming "Sanctuary Cities" merely decline to cooperate with the Feds. If they actively try to frustrate or violate Federal law, that might be different (although there might be sovereign immunity questions as well).

  141. @Jack Hanson
    I think this is the reason for the kayfabe with AG Sessions. Get everyone on record defending him as a Southron man of honor and when you have liberal mayors staring down an indictment it takes a lot of wind outta the shitstorm.

    Replies: @Moshe, @Boethiuss

    I hope you’re right, I’ve been looking forward to something like this for a while.

    The thing is, at least nominally the we have control of the DoJ so there should be a lot of ways to punish sanctuary cities. From what I’ve seen in the media, everybody talks about defunding them. I’m not opposed to that necessarily but that seems to me to be a too narrow frame of mind.

    First of all, the feds might be paying the cities for things that the feds want done in the first place, not the cities. In that case, the threat of defunding is pretty much empty. More important, probably, it is politically difficult because of the potential for negative impact toward lots of people who have nothing to do with immigration and possibly oppose it.

    That’s why we should have more than one iron in this fire, of which this is definitely one. And while I’m here, I want to plug my personal favorite: disbarment. Any lawyer who has his name on a brief or ordinance draft or any other legal product toward establishing sanctuary cities is imo obstructing justice (ie, legit not like the Trump accusations) at the federal level.

    As part of or in lieu of prosecuting them, the DoJ should be working with the bar associations to take away their law licenses, or force the offending lawyers to surrender them.

  142. @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    Video games? Philetely?

    I don't know who you think you're talkin' to, but I'm not him, alright, Slim?

    I do like to argue in this forum at times, mostly just to get a rise from the jerks; it makes me chuckle. If you ever met me, you'd find I am as much Autochthon the Contrarian as Paul Stanley is the Star Child, a wantonly hedonistic party-animal.

    Indeed, for anyone who knows the least bit of my life history, activities and personality, the last word brought to mind is "nerd." The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians. ("My band is so esoteric and opposed to commercialism, we haven't even sold an album, man!")

    The truly highly intelligent peolple I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).

    Carry on, Ogre; Booger wants bullying.

    Replies: @anonymous, @res, @anonguy

    You seem a little defensive.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @anonymous

    I couldn't care less what someone known as "anonguy" thinks of me; I do however enjoy exchanging ideas with this community of relatively interesting people, and so I elaborated my point about the difference between the intelligent and the simply socially retarded, disputing erroneous conflations between the two.

    I don't know who James Woods is; but I do know (and mountains of empirical data indicate) that navigating a world filled with people who are (often wilfully) not very bright is taxing for those who are.

  143. @Autochthon
    @res

    Cities, counties, school districts, and other such municipalities are wholly creatures of their respective states; they exist entirely at the pleasure of those sovereigns (states have de jure sovereignty, but de facto, since 1865, they've been de facto beholden to the federal government – itself ostensibly a government of enumerated powere delegated to it by the states; even this arrangement is selectively reversing itself, as with the defiance of federal laws about drugs and immigration...).

    The legislature of California could dismantle the city of San Francisco tomorrow in one fell swoop, so long as any relevant provisions of California's constitution are not violated.

    Soverign immunity applied to officials of municipalities in their capacities as agents of the state (remember, the municipality is merely a delegated, devolved administrative unit of the state, much like a territorial governor of Guam or a ranger in a national park is of the U.S.A.).

    These matters are all abstractions: the realpolitick is that the folks in Sacramento are all in on the shenanigans of San Francisco; the constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.

    Read the old constitutional guarantees of rights and freedoms in the U.S.S.R. sometime: you never saw such an inviolable defense of individual liberty as those documents guaranteed....

    I'm leaving it at that in the interest of being concise.

    Replies: @res

    These matters are all abstractions: the realpolitick is that the folks in Sacramento are all in on the shenanigans of San Francisco; the constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.

    Thanks for confirming my impressions ; ) Any thoughts on how this sort of thing will play out for blue cities in red states (which seem to be becoming a thing)? Under Obama I thought the game was rigged against the states, but I’m not sure about the present. I wonder how much effect the resolution of this will have on the positive feedback loop caused by the local environment selecting for certain types of (out of state) migrants to the cities?

    A recent NYT article about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/upshot/blue-cities-want-to-make-their-own-rules-red-states-wont-let-them.html
    Of course that article is written from the perspective that we are in a crisis because the blue agenda can’t run roughshod over everything else if even one level wants it (imagine the response to a red city in a blue state, does such a thing exist?).

    I’m leaving it at that in the interest of being concise.

    Got it. I think you hit about the right level for me. One additional question though. What do you think about mandamus as mentioned above? My quick look made me suspect it would be an option with an amenable court system, but there is too much fudgeable detail subject to unfavorable interpretation to work at present in most jurisdictions that would do that sort of thing in the first place.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @res


    What do you think about mandamus as mentioned above?
     

    [T]he constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.
     

    Replies: @anonymous, @anonymous

  144. @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    Video games? Philetely?

    I don't know who you think you're talkin' to, but I'm not him, alright, Slim?

    I do like to argue in this forum at times, mostly just to get a rise from the jerks; it makes me chuckle. If you ever met me, you'd find I am as much Autochthon the Contrarian as Paul Stanley is the Star Child, a wantonly hedonistic party-animal.

    Indeed, for anyone who knows the least bit of my life history, activities and personality, the last word brought to mind is "nerd." The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians. ("My band is so esoteric and opposed to commercialism, we haven't even sold an album, man!")

    The truly highly intelligent peolple I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).

    Carry on, Ogre; Booger wants bullying.

    Replies: @anonymous, @res, @anonguy

    I actually think your comment and anonguy’s comment are fairly consistent (i.e. I see much truth in both). Just from vastly different perspectives.

    the last word brought to mind is “nerd.” The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians.

    That jibes with the sense I have from your comments. The thing is, I think you:
    1. Know enough to turn off (what I would call) your inner nerd (e.g. hyper analytical or minutiae oriented side, whatever the application) when appropriate.
    2. Have enough interests which are palatable to more average people to get by in casual conversation (IMHO not always true of genius academics, etc.). Some of those interests being things which tend to serve as an inoculation against nerdiness accusations.

    Additionally, whether or not your Dr. Who/specialist case may not be a genius, there are people like that who are geniuses IMHO. I roomed with someone like that once. FWIW my definition of genius here is someone sufficiently beyond me intellectually to inspire a bit of awe. One can play No True Scotsman with “genius” of course. If we want to engage on this should probably talk a bit about what kind of skills and rarity are associated with “genius.”

    The issue I see (which I think is what underlies anonguy’s position in this conversation) is that I think most people are unable to distinguish your definition of nerd (say, hipster doofuses obsessed with obscurity) from your definition of very smart non-nerd (breadth of interests? perhaps requiring at least one to be “normal”?) from a more popular concept of those who are either:
    1. Smart and excessively focused on academics.
    2. Obsessed with minutiae like Dr. Who or excessively analytical.
    and conflate all three of those. I think the lack of discrimination ability comes from not being able to judge smart well (whereas you probably can, hard to understand those more than about 2SD away in IQ IMHO) and their lack of enough breadth of interest to find common ground. “Normal” people seem more able to make the appropriate discrimination in music because they can better judge meeting the success criteria (the actual music, compared to IQ or high end intellectual achievement). How many people watching Magnus Carlsen play chess would realize how good he was until they noticed him winning almost every game? Of course there are different levels of musical discernment. I am comparing the typical abilities of normal people here and I think most people discern musical quality better than these other areas.

    If anyone actually wants to try to resolve this debate into a shared perspective I suspect it involves scrutinizing this bit: “vast majority of very intelligent people”. I think that varies greatly by subgroup one is exposed to. I have been in groups where I would agree with your statement (shared non-intellectual interest) and groups where I think most are what I would call “nerds”, but the kind I like, with a fascinating depth and breadth of interests as long as common ground is available. I am truly not sure about overall, and I think I have a better sense of that than most people. Though you may be better still.

