Naturally, the press has echoed the Deep State. “This is a hostile takeover of the federal government by a private citizen of unlimited means with no restrictions and no transparency,” said Kara Swisher of a man presently working for the democratically-elected president of our country, following his orders directly, and who at any moment can be (and ultimately almost certainly will be, let’s be honest) fired. “It’s a coup,” said Lindsay Owens of Groundwork (some kind of tedious, commie, dark money think tank), which was echoed throughout the press. “…what’s going on right now really is a genuine crisis,” said Jesse Singal, “and it should be recognized as such.”
But a crisis for who? I don’t share politics with the Deep State, and am not a huge fan of permanent, unelected, unaccountable power in general, so maybe this is hitting me different. In any case, I’ve been wondering: where is this level of “crisis” reporting on the president’s flurry of trans orders? His dismantling of DEI? The trade war (already mostly over, by the way) or Panama (also basically handled now, but I digress). With the exception of Selena Gomez, I haven’t seen many tears for deported violent criminals, something we heard a lot about back before the election. No, panic is almost entirely focused on saving federal bureaucrats. Why?
Just as a point of order, the White House has confirmed that Musk is a Special Government Employee pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 202, and is thus subject to the direction of the President. IOW, not a ‘private citizen’ at all. So all of the pearlzclutchers and hand-wringers are spreading basic misinformation.
llater,
llamas
The Demtards and their fellow travelers have being battling Trump through a wide array of tactics for many, many years but he fought them off and won bigly so now they have turned to attacking his footsoldiers.
I should have added that there is a large Deep State component involved in the attacks.
Unlike tariffs, on this issue, I’m with Mr Trump. Rolling back the administrative state was always going to produce rage.
I hope the Dept of Education is shut. That’s the big one. Return schooling to the most local level/vouchers, etc
Over at The Hill, there’s much flapping and squawking at the prospect of people’s tenured positions being reviewed by the elected Federal government, or – to use Elon Musk’s happy phrase – “being fed into the wood-chipper”.
Spring has sprung early this year.
Johnson could have done all this sort of thing with his 80-seat majority, but of course did the reverse.
And remember, this is Trump doing this with just, in Obama’s phrase ‘my pen and my phone’. The Congress has, so far, barely passed any legislation in keeping with the President’s agenda.
Don’t feed them to the woodchipper. The can pedal away on repurposed Pelotons to produce their beloved Green energy. When they are worked-out then turn them into the Soylent Green to feed the reamiander. It’s beautifully Net Zero!
This is not a “Modest Proposal” BTW.
JP Although the Department of Education is important (teachers are a huge component of the Dem’s supporter base), they picked USAID first for a reason – it’s been the critical conduit through which the deep state machinery has been fed. Press, the Democrat Party, the Bureacracy and the NGOs. The latter fostering woke ideology both in the US and abroad, the former maintaining an iron grip of the ‘narrative’. USAID has been the lubricant, and ever since Capone the key has always been to ‘follow the money’. Politico seems to be the first Press outlet to be hit…it won’t be the last.
It will be fascinating to see to what extent the end of USAID impacts on the same machinery here in the UK. Quite a bit, I suspect (hope).
As far back as the 19th century Senator Roscoe Conkling warned of the danger of rule by officials who were not elected and who elected people did not hire and could not fire – how this would make a mockery of Constitutional Government. The education system and media have been smearing Senator Conkling ever since.
In Britain even Disraeli warned against the creation of a bureaucracy outside elected control – indeed this is just about the only matter I agree with Disraeli about.
As for Elon Musk – I note that none of his enemies complained about Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros interfering in politics.
I’m so glad Trump lost in 2020.
Had he won, he would have had a continuation of his first term. A losing battle with Congress, few daily accomplishments, being more of a tone-setter than a CEO.
Now, he has had four years to review where he went wrong, gather the right people together, and build Trump 2.0.
His loss gave him time to study and plan, and to figure out who could assist him best. He walked in on Day One with a detailed blueprint, and a full toolbox.
I doubt this pace is sustainable. The oppo is going to catch their breath and start filing lawsuits any day now, and the woke judges will start throwing out sea anchors.
But I’ve not yet seen any colorable legal argument that he lacks the power or right to do what he’s doing. So far, the only arguments put forth are that he’s being nasty. That might be a sufficient argument for a Sotomayor, but having a majority on the USSC is about to pay off.
