AOC dares Trump border czar to have DOJ investigate her
AOC dares Trump border czar to have DOJ investigate her
The congresswoman has drawn Tom Homan’s ire for sharing information about unconstitutional search and seizure.
Summary
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) pushed back against Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, after he suggested the DOJ investigate her for “aiding and abetting” illegal immigration.
Homan accused her of helping people evade ICE by educating constituents on their constitutional rights. AOC dismissed the threats, challenging Homan to proceed and calling him a “coward.”
Tensions are high over immigration enforcement and civil liberties, with AOC arguing that informing people of their rights is legally protected.
AOC is what the democratic party needs to become. The sooner the party figures that out, the sooner they can start clawing back public support.
We need so many more like her. Whip smart and brave.
Yeah, like what the fuck are they doing? Waiting for a ref to come in and say the other team isn't playing fair? Time to sink to their level and fight back!
IMHO, she’s not sinking to their level. She’s actually being honest and authentic.
You assume they want it. They get their donor money and trading perks no matter who is in power.
Homan accused her of helping people evade ICE by educating constituents on their constitutional rights.
Homan is saying teaching the US Constitution to people is a crime?! What the actual fuck!?
WHO TOLD YOU YOU HAVE RIGHTS!!!
educating constituents on their constitutional rights
Wow, how dare she!
Are illegals constituents? Do non-citizens have constitutional rights?
"aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law."
From a Supreme Court decision in 1952: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep345/usrep345206/usrep345206.pdf
It had long precedent and has been upheld since: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/
Now, the question about whether or not they're constituents could probably be debated, since they can't vote. But if a person who didn't vote for an official is still a constituent, then a person who couldn't vote for an official is as well.
Yes because they're human, just not American. Inalienable rights are inherent to all people.
Are Navajo constituents? How about Puerto Ricans?
Because they might want to know their rights.
The people related to immigrants are often voting constituents interested in their and their families rights if that's what you mean. Immigrant do have constitutional rights. For example, you can't just deny them freedom of speech or enslave them just because they're non citizens. That would be wild.
I think laws apply to everyone inside a country, not just citizens. Not sure about the US though, I'm not american and who knows what the fuck is going on in that clown country 🤷
I've wanted to develop a conversation on this subject for a long time, because it's a fallacy "both sides" have fallen for: The fact that illegal actions are often right, and legal actions are often immoral.
People will often harp on the fact that an act was "technically not legal"; yet throughout history, we have needed illegal acts to frame what's right in the world. When we discuss these things online, it's more honest to talk about "What the harm is" - a subject that often leans in favor of left-leaning opinions both for what's illegal (living in the USA illegally, generally causing negative harm) and improperly using presidential powers to shut down government agencies (not just illegal, but also extremely harmful).
If you disagree and specifically want to harp on legality, then I invite you to see what happens if you start shooting jaywalkers in the street for their flagrant violation of the law. Prosecutorial discretion exists for a very important reason.
The only thing about this is I don't trust them. I would totally expect them to plant shit or just lock her up like Navalny. In a normal would, the investigation would fizzle like a Gym Jordan investigation. If they take AOC, we're gonna suit up, boys.
I'm not letting my kid grow up to be a Nazi. Not without a fight.
The education system here might be crap, but it did do an effective job at showing me the significant damage a few can do, but also showed me the overwhelming power of the many.
If Trump was dead serious on immigration, he would've challenged and sent Musk packing. But Trump's idea of tackling the immigration issue is in the same vein as tackling anyone else he don't like. So he would delightfully target AOC and get rid of her at any chance.
Does he understand how weak this makes him look? This little girl is making your job difficult? But you're a big strong man with a mandate, and youve said it almost a dozen times now, you know exactly where these criminals are. Which is it? Wittle bitty AOC is a big meanie head that's making it hawd to find deeze big bad criminal maniacs. Or you know exactly where they are and we have nothing to worry about. If you know where they are and you have ample evidence of their crimes getting a warrant shouldn't be any problem at all and there's nothing AOC can do or say to stop you.
WHICH IS IT!?
Oh that's right it's the one where YOU want to violate rights and YOU want to break laws and having people be informed of their rights means you can't be a tyrant.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
One of Umberto Eco's 14 properties of fascism
Ah god damnit you're right. Here I thought people were consistent and rational.
Go ahead Tom Homan, show Republicans how much the Trump admin and DoJ is being made to care about free speech and 1st amendment rights.
I wouldn't be daring known liars to do anything... you have to be wise when dealing with people like that.
idk, man. at some point bodies have to go on the line. people need to stand in the way.
I am thankful that some in the Democratic party seem to be willing to lead on this. makes it a little easier for the rest of us to get the fuck up off the couch.
edit: creeped your posts. usa here. double thumbs up on your american blackout day on the 28th. stand up to the bully - I am proud for canada.
Thanks for your support, it means a lot!
I'm by no means saying do nothing, just do it very wisely. These liars are in positions right now where they can make up anything about almost anyone to get them outta the way.
You need to push back hard. If they come at you to arrest you (as a sitting representative), maybe it'll wake people up. You just have to hope they aren't going to barge in at 6 am with machine guns, because historically that doesn't end well for anyone.
I was thinking more along the lines of framing people.
If this guy isn't wasted, he's certainly not capable of being a communications person for his own cause.
I'm the Doctor. You're in a library. Look me up!
Ooh, politicians should never make challeges like that...
https://www.history.com/news/gary-hart-scandal-front-runner
“Follow me around,” The New York Times Magazine reported him saying just a few weeks after he declared his candidacy. “I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'd be very bored.”
I mean, doesn't sound like the challange was the issue, it was actually being guilty of what he was accused of. I mean it could be horrible if AOC is doing something terrible in secret, but at least to my knowledge it's what she's accused of is what she's doing publicly (teaching people their rights).
Gary Hart had a scandal to expose.
If AOC had anything to hide it would have been plastered all over Fox News already. The best they could do was try to knock her for a recording of her dancing in college or something equally irrelevant.