    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: “learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don’t enjoy it.”

    That said, I would say one area where “intelligence” and “women” don’t mix is trying to apply analytical intelligence to feelings based arguments (obviously both women and men differ in preference for analytical/emotional based perception and argument, talking averages here). Of course one can argue a truly intelligent person can understand and deal with this. I suppose it is hard though when one has a really awesome hammer and a relatively moth eaten velvet glove ; ) I am not sure if this is part of what Whiskey meant.

    P.S. If I wanted to make a negative definition of “nerd” it would probably have to do with excessive depth of interest in minutiae accompanied by a lack of breadth of interest (especially regarding topics more important to real life). This might be either in reality or in appearance. Sorry, if all someone wants to talk about is Doctor Who they are a nerd regardless of genius and/or actual breadth of interest. FWIW I suspect if you and I engaged in an area of mutual interest (such as here? ; ) we would look like nerds to most third parties (kind of explaining the defensiveness response you got). Yeah, I’m a nerd. I’ll leave it to others to judge my positive qualities in that vein and my ability at shutting it off when needed.

    • Replies: @anonguy
    @res


    That said, I would say one area where “intelligence” and “women” don’t mix is trying to apply analytical intelligence to feelings based arguments (obviously both women and men differ in preference for analytical/emotional based perception and argument, talking averages here).
     
    I'm impressed with your whole discussion, but particularly this observation.

    IMO, this is more or less the highest level but pretty tough to get to. It is worth it when you do. You'll form unique lifetime bond even if you never see each other again for years/decades if you can help a woman understand some things about herself and the world. Generally, as a consequence, if you establish a dialog at this level, you'll also learn plenty from her perspective.

    It is the way the system is designed to work and if you bring an outsized asset to the table, whether it is intelligence, money, ambition, etc, it can have outsized results, good or bad. Focus on your strengths, makes sure they are positives in a relationship, and everyone is pretty good to go.

    BTW, I'm not blowing smoke. Here is one example, true story.

    Old girlfriend, no kidding hard 10, real torrid thing in our 20s, but then no contact for 25 years. I heard she got late onset schizophrenia, life went to the rocks after marrying, having two kids, normal existence. This can happen to women in early 40s that have had previously well ordered lives with no history of mental illness.

    Went into a 12 year slide, ended up homeless, divorced/penniless, hard-core bag lady, sleeping behind the dumpster for 7 years, without respite, by the time I found out. Had never listened to word one from husband, children, family, friends, in what previously had been a solid middle class life.

    Anosognosia is a big issue with schizophrenics and an interesting topic in itself.

    So, I heard about her and thought, aww, she'll listen to me. Everyone, and I mean everyone, said I was as nuts as she was, people like her were hopeless according to the literature, etc, but I went off anyhow, spent some time with her, and she did listen as I knew she would.

    And I knew she would because of what I explained above.

    Sparing you the details, she's tons better and enduringly so over several years now, has a place, a job, a car, much better frame of mind, etc.

    Kind of rough on ex-husband's ego, as one might imagine. I'd publish an essay on it were it not so invasive of others privacy.

    Replies: @res, @Autochthon

  145. @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    Video games? Philetely?

    I don't know who you think you're talkin' to, but I'm not him, alright, Slim?

    I do like to argue in this forum at times, mostly just to get a rise from the jerks; it makes me chuckle. If you ever met me, you'd find I am as much Autochthon the Contrarian as Paul Stanley is the Star Child, a wantonly hedonistic party-animal.

    Indeed, for anyone who knows the least bit of my life history, activities and personality, the last word brought to mind is "nerd." The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians. ("My band is so esoteric and opposed to commercialism, we haven't even sold an album, man!")

    The truly highly intelligent peolple I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).

    Carry on, Ogre; Booger wants bullying.

    Replies: @anonymous, @res, @anonguy

    Video games? Philetely?

    I don’t know who you think you’re talkin’ to, but I’m not him, alright, Slim?

    Sorry about touching that nerve.

    The truly highly intelligent people I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).

    Freudian slip much?

    Anyhow, seems like it should be easy, then. By your thesis, you should just have to pretend to be stupid and the ladies will come flocking. And I’m reckoning you won’t have to pretend as hard as you think you may have to.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    No nerves touched here about philetely or video games; I've no interest in either. The last girl I dated before marrying I picked up while we were running a marathon; I made her laugh and smile an awful lot, but I did not discuss patent-portfolios or relational database management systems with her. I actually agree with res' endorsement of your advice for actual nerds who lack social skills:


    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: "learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don’t enjoy it."
     
    It is indeed good advice for those unable to avoid dull or esoteric topics when they are not socially appropriate. I suspect you think my lament that modern women reject intelligence means I have lacked success with the fair sex or that I have any interest in what I call modern women. It's true I had an annoying period when I had decided I was ready to marry but, finding myself in Mexifornia, faced a dearth of candidates. Being a charming, clever bastard, though, I surmounted that obstacle handily.

    As to wives; mine is a private enough person I would gladly post a photograph of her here were it easy (I am not uploading anything to imgur or such, and I of course won't link to publicly available photos of her which would reveal her (and my) identity. Your tone and the shrug it inspires in me puts me in mind of Winnebagos down by the lake and this hilarious exchange between a very successful and talented man I admire and respect for his wisdom and his attitude to such attacks on his own achievements. I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, "Is that your wife? She is stunning!"

    It's been a hoot comparing penises with you.

    Replies: @anonguy

  146. @res
    @Autochthon

    I actually think your comment and anonguy's comment are fairly consistent (i.e. I see much truth in both). Just from vastly different perspectives.


    the last word brought to mind is “nerd.” The same holds for the vast majority of very intelligent people. Nerds are by and large people of mediocre intelligence: the sort who think knowing minutiae about Dr. Who and knowing one particular field in preposterous detail (often academics) is the mark of a genius. They are to intellectual achievement what hipster doofuses obsessef with obscurity are to talented musicians.
     
    That jibes with the sense I have from your comments. The thing is, I think you:
    1. Know enough to turn off (what I would call) your inner nerd (e.g. hyper analytical or minutiae oriented side, whatever the application) when appropriate.
    2. Have enough interests which are palatable to more average people to get by in casual conversation (IMHO not always true of genius academics, etc.). Some of those interests being things which tend to serve as an inoculation against nerdiness accusations.

    Additionally, whether or not your Dr. Who/specialist case may not be a genius, there are people like that who are geniuses IMHO. I roomed with someone like that once. FWIW my definition of genius here is someone sufficiently beyond me intellectually to inspire a bit of awe. One can play No True Scotsman with "genius" of course. If we want to engage on this should probably talk a bit about what kind of skills and rarity are associated with "genius."

    The issue I see (which I think is what underlies anonguy's position in this conversation) is that I think most people are unable to distinguish your definition of nerd (say, hipster doofuses obsessed with obscurity) from your definition of very smart non-nerd (breadth of interests? perhaps requiring at least one to be "normal"?) from a more popular concept of those who are either:
    1. Smart and excessively focused on academics.
    2. Obsessed with minutiae like Dr. Who or excessively analytical.
    and conflate all three of those. I think the lack of discrimination ability comes from not being able to judge smart well (whereas you probably can, hard to understand those more than about 2SD away in IQ IMHO) and their lack of enough breadth of interest to find common ground. "Normal" people seem more able to make the appropriate discrimination in music because they can better judge meeting the success criteria (the actual music, compared to IQ or high end intellectual achievement). How many people watching Magnus Carlsen play chess would realize how good he was until they noticed him winning almost every game? Of course there are different levels of musical discernment. I am comparing the typical abilities of normal people here and I think most people discern musical quality better than these other areas.