Fun times . . .
Just to set your mind at rest, in case you’re worried: yes, we’re absolutely paying attention to this too; and those who are cheering it on.
We’ve all read the Poem. Toodle-pip.
@neonsnake
Forgive me, I’m sometimes tone deaf!
Was that a threat?
“We’ve all read the Poem. Toodle-pip.”
Two peoples, divided by a common language. 😉
Toby James, USAID is a big donor to the BBC too:
https://x.com/thew0kehunter/status/1887039613757173918
Yes, Clovis, yes it is. It’s a threat *pats head*
I’ve sat through too many “the left is evil!!!!!” to believe that you don’t want to wipe us out.
So much for the tolerant right, huh?
So yeah, it’s a threat.
I wasn’t stunned to discover that much so-called ‘independent’ media was funded by USAID.
nah, he just needs a good smacking around.
He’s giving proper “grassed to the teacher” energy, instead of being able to sort it out himself.
But I don’t think he was making the point that you think he was making.
I read it as “they really weren’t that concerned about the values they seem to profess, until it came to the point where Trump began to limit the surreptitious dipping-out of public taxpayer money for purposes of financing anti-administration partisan activity.”
You don’t see congresspeople out protesting on behalf of DEI, or transgender issues. They only got active when their own wallet was put at risk.
They know that, right now, pro-DEI fighting isn’t going to make them popular. But those concerns pale when their money pipelines are cut.
(Oh, and the “common language” thing was directed at “the Poem”, and “toodle-pip.” Right over my (admittedly lowly) head.)
It looks like the bbc was among the media recipients of funds.
@bobby b
But I’ve not yet seen any colorable legal argument that he lacks the power or right to do what he’s doing.
Except birthright citizenship. I’ve read a few articles on this and there does seem to be a fairly weak case supporting him. But for sure calling it unconstitutional is a colorable claim, in fact, I’d guess that even with this favorable a Supreme Court it is likely to get tossed.
This is true.
Funny thing is, the commentary at the time it was passed – specifically the commentary by the authors as to what they were attempting to do – clearly states that it would not apply as it is being used today.
But – one of the main precepts of legal interpretation is, you look first at the actual black-letter law – the words used, in this case, in the 14th Amendment – and if they are clear on their face, you are done with your analysis.
Only if the actual words used admit of more than one meaning are you then empowered to look at outside information, such as “the intention of the drafter.” (Sort of like the “no parole evidence in contracts” rule. You can’t look outside the words in a contract if they are clear.)
No matter what they intended, the drafters of the 14th A used words that seem very clear. If the USSC does take this on, then, if they want to remain faithful to our legal interpretation rules that have always governed us, BR citizenship is going to remain.
What he should be aiming at is the anchor-baby process, which uses that now-American baby as an anchor to keep the parents here. If the parents will get deported no matter the status of the baby, fewer parents would come here while pregnant.
Every bureaucrat who was working for the Federal Government under Biden can regard their job as about as secure as the bean burrito in this legendary clip.
I like telling ordinary people where their tax money went. Lots of hotel maids and roofers would be thrilled to know that almost $600,000.00 more money than they will pay in their entire lives went to fund interpretive dance lessons in that hellhole of poverty, Rochester.
https://datarepublican.com/expose/?eins=160768758&keywords=hochstein%2Chochstein
https://hochstein.org/About
Regarding birthright citizenship, from the nature of my last job, I know quite-a-few foreigners who have US-born children, not as ‘anchor babies’ but who were born in the natural course of events qhile one parent or the other was working legally in the US. I think all have now returned to their home countries with their US-citizen children, who all have (AFAIK) dual citizenship.
The issue is not that these children were born automatically US citizens, but that somehow their citizenship, which gives them the unassailable right to remain in the US, becomes a springboard to grant their parents the right to remain also.
The obvious solution was given me by a German parent of a US citizen child, who said ‘a child is the ward of its parents until it turns 18, and it’s the parents’ responsibility to care for it. So the child goes, where the parents go, and if the parents cannot go to the US legally, then neither can the child. When the child becomes an adult, and responsible for itself, then it can decide to leave its parents and enter the US – not before.’
As he said ‘if I went to the US to work, legally, but left my minor child behind in Germany, unsupported, the German authorities would put me in jail. The reverse should be true also – if I have a minor child in the US, but I have to leave because I cannot remain in the US legally, I cannot abandon my minor child, I must take it with me. The child goes with the parents – the parents do not go with the child’.