    If anyone actually wants to try to resolve this debate into a shared perspective I suspect it involves scrutinizing this bit: "vast majority of very intelligent people". I think that varies greatly by subgroup one is exposed to. I have been in groups where I would agree with your statement (shared non-intellectual interest) and groups where I think most are what I would call "nerds", but the kind I like, with a fascinating depth and breadth of interests as long as common ground is available. I am truly not sure about overall, and I think I have a better sense of that than most people. Though you may be better still.

    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: "learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don't enjoy it."

    That said, I would say one area where "intelligence" and "women" don't mix is trying to apply analytical intelligence to feelings based arguments (obviously both women and men differ in preference for analytical/emotional based perception and argument, talking averages here). Of course one can argue a truly intelligent person can understand and deal with this. I suppose it is hard though when one has a really awesome hammer and a relatively moth eaten velvet glove ; ) I am not sure if this is part of what Whiskey meant.

    P.S. If I wanted to make a negative definition of "nerd" it would probably have to do with excessive depth of interest in minutiae accompanied by a lack of breadth of interest (especially regarding topics more important to real life). This might be either in reality or in appearance. Sorry, if all someone wants to talk about is Doctor Who they are a nerd regardless of genius and/or actual breadth of interest. FWIW I suspect if you and I engaged in an area of mutual interest (such as here? ; ) we would look like nerds to most third parties (kind of explaining the defensiveness response you got). Yeah, I'm a nerd. I'll leave it to others to judge my positive qualities in that vein and my ability at shutting it off when needed.

    Replies: @anonguy

    That said, I would say one area where “intelligence” and “women” don’t mix is trying to apply analytical intelligence to feelings based arguments (obviously both women and men differ in preference for analytical/emotional based perception and argument, talking averages here).

    I’m impressed with your whole discussion, but particularly this observation.

    IMO, this is more or less the highest level but pretty tough to get to. It is worth it when you do. You’ll form unique lifetime bond even if you never see each other again for years/decades if you can help a woman understand some things about herself and the world. Generally, as a consequence, if you establish a dialog at this level, you’ll also learn plenty from her perspective.

    It is the way the system is designed to work and if you bring an outsized asset to the table, whether it is intelligence, money, ambition, etc, it can have outsized results, good or bad. Focus on your strengths, makes sure they are positives in a relationship, and everyone is pretty good to go.

    BTW, I’m not blowing smoke. Here is one example, true story.

    Old girlfriend, no kidding hard 10, real torrid thing in our 20s, but then no contact for 25 years. I heard she got late onset schizophrenia, life went to the rocks after marrying, having two kids, normal existence. This can happen to women in early 40s that have had previously well ordered lives with no history of mental illness.

    Went into a 12 year slide, ended up homeless, divorced/penniless, hard-core bag lady, sleeping behind the dumpster for 7 years, without respite, by the time I found out. Had never listened to word one from husband, children, family, friends, in what previously had been a solid middle class life.

    Anosognosia is a big issue with schizophrenics and an interesting topic in itself.

    So, I heard about her and thought, aww, she’ll listen to me. Everyone, and I mean everyone, said I was as nuts as she was, people like her were hopeless according to the literature, etc, but I went off anyhow, spent some time with her, and she did listen as I knew she would.

    And I knew she would because of what I explained above.

    Sparing you the details, she’s tons better and enduringly so over several years now, has a place, a job, a car, much better frame of mind, etc.

    Kind of rough on ex-husband’s ego, as one might imagine. I’d publish an essay on it were it not so invasive of others privacy.

    • Replies: @res
    @anonguy

    Fascinating story. Glad you were able to help her! Thanks for sharing.

    If you can share anything about the following (without violating your reasons for originally not posting more) I would appreciate it:

    - How did you initially establish contact/trust? (the later time, or was there enough residual to make this unnecessary?)
    - Can you share any nuts and bolts things you did to get the healing process going? There is a huge virtuous (and earlier, vicious) cycle effect here, but kicking the virtuous side off can be hard IMO.
    - Did you encounter any issues with her peer groups (either as good or bad influences)?

    Perhaps I am being dense, but I am having trouble understanding: "And I knew she would because of what I explained above." I assume it relates to your leading IMO paragraph, but I am having trouble understanding how the dialog is established. Did it involve meeting emotional perceptions with emotional "argument"? Or was it mainly about having the preexisting deep connection? Or...?

    Regarding the ex-husband's ego, did it come across more as ex-husband bad or husband/wife bad match? I assume you are thoughtful enough to make a good effort to get an impartial account, but even so vicious cycles can be hard to untangle.

    Regarding Anosognosia, one of the hardest things is when judgment and/or insight are the first casualties of a problem. I saw this in myself one time when I think I got heat stroke (stopped sweating during extended max effort exercise when it was >90 degrees in the shade). My judgment was clearly impaired, but I did manage to finally realize I should stop and fortunately I was near cool water (gentle application, not immersion). Once judgment and insight are gone it can easily be off to the races on a vicious cycle. If you know anything about SCUBA, this is a big problem with nitrogen narcosis.

    P.S. I am big fan of nutritional approaches as partial solutions for things like that. Particularly for women where childbearing and nursing can be very hard on nutritional stores (especially given the body tends to prioritize the baby over the mother it seems). There is a fairly substantial (but also controversial) literature on nutrition and schizophrenia. Some people I know have had some success with depression (different, but perhaps not that different) after working on gut health.

    Replies: @anonguy

    , @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    I heartily endorse this idea. The one thing women who've been gaga over me always said, over and over to express why they are, is some variation of "You've taught me so much" often "about myself."

  147. @anonguy
    @Autochthon


    Video games? Philetely?

    I don’t know who you think you’re talkin’ to, but I’m not him, alright, Slim?
     
    Sorry about touching that nerve.

    The truly highly intelligent people I know are like John Derbyshire: we know a lot about a wife range of things (knowledge) because we are capable of mastering much that we care to, and inquisitive about many things we encounter (intelligence).
     
    Freudian slip much?

    Anyhow, seems like it should be easy, then. By your thesis, you should just have to pretend to be stupid and the ladies will come flocking. And I'm reckoning you won't have to pretend as hard as you think you may have to.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    No nerves touched here about philetely or video games; I’ve no interest in either. The last girl I dated before marrying I picked up while we were running a marathon; I made her laugh and smile an awful lot, but I did not discuss patent-portfolios or relational database management systems with her. I actually agree with res’ endorsement of your advice for actual nerds who lack social skills:

    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: “learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don’t enjoy it.”

    It is indeed good advice for those unable to avoid dull or esoteric topics when they are not socially appropriate. I suspect you think my lament that modern women reject intelligence means I have lacked success with the fair sex or that I have any interest in what I call modern women. It’s true I had an annoying period when I had decided I was ready to marry but, finding myself in Mexifornia, faced a dearth of candidates. Being a charming, clever bastard, though, I surmounted that obstacle handily.

    As to wives; mine is a private enough person I would gladly post a photograph of her here were it easy (I am not uploading anything to imgur or such, and I of course won’t link to publicly available photos of her which would reveal her (and my) identity. Your tone and the shrug it inspires in me puts me in mind of Winnebagos down by the lake and this hilarious exchange between a very successful and talented man I admire and respect for his wisdom and his attitude to such attacks on his own achievements. I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, “Is that your wife? She is stunning!”

    It’s been a hoot comparing penises with you.

    • Replies: @anonguy
    @Autochthon


    I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, “Is that your wife? She is stunning!”
     
    How does your girlfriend look?

    Replies: @Autochthon

  148. @anonymous
    @Autochthon

    You seem a little defensive.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    I couldn’t care less what someone known as “anonguy” thinks of me; I do however enjoy exchanging ideas with this community of relatively interesting people, and so I elaborated my point about the difference between the intelligent and the simply socially retarded, disputing erroneous conflations between the two.

    I don’t know who James Woods is; but I do know (and mountains of empirical data indicate) that navigating a world filled with people who are (often wilfully) not very bright is taxing for those who are.

  149. @res
    @Autochthon


    These matters are all abstractions: the realpolitick is that the folks in Sacramento are all in on the shenanigans of San Francisco; the constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.
     