This seems like common sense to me, and a not-unrealistic reading of the “within the jurusdiction of . . .” wording of the 14th Amendment. A minor child is the responsibility of its parents, and is “within the jurisdiction of the United States” only insofar as its parents are. It’s also the situation in virtually-all other nations.
llater,
llamas
As has been pointed out, Elon Musk, in his role at DOGE, is not “a private citizen of unlimited means”.
It should also be pointed out that DOGE, far from lacking transparency, is bringing transparency to every other part of the federal government. That twits like Kara Swisher do not seem to understand this, can only be explained by 2 alternative assumptions:
1. Twits like KS are insane enough to believe their own propaganda.
2. Twits like KS are insane enough to rely on the segment of their audience which is insane enough to believe their propaganda; a segment which, however large, is going to be outmaneuvered by the sane in the long term.
Unless RFK Jr fails in his mission to stop the mental decline of American people.
Bobby:
My feeling, too.
It is tempered by the sorrow for the suffering of the Afghans, Ukrainians (and Russians), Israelis (and Gazans), which could have been avoided if Trump had won in 2020.
Except that, in all likelihood, all of this could not have been avoided: only delayed.
llamas, I think they just chose the wrong words.
Can the kid be taken by US social services types? Yes. Can they be arrested by our police? Yes. I would argue that they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The only class of people I can think of who would NOT satisfy this would be people here with diplomatic immunity. They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction.
I rank this wordsmithery up there with the decision to include “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” in the Second Amendment. Nobody war-gamed out the language, comparing what they said with what they wanted to say.
@ bobby b. – at the risk of beclowning myself by disagreeing with an actual lawyer, I would point out that the situations you describe – social services, arrest by the police – are state matters, and the 14th Amendment refers to the jurisdiction of the United States, ie, the Federal government. I would suggest – not absolutely insist, but suggest – that there is an interpretational difference between the two, and also that there is a substantive difference between an adult and a minor child when interpreting the meaning of “the jurisdiction of the United States”. After all, adults have many legal rights and responsibilities under the United States which are not granted to minor children.
llater,
llamas
llamas: all good points, and I expect we’ll see them brought up if this makes it as far as the USSC. Combined with the contemporaneous writings of the drafters explaining that, of course, obviously, this provision won’t apply to foreigners who just show up and deliver, it promises to be an interesting set of arguments.
And lawyering isn’t like math. It’s more akin to bullshit psychology. You really can’t beclown yourself arguing with bullshitters. 😉
1. The deep state does not exist
2. The deep state exists but is not a problem.
3. The deep state is good actually.
4. The people opposing the deep state are the problem.
‘No transparency’ is a bit rich, when everything is backed up with release of where the money is going and to whom.
Keep lifting those rocks, Elon! The squirming grubs underneath need exposure to sunlight.
The international Deep State has not gone away – and they are not forgiving.
For example, they are pushing for economic relations (trade) to be dependent on certain cultural policies (the cultural aspect of Agenda 2030) – for example anti “Hate Speech” and anti “Misinformation” laws – which would, in effect, make the expression of the opinions of Elon Musk (a Democrat up to a couple of years ago), Robert Kennedy Jr (his opinions on drug companies), and President Trump, unlawful.
If the United States wishes to keep the First Amendment (let alone the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights) it would be be well advised to make sure that it is NOT dependent on foreign supplies of vital goods or materials.
The United Kingdom is “well ahead of the game” in terms of getting rid of such things as Freedom of Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and other basic principles such as no Double Jeopardy (being put on trial twice for the same alleged offence) and a Right to Silence when asked questions by the police. It is not a matter of giving in to the demands of the international community – as the British government has already done all these things.
As Dr Sean Gabb might say “I told you so Paul, years ago, and you refused to listen”.
Yes you did Dr Gabb, and I did not (really) listen when you told me that, even when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister (indeed long before), the basic principles of the Common Law were starting to be undermined in this land, and I am very sorry that I did not listen.
We have now reached the stage where Prime Minister Starmer (an experienced lawyer) can talk about people going to prison, as he did in the summer of 2024 (almost as soon as he came into office) BEFORE they had been convicted of any crime – the guilt of “racist” and “Islamophobic” people (for such offenses as being “near” a riot – or saying things on social media that the authorities opposed) was ASSUMED, and it was ASSUMED they would go to prison – and go to prison for a long time, before their trials had even started.
Far from being outraged by the comments of the Prime Minister – the judges (who are now selected and trained to have certain attitudes) strongly agreed with him.
I realise I shouldn’t feed the troll, but this:
from one of our residents, is classic projection.
Thanks for bringing senitor cooking to my attention.
As for the economic side…..
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom says (for example he said yesterday – at Prime Minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons) that “workers rights are pro growth”.
By “rights” Sir Keir Starmer does NOT mean limits on government power (as a supporter of Covid lockdowns, anti “Hate Speech” laws and so on – he does not believe in any limits at all on government power, and that should come as no surprise as Sir Keir was a leading member of the “Haldane Society” of socialist lawyers – and wrote articles about how the basic principles of the Common Law should be destroyed), what Sir Keir means by “rights” is REGULATIONS – mandating certain things that employers have to give employees – for example the owners of pubs (bars in the United States) are now to make sure that the conversations of customers (amongst themselves) do not cause distress to members of staff (who might overhear the conversations), as well as giving employees various benefits and so on.
As for “pro growth” – if Prime Minister Starmer means “pro the growth of unemployment” he would be telling the truth.
It should be remembered that the times when the United Kingdom paid for the import of food and raw materials by the export of manufactured goods have, to a great extent, come to an end.
We now import not only food and raw materials – but also manufactured goods (although there is indeed still some British manufacturing industry left – it is not nearly enough for the vastly increased population, a population massively increased by immigration, which also makes feeding the population without truly massive levels of imports, impossible). As for “services” – that largely means the financial services industry (mostly dependent, directly or indirectly, on Bank of England Credit Money bubbles).
The conclusion is obvious – and it is brutal.
But Indians though subject to detention by the US army where not considered subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Clovis Sangrail – it is “Projection” and it is also instructive.
Neonsnake has been threatened by no one here – yet he threatens us (openly admits that he is making threats).
He talks of the “tolerant right” in scare quotes – and falsely claims that we (who have not threatened him) wish to “wipe out” him and others (which we do not), when it is he who has threatened other people – and then “doubles down” on his threats.
Clearly it is the left who wish to wipe us out – whereas we could not care less if the left choose to live in communes, religious or secular ones.
Steph houghton.
Before 1924 it was unclear whether someone could be a member of an “Indian” Tribe and a United States citizen at-the-same-time – that was not a racial matter, as someone could renounce their tribe (and, in the past, people of European origin had joined the tribes – either by abduction, or voluntarily).
After 1924 it was made clear that someone could indeed be member of such a tribe and a United States citizen at-the-same-time.
This was just as well for (for example) “Indian Charlie” Curtis – who was elected Vice President of the United States in 1928 (he was, of course, a Republican) – and who was very proud of his tribe (by the way – his first language was not English).
However, the tribal reservations were not examples of “Democratic Socialism” till the Act of 1934 – when the New Dealers established the doctrine that the land was to be under the control of democratically elected tribal councils, which were also to provide (with Federal taxpayer assistance) various “free” services.
Democratic Socialism has not been a success over the last 90 years – as the example of Pine Ridge (or other such places) shows.
Steph Houghton – another excellent example, thank you for adding it.
To clarify for those outside the US, Native Americans who are affiliated with a recognized tribe or band, who may or may not reside in the various semi-autonomous Indian nations inside the US, are very-definitely US citizens, but are exempt from many US Federal laws, while at the same time benefitting from many US Federal programmes and entitlements which are not available to other US citizens.
So they form an excellent example of a defined class of persons for whom a different form of “the jurisdiction of the United States” has been created than that which applies to all other citizens. It should be noted that much (but not all) of the definition of this class of persons and the special rights they have, along with the special freedoms they enjoy from some US regulations, are almost-entirely the creation of legislative acts. This further indicates that the Congress can create such special classes of persons, despite what the Constitution may say about ‘equal application’.
Again, a fine example, thank you for adding it.
llater,
llamas
Groundwork- $6,910,691 of your money. I’d complain too if it got taken away.
More than that, Starmer went on television and, before even a perpetrator or an alleged crime had been put together, said that people arrested “will be held on remand”. Who does or does not get held on remand is a matter for legal people in courtrooms to sort out, and is nothing to do with a Prime Minister. This then was a barely coded instruction to the judiciary and was on the very edge of criminality in itself.