    Thanks for confirming my impressions ; ) Any thoughts on how this sort of thing will play out for blue cities in red states (which seem to be becoming a thing)? Under Obama I thought the game was rigged against the states, but I'm not sure about the present. I wonder how much effect the resolution of this will have on the positive feedback loop caused by the local environment selecting for certain types of (out of state) migrants to the cities?

    A recent NYT article about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/upshot/blue-cities-want-to-make-their-own-rules-red-states-wont-let-them.html
    Of course that article is written from the perspective that we are in a crisis because the blue agenda can't run roughshod over everything else if even one level wants it (imagine the response to a red city in a blue state, does such a thing exist?).

    I’m leaving it at that in the interest of being concise.
     
    Got it. I think you hit about the right level for me. One additional question though. What do you think about mandamus as mentioned above? My quick look made me suspect it would be an option with an amenable court system, but there is too much fudgeable detail subject to unfavorable interpretation to work at present in most jurisdictions that would do that sort of thing in the first place.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    What do you think about mandamus as mentioned above?

    [T]he constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Autochthon


    No nerves touched here about philetely or video games; I’ve no interest in either. The last girl I dated before marrying I picked up while we were running a marathon; I made her laugh and smile an awful lot, but I did not discuss patent-portfolios or relational database management systems with her. I actually agree with res’ endorsement of your advice for actual nerds who lack social skills:

    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: “learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don’t enjoy it.”
     
    It is indeed good advice for those unable to avoid dull or esoteric topics when they are not socially appropriate. I suspect you think my lament that modern women reject intelligence means I have lacked success with the fair sex or that I have any interest in what I call modern women. It’s true I had an annoying period when I had decided I was ready to marry but, finding myself in Mexifornia, faced a dearth of candidates. Being a charming, clever bastard, though, I surmounted that obstacle handily.

    As to wives; mine is a private enough person I would gladly post a photograph of her here were it easy (I am not uploading anything to imgur or such, and I of course won’t link to publicly available photos of her which would reveal her (and my) identity. Your tone and the shrug it inspires in me puts me in mind of Winnebagos down by the lake and this hilarious exchange between a very successful and talented man I admire and respect for his wisdom and his attitude to such attacks on his own achievements. I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, “Is that your wife? She is stunning!”

    It’s been a hoot comparing penises with you.
     
    I dunno, kinda sounds like a nerve WAS touched.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    , @anonymous
    @Autochthon


    It’s been a hoot ...
     
    Laguna Beach Fogey is that you?
  150. I couldn’t care less what someone known as “anonguy” thinks of me

    anonguy doesn’t think of you.

  151. @anonguy
    @res


    That said, I would say one area where “intelligence” and “women” don’t mix is trying to apply analytical intelligence to feelings based arguments (obviously both women and men differ in preference for analytical/emotional based perception and argument, talking averages here).
     
    I'm impressed with your whole discussion, but particularly this observation.

    IMO, this is more or less the highest level but pretty tough to get to. It is worth it when you do. You'll form unique lifetime bond even if you never see each other again for years/decades if you can help a woman understand some things about herself and the world. Generally, as a consequence, if you establish a dialog at this level, you'll also learn plenty from her perspective.

    It is the way the system is designed to work and if you bring an outsized asset to the table, whether it is intelligence, money, ambition, etc, it can have outsized results, good or bad. Focus on your strengths, makes sure they are positives in a relationship, and everyone is pretty good to go.

    BTW, I'm not blowing smoke. Here is one example, true story.

    Old girlfriend, no kidding hard 10, real torrid thing in our 20s, but then no contact for 25 years. I heard she got late onset schizophrenia, life went to the rocks after marrying, having two kids, normal existence. This can happen to women in early 40s that have had previously well ordered lives with no history of mental illness.

    Went into a 12 year slide, ended up homeless, divorced/penniless, hard-core bag lady, sleeping behind the dumpster for 7 years, without respite, by the time I found out. Had never listened to word one from husband, children, family, friends, in what previously had been a solid middle class life.

    Anosognosia is a big issue with schizophrenics and an interesting topic in itself.

    So, I heard about her and thought, aww, she'll listen to me. Everyone, and I mean everyone, said I was as nuts as she was, people like her were hopeless according to the literature, etc, but I went off anyhow, spent some time with her, and she did listen as I knew she would.

    And I knew she would because of what I explained above.

    Sparing you the details, she's tons better and enduringly so over several years now, has a place, a job, a car, much better frame of mind, etc.

    Kind of rough on ex-husband's ego, as one might imagine. I'd publish an essay on it were it not so invasive of others privacy.

    Replies: @res, @Autochthon

    Fascinating story. Glad you were able to help her! Thanks for sharing.

    If you can share anything about the following (without violating your reasons for originally not posting more) I would appreciate it:

    – How did you initially establish contact/trust? (the later time, or was there enough residual to make this unnecessary?)
    – Can you share any nuts and bolts things you did to get the healing process going? There is a huge virtuous (and earlier, vicious) cycle effect here, but kicking the virtuous side off can be hard IMO.
    – Did you encounter any issues with her peer groups (either as good or bad influences)?

    Perhaps I am being dense, but I am having trouble understanding: “And I knew she would because of what I explained above.” I assume it relates to your leading IMO paragraph, but I am having trouble understanding how the dialog is established. Did it involve meeting emotional perceptions with emotional “argument”? Or was it mainly about having the preexisting deep connection? Or…?

    Regarding the ex-husband’s ego, did it come across more as ex-husband bad or husband/wife bad match? I assume you are thoughtful enough to make a good effort to get an impartial account, but even so vicious cycles can be hard to untangle.

    Regarding Anosognosia, one of the hardest things is when judgment and/or insight are the first casualties of a problem. I saw this in myself one time when I think I got heat stroke (stopped sweating during extended max effort exercise when it was >90 degrees in the shade). My judgment was clearly impaired, but I did manage to finally realize I should stop and fortunately I was near cool water (gentle application, not immersion). Once judgment and insight are gone it can easily be off to the races on a vicious cycle. If you know anything about SCUBA, this is a big problem with nitrogen narcosis.

    P.S. I am big fan of nutritional approaches as partial solutions for things like that. Particularly for women where childbearing and nursing can be very hard on nutritional stores (especially given the body tends to prioritize the baby over the mother it seems). There is a fairly substantial (but also controversial) literature on nutrition and schizophrenia. Some people I know have had some success with depression (different, but perhaps not that different) after working on gut health.

    • Replies: @anonguy
    @res


    How did you initially establish contact/trust? (the later time, or was there enough residual to make this unnecessary?)
     
    There was no need to reestablish trust. Like I said, if you establish one of these bonds in the first place, it is enduring even if the two of you go other ways in life. It doesn't wear out.

    I did have to track her down via private investigator, long story there, but eventually he put a cell phone in her hand, old friend wants to talk, and it was pretty much game on from how 'bout it baby.


    Can you share any nuts and bolts things you did to get the healing process going? There is a huge virtuous (and earlier, vicious) cycle effect here, but kicking the virtuous side off can be hard IMO.
     
    I'm not sure I'd call it a healing process. In my case, just coming to the understanding that everyone with schizophrenia doesn't end up homeless was first step. So figuring out why she had to be homeless, and it was sort of a compulsion, was the key.

    You find that there are all sorts of people falling all over themselves to give services to truly deserving homeless, the trick is getting them to accept this aid and live a more ordered life.

    Anyhow, kind of helping her understand what was driving her to be homeless was key. In her case, the schizo stuff was easy to deal with because she would say plenty of strange stuff but she wouldn't do anything strange.

    Generally, I just wouldn't respond when she said something odd. Just silence. She picked up on this, and also loved talking to me, so it helped her identify foggy patches her mind was drifting into and, again, since she liked talking to me, incentivized her to avoid those patches.