@llamas
Question: are the Native Americans exempt? I had thought that it was the tribal lands which were exempt.
llamas – I am very doubtful indeed if that special status, in terms of Federal taxpayer provided services, should ever have been created (even as a child watching endless Hollywood films denouncing “corrupt Indian agents” for not giving the tribes people X,Y,Z – the thought occurred to me, “they should not be getting this stuff”), but be-that-as-it-may (perhaps these services were necessary at one time), it is clear that this should be ended now.
The policy has been a horrible failure – as the example of Pine Ridge and so on shows.
As for birthright citizenship – either someone is a citizen, with voting rights, or they are not.
No special status for the children of illegal immigrants is going to work – and it did not work for members of Indian tribes either.
This has been understood since at least 1924 (more than a century ago now) when the members of the tribes got American citizenship – including voting rights.
Clovis Sangrail – please see my previous comments.
mongoose – yes “they will be held on remand” (the Prime Minister making judicial decisions), but it is more than the Prime Minister. That is why the judges did not hold the Prime Minister in contempt of court – because they agreed with him, they were all on the same ideological page.
The entire “justice” system operated under the presumption of guilt – with everyone from the police, to prosecutors, to judges saying (endlessly) how much they hated “far right” people, who were “racists” and “Islamophobes”.
It was clearly the alleged OPINIONS of people that were considered the real “crime”.
This has not emerged suddenly – this development, considering OPINIONS to be crimes, has been developing for many years now.
Put up a sticker that supports Marxism (a doctrine responsible for a hundred million deaths) on a lamp post, and it is unlikely you will punished at all – put up a “far right” sticker and you will get two years in prison.
It is not the act of putting up the sticker that is considered the crime – it is the “far right” OPINION that is considered the crime.
“But what if someone is not far right?” – they are assumed to be so, if it is useful for the state to consider them “far right” even if they are just, for example, upset about the murder of several little girls.
Almost needless to say – people were “encouraged” to plead guilty – they were told they would get much harsher sentence if they did not plead guilty (that, “copping a plea”, is a vile legal principle – that neither Scots Law or German Law used to follow – because it pushes innocent people to plead guilty).
Of course, when they did plead guilty the book was thrown at them – their defense council had not given them very good advice. Although juries also do not want to be seen as “racist” or “Islamophobic” (they might lose their jobs) and neither do defense lawyers – who might loose any chance of advancement in the legal profession.
How long before the following becomes the norm – “As a Soviet person, I am disgusted and appalled by the reactionary crimes of the accused, but it is my duty as the defense lawyer to say they were corrupted by……”
Remember how differently people involved in “anti racist” riots were treated – including in the summer of 2024.
And how differently people who threatened to “cut the throats” of people they disliked, were treated.
@ Clovis Sangrail – the interaction between Native American individuals, Native Anerican tribal lands and the Fwderal law can be very complex, and I didn’t mean to oversimplify it.
Maybe I can illustrate by simple examples.
As a non-Native American, it is a Federal crime for me to take (by any means) certain protected classes of birds, such as eagles, or even to possess parts of them, such as feathers, even if I find them laying on the ground. People have gone and do go to jail for this.
Native Americans (affiliated with a recognized tribe or band) are exempt from this law.
The most obvious example that most people see in daily life is Native Ametican gaming, ie, casinos. While individual Native Americans, even those working inside the Native American nations, pay Federal income taxes, Native American owned and operated gaming facilities located on Native American lands (including trust lands not within the Native American nations) do not pay Federal taxes. This is how you get notionally ‘Native American’ casinos in downtown Detroit.
Native American nations are considered sovereign, and while Congress has passed laws that cause Federal law to generally apply inside the nations the same as outside, a lot of these laws deal only with ‘major’ federal crimes, and many ‘minor’ matters which outside the nations would be matters for the Feds are instead left to tribal law and tribal courts.
The other sides of the coin are the specific and unique benefits and rights which the Feds have created only for Native Anericans. There is a special federally-funded health service only available to Native Americans, a vast array of subsidies, grants and benefits for housing, education, training and straight cash welfare, and all sorts of preferences in hiring, contracting and purchasing set asides for Native Americans.
Simple examples, but they show that the US is quite capable of creating a defined class of citizens that is subject to different jurisdictions than other classes of citizens.
llater,
llamas
@bobby b
But – one of the main precepts of legal interpretation is, you look first at the actual black-letter law – the words used, in this case, in the 14th Amendment – and if they are clear on their face, you are done with your analysis.
Perhaps, but to me, as a layman, that never seems to be the standard. For example, our second amendment tells us “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged”. The words here are plain, but there is a “let’s not be absurd” exception which means that although the plain meaning would not allow it we can restrict arms from the insane and the criminal, or from carrying them within a courthouse. “congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” which is plain in its meaning, but there is a “let’s not be absurd” exception which says that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. “congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble” has a very plain meaning but there is a “let’s not be absurd” exception that allows some manner of restriction on manner, time and place. Even though the plain words would allow a protest in the middle of the US Senate it seems reasonable to have some laws to restrict that, even if the broader principle is applied.
Of course that is a slippery slope, but isn’t all legal interpretation a slippery slope? The six wise justices in DC may well be textualists or originalists but I doubt they would be in favor of lifting laws restricting some of the exceptions I mentioned above. And as to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” there are perfectly reasonable “let’s not be absurd” exceptions worth considering, including some Mexican lady giving birth outside the border wall but on the north side of the Rio Grande, so technically in US territory.
Nonetheless, in my view the Trumpian EO is unlikely to prevail at the Supreme Court, and the point you all made is correct. Perhaps the 14th confers citizenship on babies born here, but whether that gives the child’s parents any rights, well here the 14th is entirely silent. I do think though that changing even that would require legislative action. And given that our legislature is entirely unable to do anything at all except name post offices or pass reconciliations, I think change there is unlikely.
The Left is evil, that much is demonstrably true. I don’t want the left wiped out, just kept away from the levers of power where it is capable of doing immeasurable harm.
Nothing surprises me anymore. Nothing. Well, maybe drones — their battlefield utility and effectiveness. I did not see that one coming. I should have — after all, I am a military historian — but I didn’t
@llamas
Thank you. Much clearer (in a very unclear way) now.
With regard to the 14th amendment, it is my understanding that it was passed to ensure that freed slaves were US citizens, and that their children were also, therefore, US citizens. There was no intention to confer “birthright citizenship” on any child who happened to be born in the USA of foreign parents. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country, not the USA.
I would imagine that any examination of the debates over the 14th amendment would make this clear, and I would therefore expect President Trump to prevail in the Supreme Court.
I’m surprised Trump hasn’t issued an EO to mandate Federal Voter ID. Definitely feels like a Day 1 job.
The good news is, the “anchor baby” concept isn’t found anywhere in law. If you have a child in the US, the child is a US citizen – but the parents gain no legal standing.
The bad news is, it’s been a “custom” for some time to make it easier for parents to stay here if they have a US-citizen kid.
The best news is, it’s executive-branch agencies that have developed and utilized this custom. So a simple order from the boss ought to legally suffice to end this custom.
So, we’ll see.
It’s said that revenge is a dish best served cold. It’s breathtaking how fast Trump has achieved his revenge, even if he does nothing else. Thanks to Elon, his team, and some remarkable “follow the money” “software, it’s been “Shock and awe”. The damage is done, our racketeers have had the rug pulled out from underneath them. They’re on the defensive now.
I don’t know, but it seems that this software could be used anywhere. What do you think? Who’s up next?
Let’s say you murder someone during a bank robbery – a crime that brings in the federal murder statute, whether or not the crime happens on rez land.
The US Marshals will come and get you even if you are hiding on rez land, and whether or not you are NA.
US jurisdiction extends to anyone within the US, unless you have a pre-agreed grant of immunity.
The US border detention facilities are full of people – adults and kids – who have subjected themselves to US jurisdiction by bringing their bodies into the US.
The whole concept of “reservation as a separate country” is a polite fiction. The US and the states usually allow them to prosecute misdemeanor crimes and handle civil lawsuits that occur within their boundaries, but anything criminally serious is still subject to fed jurisdiction.
mongoose – it occurs to me that some people may not understand what we mean when we say “on remand”.
Just in case anyone does not know – “on remand” means people who have been found guilty of no crime being sent to prison (with all the horrors of modern gang-ruled prisons – and the Islamic gangs have a special hatred for people who have been sent to prison for being “Islamophobic”) to wait for their trial, the Prime Minister seemed to instruct the judges to do this – and some judges eagerly did it.
It was done to break people (it was not done because people were a flight risk – i.e. that they might not turn up for their trials), to make people plead guilty.
As far as we know only one prisoner has, so far, killed themselves.
Various random thots.
@ Clovis Sangrail – if you thought my post clarified matters, I obviously didn’t do a very good job. The law around Native Americans on vs off tribal lands, Federal vs State vs tribal law and matters of jurisdiction can be a mess that Solomon himself would have struggled with. bobby b. expands on this nicely.
I know a criminal defence attorney in Wyoming, now retired, who freely admitted that in some cases, neither she, nor the state’s attorney, nor the US attorney, could figure out what the law actually was, and that they often came to some sort of ad-hoc agreement that seemed to satisfy the needs of justice but which none of them could fully square with all the various laws and jurisdictions in play.
Apparently, civil matters involving Native American lands and property could be even-more confusing, often tangling with issues like water rights, fish-and-game and so forth.
The Pine Ridge reservation has been mentioned here, again. I very-much now dislike the term ‘reservation’, but let it stand. I have been to Pine Ridge, many times, and seem to recall describing the hopeless mess that is the town of White Clay, on the southern edge of Pine Ridge, on these very pages. Pine Ridge is the kind of economic, social and political mess that only a truly benevolent government can create.
However, I think it’s important to observe that there are many Native American tribal and trust lands that are not like Pine Ridge at all, that have developed industries, economies and support systems for the Native Americans that live there, and that generally function successfully. Yes, some of them are based on gaming (whatever you may think about that) and of course the ever-helpful Federal government is never too far away, but the point is that these places can be positive and successful, the more so when they adopt so far as possible free-market and capitalist approaches.
llater,
llamas
Curious – why? That’s the word they use. They also call themselves Indians – none of this Native American stuff that we all seem to have adopted out of politeness.
(I have two framed certificates somewhere – long lapsed – admitting me to the “bar” of the Anishinaabe and the Mdewakanton tribal legal councils, allowing me to defend clients at the tribal courts, from way back when I started and my client selection process consisted of “do you have ANY money?”. Had to learn their law and take their short bar exams to get them.
They used to laugh at my attempts at political correctness, until I called them Indians and talked about the rez.)
Regarding ‘reservation’, I know it’s the word they use, there’s “the rez”, some tribal lands are officially called ‘reservations’, and so forth. I just think it devalues the idea that they are, in some legal sense at least, sovereign nations, for all that I know you feel (and I somewhat-agree) that this is something of a legal fiction. I just prefer ‘tribal lands’ or (in a hat-tip to John Wayne) ‘the Indian nations’.
Regarding ‘Indians’, again, I know it’s common usage among them, I’m just tired of the confusions with people from India. It’s an outmoded term, IMHO. Native American may be polite, but what it is is unambiguous.
llater,
llamas
Just a funny aside – a guy told me “first, you guys come in and steal our land, and then those damned dot-Indians come over and steal our name!”
Just before the last Inauguration, Senator Elizabeth Warren walked into a swanky DC restaurant where the Trump family were dining. The waiter asked her ‘Do you have a reservation?’ and Trump called over ‘Not any more!‘.
I worked for decades with a Native American, a fully-enrolled member of his band but completely integrated. He used to.love giving us all crap in the run-up to salmon fishing season.
He told me two things that have always stuck with me, viz:
i) The more feathers, the less Indian
and
ii) I never realized how many cousins I had until they opened the casino.
Hecreally, really despised Pretendians, of which Michigan has plenty.
llater,
llamas
@llamas
You did a good job of clarifying that things were very unclear.
DOGE has begun to employ a new and most cruel weapon, against which the Left has no defence, the EMP or ‘Elon Musk Pulse’, which cuts off funding to Dem scams. The damage is estimated at $400,000,000,000 and rising.
llamas – a “nation” is not dependent on American taxpayers, the Reservations are not nations. If they were nations then their inhabitants would have no right to vote in American elections. It is time to cut the Gordian Knot – and hand over the land to INDIVIDUALS – to keep or sell as they please. And no more taxpayer subsidies.
“What about Israel” – I do NOT exclude Israel, to be dependent on American aid is unhealthy (to put it mildly) Israel should turn down that aid.
Mr Ed – yes indeed Mr Musk is doing good work.
Mr Ed, the deep state situation has developed not necessarily to their advantage….