    Funny thing, straight away she told me, "I can tell I say things that scare you because you get real quiet". My response was, well, not scared necessarily but yeah, you have a point. Interesting thing was that I'm guessing this is the first time she said something like that to anyone despite 12 years of saying all sorts of crazy stuff to everyone else in her life. But she apparently didn't care enough to notice how her ramblings affected other people but did about me.

    In that case, I guess helped her gain an intuitive feeling for when her mind was drifting off. I started to view it as like patches of fog/rain here and there on a sunny day.

    I also took the approach that the things happening in her life were as real to her as the things in mine and laid it out that way to her. That is, I don't have the kinds of problems in my life that she does, the big corporations wanting to kill her or the computers eating everything, etc, and I couldn't help her at all with such problems, I could only help with things like food, shelter, etc, problems that I know how to fix because they exist in my world.

    Pretty funny, at one point, she sort of reflects to herself, geez, I didn't use to have these sort of problems in my life, then more or less stamps her foot, saying its not fair that she gets these kinds of problems and I (anonguy) don't, kind of in a femininely petulant way.

    There is lots more. It was among the most fascinating experiences of my life (so far, anyhow).

    Replies: @res

  152. @res
    @anonguy

    Fascinating story. Glad you were able to help her! Thanks for sharing.

    If you can share anything about the following (without violating your reasons for originally not posting more) I would appreciate it:

    - How did you initially establish contact/trust? (the later time, or was there enough residual to make this unnecessary?)
    - Can you share any nuts and bolts things you did to get the healing process going? There is a huge virtuous (and earlier, vicious) cycle effect here, but kicking the virtuous side off can be hard IMO.
    - Did you encounter any issues with her peer groups (either as good or bad influences)?

    Perhaps I am being dense, but I am having trouble understanding: "And I knew she would because of what I explained above." I assume it relates to your leading IMO paragraph, but I am having trouble understanding how the dialog is established. Did it involve meeting emotional perceptions with emotional "argument"? Or was it mainly about having the preexisting deep connection? Or...?

    Regarding the ex-husband's ego, did it come across more as ex-husband bad or husband/wife bad match? I assume you are thoughtful enough to make a good effort to get an impartial account, but even so vicious cycles can be hard to untangle.

    Regarding Anosognosia, one of the hardest things is when judgment and/or insight are the first casualties of a problem. I saw this in myself one time when I think I got heat stroke (stopped sweating during extended max effort exercise when it was >90 degrees in the shade). My judgment was clearly impaired, but I did manage to finally realize I should stop and fortunately I was near cool water (gentle application, not immersion). Once judgment and insight are gone it can easily be off to the races on a vicious cycle. If you know anything about SCUBA, this is a big problem with nitrogen narcosis.

    P.S. I am big fan of nutritional approaches as partial solutions for things like that. Particularly for women where childbearing and nursing can be very hard on nutritional stores (especially given the body tends to prioritize the baby over the mother it seems). There is a fairly substantial (but also controversial) literature on nutrition and schizophrenia. Some people I know have had some success with depression (different, but perhaps not that different) after working on gut health.

    Replies: @anonguy

    How did you initially establish contact/trust? (the later time, or was there enough residual to make this unnecessary?)

    There was no need to reestablish trust. Like I said, if you establish one of these bonds in the first place, it is enduring even if the two of you go other ways in life. It doesn’t wear out.

    I did have to track her down via private investigator, long story there, but eventually he put a cell phone in her hand, old friend wants to talk, and it was pretty much game on from how ’bout it baby.

    Can you share any nuts and bolts things you did to get the healing process going? There is a huge virtuous (and earlier, vicious) cycle effect here, but kicking the virtuous side off can be hard IMO.

    I’m not sure I’d call it a healing process. In my case, just coming to the understanding that everyone with schizophrenia doesn’t end up homeless was first step. So figuring out why she had to be homeless, and it was sort of a compulsion, was the key.

    You find that there are all sorts of people falling all over themselves to give services to truly deserving homeless, the trick is getting them to accept this aid and live a more ordered life.

    Anyhow, kind of helping her understand what was driving her to be homeless was key. In her case, the schizo stuff was easy to deal with because she would say plenty of strange stuff but she wouldn’t do anything strange.

    Generally, I just wouldn’t respond when she said something odd. Just silence. She picked up on this, and also loved talking to me, so it helped her identify foggy patches her mind was drifting into and, again, since she liked talking to me, incentivized her to avoid those patches.

    Funny thing, straight away she told me, “I can tell I say things that scare you because you get real quiet”. My response was, well, not scared necessarily but yeah, you have a point. Interesting thing was that I’m guessing this is the first time she said something like that to anyone despite 12 years of saying all sorts of crazy stuff to everyone else in her life. But she apparently didn’t care enough to notice how her ramblings affected other people but did about me.

    In that case, I guess helped her gain an intuitive feeling for when her mind was drifting off. I started to view it as like patches of fog/rain here and there on a sunny day.

    I also took the approach that the things happening in her life were as real to her as the things in mine and laid it out that way to her. That is, I don’t have the kinds of problems in my life that she does, the big corporations wanting to kill her or the computers eating everything, etc, and I couldn’t help her at all with such problems, I could only help with things like food, shelter, etc, problems that I know how to fix because they exist in my world.

    Pretty funny, at one point, she sort of reflects to herself, geez, I didn’t use to have these sort of problems in my life, then more or less stamps her foot, saying its not fair that she gets these kinds of problems and I (anonguy) don’t, kind of in a femininely petulant way.

    There is lots more. It was among the most fascinating experiences of my life (so far, anyhow).

    • Replies: @res
    @anonguy

    Thanks! I found this especially interesting:


    I also took the approach that the things happening in her life were as real to her as the things in mine and laid it out that way to her. That is, I don’t have the kinds of problems in my life that she does, the big corporations wanting to kill her or the computers eating everything, etc, and I couldn’t help her at all with such problems, I could only help with things like food, shelter, etc, problems that I know how to fix because they exist in my world.
     
    I expect you are familiar with the John Nash quote: "Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously."

    That gave me a different perspective on this sort of thing.

    Pretty funny, at one point, she sort of reflects to herself, geez, I didn’t use to have these sort of problems in my life, then more or less stamps her foot, saying its not fair that she gets these kinds of problems and I (anonguy) don’t, kind of in a femininely petulant way.
     
    That paints a vivid picture. Well expressed.

    There is lots more. It was among the most fascinating experiences of my life (so far, anyhow).
     
    I would imagine one of the more satisfying as well.

    P.S. Sorry for (I think) misunderstanding the ex-husband comment. The logical interpretation looks to be about you being able to help while he wasn't. Not sure why my mind went off in another direction.

    Replies: @anonguy

  153. @Almost Missouri
    @Rod1963

    I'm glad you mentioned "The Marching Morons". Like many of you, I consumed a fair amount of 20th century science fiction as a youth. Needless to say, none of the whizz-bang utopianist stuff described in those stories ever came true.

    There were two stories, however, that were weirdly prescient, perhaps even dead-on prophetic, both dystopian: "The Marching Morons" and "A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy". The memory of the latter story, in particular, makes my hair stand on end to this day.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res, @SteveRogers42, @SteveRogers42

    “Watchbird” predicted aerial drones, with a dose of dystopic AI.

    https://americanvision.org/1023/brave-technology/

  154. @Almost Missouri
    @Rod1963

    I'm glad you mentioned "The Marching Morons". Like many of you, I consumed a fair amount of 20th century science fiction as a youth. Needless to say, none of the whizz-bang utopianist stuff described in those stories ever came true.

    There were two stories, however, that were weirdly prescient, perhaps even dead-on prophetic, both dystopian: "The Marching Morons" and "A Bowl of Biskies Makes a Growing Boy". The memory of the latter story, in particular, makes my hair stand on end to this day.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @res, @SteveRogers42, @SteveRogers42

    AM — I gotta think we’d have a lot of that whizz-bang utopianist stuff if the welfare state hadn’t metastasized, starting in the mid-’60’s. We’d have colonies on the moon and Mars by now, if we hadn’t set fire to a trillion + dollars trying to polish poop.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  155. @eah
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DF8WGjKXUAAGJBq.jpg

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @JeremiahJohnbalaya, @eah, @SteveRogers42

    Phoenix Program.

  156. @Daniel H
    @Daniel H

    Furthermore, there was no draft deferment for passing the bar exam and becoming a practicing lawyer. In the early part of the war deferments were granted to undergraduates and graduates. Later in the war, (when the draft was winding down) grads students weren't granted deferments. There were deferments for some specialized occupations: teacher, MD. But there was never a deferment for lawyers. So her point makes no sense. And it makes no sense because she fabricated the entire story.

    Replies: @Pericles, @SteveRogers42

    Wasn’t that the same time she was blazing through the obstacle course at Marine OCS?

  157. @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    I honestly don't know. I was tested ad a small child (I'd been identified as what they used to call "gifted," and singled out for special programmes to cultivate my intellect, etc.; though now I expect such children are singled out to be abused for daring to have "privilege") so presumably some record exists someplace.

    An ex, a gal I went to law school with, who claimed to have an IQ around 160, and she was one of the only people I ever dated who I didn't find insufferably stupid, so perhaps mine is around that, too.

    I don't think about it, honestly. I learned early on, and painfully, that beyond a certain baseline intelligence has nothing to do with professional and interpersonal success; indeed, it hinders it a great deal. People quickly identify the freakishly intelligent, and generally treat us like shit, and likewise we don't deal well with normal persons. Besides, too, sociopathy, cronyism, etc. long ago replaced any semblance of meritocracy in the world, if indeed meritocracy were ever much more than an imagined thing from The Good Old Days that never were. And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive. I hate it. I'd trade it all to have been born stupid and thus capable of a happier life.

    Often, as I realised all these things during my youth, I would think of Derek Webb's words from "Can't Lose You":


    [M]aybe I have the gift that everyone speaks so highly of:
    Funny how nobody wants it....
     

    Replies: @anonguy, @Opinionator, @SteveRogers42

    Thanks. Interesting.

  158. @Anonymous
    @CPK


    We should be careful about giving the Feds too much police power, even in a good cause. Remember that SCOTUS articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine to stop the Clinton administration trying to conscript local police in enforcing Federal gun control.
     
    That is an important point. But you are being too pessimistic about the statute's applicability. For example, here is New York City's mayor:

    Here in New York—the safest big city in America—we will always protect our neighbors, no matter where they came from or when they got here . . . There’s a lot of people in the city right now who fear for what’s happening. . . . I want to say clearly to all of them, New York City will have your back.
     
    Rahm hit similar notes the week after the election:

    To all those who are, after Tuesday's election, very nervous and filled with anxiety as we've spoken to, you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago. . . Chicago will always be a sanctuary city
     
    Even James Comey would struggle not to find any encouragement or inducement there. Now, in fairness, you were merely highlighting the difficulties presented by the attendant circumstances of (iii). But with no difference in the penalties between (iii) and (iv), does it really matter which subsection you use?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/can-new-yorks-mayor-protect-immigrants-from-donald-trumps-deportation-machine/

    Replies: @SteveRogers42, @CPK

  159. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Autochthon
    @res


    What do you think about mandamus as mentioned above?
     

    [T]he constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.
     

    Replies: @anonymous, @anonymous

    No nerves touched here about philetely or video games; I’ve no interest in either. The last girl I dated before marrying I picked up while we were running a marathon; I made her laugh and smile an awful lot, but I did not discuss patent-portfolios or relational database management systems with her. I actually agree with res’ endorsement of your advice for actual nerds who lack social skills:

    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: “learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don’t enjoy it.”

    It is indeed good advice for those unable to avoid dull or esoteric topics when they are not socially appropriate. I suspect you think my lament that modern women reject intelligence means I have lacked success with the fair sex or that I have any interest in what I call modern women. It’s true I had an annoying period when I had decided I was ready to marry but, finding myself in Mexifornia, faced a dearth of candidates. Being a charming, clever bastard, though, I surmounted that obstacle handily.

    As to wives; mine is a private enough person I would gladly post a photograph of her here were it easy (I am not uploading anything to imgur or such, and I of course won’t link to publicly available photos of her which would reveal her (and my) identity. Your tone and the shrug it inspires in me puts me in mind of Winnebagos down by the lake and this hilarious exchange between a very successful and talented man I admire and respect for his wisdom and his attitude to such attacks on his own achievements. I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, “Is that your wife? She is stunning!”

    It’s been a hoot comparing penises with you.

    I dunno, kinda sounds like a nerve WAS touched.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @anonymous

    Or that I have a long, dull commute, a penchant for being arch, and a predilection for writing.

    I notice you yourself are full of interesting and insightful original thoughts like "a nerve was touched."

    Replies: @anonymous

  160. @Autochthon
    @res


    What do you think about mandamus as mentioned above?
     

    [T]he constitutions are all so much toilet tissue for the asses of the courts, and so on.
     

    Replies: @anonymous, @anonymous

    It’s been a hoot …

    Laguna Beach Fogey is that you?

  161. @Moshe
    @Jack Hanson

    Sure Jackshit but you don't know jack when you're jacking in the john

    OR

    We all HOPE that will happen but you are implying - and have priorly said clearly - that you think Trump

    Has immigration-stop near the top of his agenda

    And knows what he's doing

    In this instance you are saying the insane, which is that Trump is doing all of this badmouthing so that public figures will good mouth so that Sessions can then go and produce Operation Wetback II without these folk able to call him the devil.

    And THAT is crazy Jackyboy

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    In this instance you are saying the insane, which is that Trump is doing all of this badmouthing so that public figures will good mouth so that Sessions can then go and produce Operation Wetback II without these folk able to call him the devil.

    And THAT is crazy Jackyboy

    Actually, it doesn’t seem so crazy. It could be down-and-dirty office politics played out in the national media. Heck, Mao and Stalin used to do this kind of thing. The difference is that Trump’s maneuvers haven’t caused any of the players to end up with a bullet to the back of the head or the gulag. And unlike Mao and Stalin, Trump doesn’t have a tame media (on pain of death). Whatever you might say about Trump – he’s not the normal run of politician, which actually makes a lot of sense, since he wasn’t a politician until about 2 years ago.

  162. @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    I honestly don't know. I was tested ad a small child (I'd been identified as what they used to call "gifted," and singled out for special programmes to cultivate my intellect, etc.; though now I expect such children are singled out to be abused for daring to have "privilege") so presumably some record exists someplace.

    An ex, a gal I went to law school with, who claimed to have an IQ around 160, and she was one of the only people I ever dated who I didn't find insufferably stupid, so perhaps mine is around that, too.

    I don't think about it, honestly. I learned early on, and painfully, that beyond a certain baseline intelligence has nothing to do with professional and interpersonal success; indeed, it hinders it a great deal. People quickly identify the freakishly intelligent, and generally treat us like shit, and likewise we don't deal well with normal persons. Besides, too, sociopathy, cronyism, etc. long ago replaced any semblance of meritocracy in the world, if indeed meritocracy were ever much more than an imagined thing from The Good Old Days that never were. And women? Man, Whiskey is not half crazy. Modern women despise intelligence. Genius is maladaptive. I hate it. I'd trade it all to have been born stupid and thus capable of a happier life.

    Often, as I realised all these things during my youth, I would think of Derek Webb's words from "Can't Lose You":


    [M]aybe I have the gift that everyone speaks so highly of:
    Funny how nobody wants it....
     

    Replies: @anonguy, @Opinionator, @SteveRogers42

    True dat.

  163. @Jim Don Bob
    @JimB


    Breitbart reports that DHS is preparing to arrest sanctuary city public officials.
     
    Man, that would Make My Day. I hope they perp walk them and hold them at least overnight in some Club Fed like Riker's Island. I volunteer my local County Board members to be first.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    “…..Club Fed like Riker’s Island.”

    I suppose it acts as a Club Fed when it houses federal prisoners for a short period of time, if it ever does. Don’t know if NYC has something like Chicago’s Metropolitan Correctonal Center downtown near the Federal courthouse. (A short term Federal lockup.)

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @Hibernian

    Hibernian:

    Riker's Island is a NYC correctional facility for holding non-federal prisoners awaiting trial.

    The Feds have separate holding facilities. In Manhattan there are two federal courthouses near Foley Square, one of which has attached to it a holding facility for those awaiting federal trial.

  164. @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    No nerves touched here about philetely or video games; I've no interest in either. The last girl I dated before marrying I picked up while we were running a marathon; I made her laugh and smile an awful lot, but I did not discuss patent-portfolios or relational database management systems with her. I actually agree with res' endorsement of your advice for actual nerds who lack social skills:


    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: "learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don’t enjoy it."
     
    It is indeed good advice for those unable to avoid dull or esoteric topics when they are not socially appropriate. I suspect you think my lament that modern women reject intelligence means I have lacked success with the fair sex or that I have any interest in what I call modern women. It's true I had an annoying period when I had decided I was ready to marry but, finding myself in Mexifornia, faced a dearth of candidates. Being a charming, clever bastard, though, I surmounted that obstacle handily.

    As to wives; mine is a private enough person I would gladly post a photograph of her here were it easy (I am not uploading anything to imgur or such, and I of course won't link to publicly available photos of her which would reveal her (and my) identity. Your tone and the shrug it inspires in me puts me in mind of Winnebagos down by the lake and this hilarious exchange between a very successful and talented man I admire and respect for his wisdom and his attitude to such attacks on his own achievements. I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, "Is that your wife? She is stunning!"

    It's been a hoot comparing penises with you.

    Replies: @anonguy

    I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, “Is that your wife? She is stunning!”

    How does your girlfriend look?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @anonguy

    You must have me mistaken for a Negro; I am monogamous.

  165. @Hibernian
    @Jim Don Bob

    ".....Club Fed like Riker’s Island."

    I suppose it acts as a Club Fed when it houses federal prisoners for a short period of time, if it ever does. Don't know if NYC has something like Chicago's Metropolitan Correctonal Center downtown near the Federal courthouse. (A short term Federal lockup.)

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    Hibernian:

    Riker’s Island is a NYC correctional facility for holding non-federal prisoners awaiting trial.

    The Feds have separate holding facilities. In Manhattan there are two federal courthouses near Foley Square, one of which has attached to it a holding facility for those awaiting federal trial.

  166. @anonymous
    @Autochthon


    No nerves touched here about philetely or video games; I’ve no interest in either. The last girl I dated before marrying I picked up while we were running a marathon; I made her laugh and smile an awful lot, but I did not discuss patent-portfolios or relational database management systems with her. I actually agree with res’ endorsement of your advice for actual nerds who lack social skills:

    The reason I am going on like this is I think you are trying to diminish what I consider some excellent advice from anonguy. Paraphrased: “learn to turn off your inner nerd (Dr. Who, airplane esoterica, sports esoterica, etc.) when dealing with people who don’t enjoy it.”
     
    It is indeed good advice for those unable to avoid dull or esoteric topics when they are not socially appropriate. I suspect you think my lament that modern women reject intelligence means I have lacked success with the fair sex or that I have any interest in what I call modern women. It’s true I had an annoying period when I had decided I was ready to marry but, finding myself in Mexifornia, faced a dearth of candidates. Being a charming, clever bastard, though, I surmounted that obstacle handily.

    As to wives; mine is a private enough person I would gladly post a photograph of her here were it easy (I am not uploading anything to imgur or such, and I of course won’t link to publicly available photos of her which would reveal her (and my) identity. Your tone and the shrug it inspires in me puts me in mind of Winnebagos down by the lake and this hilarious exchange between a very successful and talented man I admire and respect for his wisdom and his attitude to such attacks on his own achievements. I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, “Is that your wife? She is stunning!”

    It’s been a hoot comparing penises with you.
     
    I dunno, kinda sounds like a nerve WAS touched.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    Or that I have a long, dull commute, a penchant for being arch, and a predilection for writing.

    I notice you yourself are full of interesting and insightful original thoughts like “a nerve was touched.”

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Autochthon


    … a predilection for writing.
     
    Really? Speaking of "long" and "dull" you're penchants and predilections fit the bill. Brevity, etc.,etc., etc.
  167. @anonguy
    @Autochthon


    I am blessed to say the last person who saw a photograph of her remarked, “Is that your wife? She is stunning!”
     
    How does your girlfriend look?

    Replies: @Autochthon

    You must have me mistaken for a Negro; I am monogamous.

  168. @anonguy
    @res


    That said, I would say one area where “intelligence” and “women” don’t mix is trying to apply analytical intelligence to feelings based arguments (obviously both women and men differ in preference for analytical/emotional based perception and argument, talking averages here).
     
    I'm impressed with your whole discussion, but particularly this observation.

    IMO, this is more or less the highest level but pretty tough to get to. It is worth it when you do. You'll form unique lifetime bond even if you never see each other again for years/decades if you can help a woman understand some things about herself and the world. Generally, as a consequence, if you establish a dialog at this level, you'll also learn plenty from her perspective.

    It is the way the system is designed to work and if you bring an outsized asset to the table, whether it is intelligence, money, ambition, etc, it can have outsized results, good or bad. Focus on your strengths, makes sure they are positives in a relationship, and everyone is pretty good to go.

    BTW, I'm not blowing smoke. Here is one example, true story.

    Old girlfriend, no kidding hard 10, real torrid thing in our 20s, but then no contact for 25 years. I heard she got late onset schizophrenia, life went to the rocks after marrying, having two kids, normal existence. This can happen to women in early 40s that have had previously well ordered lives with no history of mental illness.

    Went into a 12 year slide, ended up homeless, divorced/penniless, hard-core bag lady, sleeping behind the dumpster for 7 years, without respite, by the time I found out. Had never listened to word one from husband, children, family, friends, in what previously had been a solid middle class life.

    Anosognosia is a big issue with schizophrenics and an interesting topic in itself.

    So, I heard about her and thought, aww, she'll listen to me. Everyone, and I mean everyone, said I was as nuts as she was, people like her were hopeless according to the literature, etc, but I went off anyhow, spent some time with her, and she did listen as I knew she would.

    And I knew she would because of what I explained above.

    Sparing you the details, she's tons better and enduringly so over several years now, has a place, a job, a car, much better frame of mind, etc.

    Kind of rough on ex-husband's ego, as one might imagine. I'd publish an essay on it were it not so invasive of others privacy.

    Replies: @res, @Autochthon

    I heartily endorse this idea. The one thing women who’ve been gaga over me always said, over and over to express why they are, is some variation of “You’ve taught me so much” often “about myself.”

  169. @anonguy
    @res


    How did you initially establish contact/trust? (the later time, or was there enough residual to make this unnecessary?)
     
    There was no need to reestablish trust. Like I said, if you establish one of these bonds in the first place, it is enduring even if the two of you go other ways in life. It doesn't wear out.

    I did have to track her down via private investigator, long story there, but eventually he put a cell phone in her hand, old friend wants to talk, and it was pretty much game on from how 'bout it baby.


    Can you share any nuts and bolts things you did to get the healing process going? There is a huge virtuous (and earlier, vicious) cycle effect here, but kicking the virtuous side off can be hard IMO.
     
    I'm not sure I'd call it a healing process. In my case, just coming to the understanding that everyone with schizophrenia doesn't end up homeless was first step. So figuring out why she had to be homeless, and it was sort of a compulsion, was the key.

    You find that there are all sorts of people falling all over themselves to give services to truly deserving homeless, the trick is getting them to accept this aid and live a more ordered life.

    Anyhow, kind of helping her understand what was driving her to be homeless was key. In her case, the schizo stuff was easy to deal with because she would say plenty of strange stuff but she wouldn't do anything strange.

    Generally, I just wouldn't respond when she said something odd. Just silence. She picked up on this, and also loved talking to me, so it helped her identify foggy patches her mind was drifting into and, again, since she liked talking to me, incentivized her to avoid those patches.

    Funny thing, straight away she told me, "I can tell I say things that scare you because you get real quiet". My response was, well, not scared necessarily but yeah, you have a point. Interesting thing was that I'm guessing this is the first time she said something like that to anyone despite 12 years of saying all sorts of crazy stuff to everyone else in her life. But she apparently didn't care enough to notice how her ramblings affected other people but did about me.

    In that case, I guess helped her gain an intuitive feeling for when her mind was drifting off. I started to view it as like patches of fog/rain here and there on a sunny day.

    I also took the approach that the things happening in her life were as real to her as the things in mine and laid it out that way to her. That is, I don't have the kinds of problems in my life that she does, the big corporations wanting to kill her or the computers eating everything, etc, and I couldn't help her at all with such problems, I could only help with things like food, shelter, etc, problems that I know how to fix because they exist in my world.

    Pretty funny, at one point, she sort of reflects to herself, geez, I didn't use to have these sort of problems in my life, then more or less stamps her foot, saying its not fair that she gets these kinds of problems and I (anonguy) don't, kind of in a femininely petulant way.

    There is lots more. It was among the most fascinating experiences of my life (so far, anyhow).

    Replies: @res

    Thanks! I found this especially interesting:

    I also took the approach that the things happening in her life were as real to her as the things in mine and laid it out that way to her. That is, I don’t have the kinds of problems in my life that she does, the big corporations wanting to kill her or the computers eating everything, etc, and I couldn’t help her at all with such problems, I could only help with things like food, shelter, etc, problems that I know how to fix because they exist in my world.

    I expect you are familiar with the John Nash quote: “Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously.”

    That gave me a different perspective on this sort of thing.

    Pretty funny, at one point, she sort of reflects to herself, geez, I didn’t use to have these sort of problems in my life, then more or less stamps her foot, saying its not fair that she gets these kinds of problems and I (anonguy) don’t, kind of in a femininely petulant way.

    That paints a vivid picture. Well expressed.

    There is lots more. It was among the most fascinating experiences of my life (so far, anyhow).

    I would imagine one of the more satisfying as well.

    P.S. Sorry for (I think) misunderstanding the ex-husband comment. The logical interpretation looks to be about you being able to help while he wasn’t. Not sure why my mind went off in another direction.

    • Replies: @anonguy
    @res


    I would imagine one of the more satisfying as well.
     
    That turned out to be a surprisingly complex topic.
  170. @Anonymous
    @CPK


    We should be careful about giving the Feds too much police power, even in a good cause. Remember that SCOTUS articulated the anti-commandeering doctrine to stop the Clinton administration trying to conscript local police in enforcing Federal gun control.
     
    That is an important point. But you are being too pessimistic about the statute's applicability. For example, here is New York City's mayor:

    Here in New York—the safest big city in America—we will always protect our neighbors, no matter where they came from or when they got here . . . There’s a lot of people in the city right now who fear for what’s happening. . . . I want to say clearly to all of them, New York City will have your back.
     
    Rahm hit similar notes the week after the election:

    To all those who are, after Tuesday's election, very nervous and filled with anxiety as we've spoken to, you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago. . . Chicago will always be a sanctuary city
     
    Even James Comey would struggle not to find any encouragement or inducement there. Now, in fairness, you were merely highlighting the difficulties presented by the attendant circumstances of (iii). But with no difference in the penalties between (iii) and (iv), does it really matter which subsection you use?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/can-new-yorks-mayor-protect-immigrants-from-donald-trumps-deportation-machine/

    Replies: @SteveRogers42, @CPK

    So far as I can tell, “inducing or encouraging” has always been understood to mean a direct offer of some objective material benefit, such as an employer offering wages. When it’s just vague verbal reassurance, there’s not only a First Amendment issue, but the problem of subjective interpretation. For example, the two quotes you cite aren’t explicitly addressed to illegal aliens. Can we reasonably interpret them that way? Sure — but we can’t throw someone in prison for ten years because we could construe his statements a certain way.

    Compare the way lefties talk about “treason” and Russia. Facts aside, what they don’t get is that terms like “aid and comfort” and “enemy” actually mean something specific. Maybe one could argue that saying positive things about Russia was “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” as a figure of speech, but not as an actual legal charge. People who claim otherwise are trying to shoehorn policy disagreements into criminal law. That’s pretty much of what we’re doing here with 8 USC 1324.

    Granted, this is just amateur kibitzing, but that cuts both ways: a real no-kidding qualified defense lawyer could make the case far better than I could. And again, this is assuming “Sanctuary Cities” merely decline to cooperate with the Feds. If they actively try to frustrate or violate Federal law, that might be different (although there might be sovereign immunity questions as well).

  171. @Autochthon
    @anonymous

    Or that I have a long, dull commute, a penchant for being arch, and a predilection for writing.

    I notice you yourself are full of interesting and insightful original thoughts like "a nerve was touched."

    Replies: @anonymous

    … a predilection for writing.

    Really? Speaking of “long” and “dull” you’re penchants and predilections fit the bill. Brevity, etc.,etc., etc.

  172. @res
    @anonguy

    Thanks! I found this especially interesting:


    I also took the approach that the things happening in her life were as real to her as the things in mine and laid it out that way to her. That is, I don’t have the kinds of problems in my life that she does, the big corporations wanting to kill her or the computers eating everything, etc, and I couldn’t help her at all with such problems, I could only help with things like food, shelter, etc, problems that I know how to fix because they exist in my world.
     
    I expect you are familiar with the John Nash quote: "Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously."

    That gave me a different perspective on this sort of thing.

    Pretty funny, at one point, she sort of reflects to herself, geez, I didn’t use to have these sort of problems in my life, then more or less stamps her foot, saying its not fair that she gets these kinds of problems and I (anonguy) don’t, kind of in a femininely petulant way.
     
    That paints a vivid picture. Well expressed.

    There is lots more. It was among the most fascinating experiences of my life (so far, anyhow).
     
    I would imagine one of the more satisfying as well.

    P.S. Sorry for (I think) misunderstanding the ex-husband comment. The logical interpretation looks to be about you being able to help while he wasn't. Not sure why my mind went off in another direction.

    Replies: @anonguy

    I would imagine one of the more satisfying as well.

    That turned out to be a surprisingly complex topic.

  173. “no kidding hard 10”

    Based on a similar experience, albeit without the happy ending (alas), I developed a theory, well maybe more of an observation, about schizophrenics, learned from traversing the corridors of the local psych ward. The ward’s population consisted mostly of people who one could see at a glance were not well. If not obviously deformed, they were obviously sick (physically), obese, scrofulous or otherwise manifestly not doing well in life. If they weren’t in this institution, they would be in some other institution. For the most part, they didn’t seem to have any particular gripe with being “locked up”, on the contrary, many in this category seemed to be enjoying themselves. As I say, this was the majority of the inmates or whatever you call ’em in the psych biz.

    Then there was a small minority of very delicate, refined-looking people, often very beautiful, both women and men (no homo). One might call these the “Ophelias”.* In contrast to the gregarious and garrulous majority, these people seemed withdrawn and resentful of their confinement. It was their physical appearance though that was so arresting: such fine features, they looked almost elfin. It was not hard to see how our medieval forebearers could attribute faerie paternity to certain peculiar people among their own population. Anyhow, I know comparative physiognomy has been in bad odor ever since 1945, but that’s a shame since it seems obvious that physiognomy has much to tell us, if we didn’t refuse to listen.

    * For any Millenials reading this, “Ophelia” is a Hamlet reference.**
    ** Hamlet is a Shakespeare play.***
    *** Shakespeare was an influential playwright who almost single-handedly invented post-medieval English.****
    **** English was a language of vast meaning and erudition before you were born.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS