Joaquin Castro doubles down amid backlash over tweeting names of Trump donors

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, dehumanizing rhetoric that encourages violence (how do we typically respond to “invaders”?) is exactly the same as the articles “and” and “the”. The right’s response to this is parody at this point.

Not other than in the eye of one who wishes to be offended by Trump. Has Trump ever referred to legal immigrants as anything remotely like “invaders”? No, he has not. He has said time and again that he welcomes immigration. What he opposes is illegal immigration, and he has said that numerous times. It is only because people who dislike or even hate him for other reasons that they extend his epithets for lawbreakers to people who are not, and say he said it when he didn’t.

 

[Larry1700]

I take it you are not actually familiar with how the law is prosecuted. Or maybe it is a state to state issue. None the less, this demonstrates the problem with every amateur with an internet having an “informed” opinion.

I’ll take the “amateur with an internet” shot from you, because I don’t have a law degree, and I actually do have access to “an” internet.

But you failed to explain what you believe I got wrong when I quoted FindLaw.com, and the basis of your belief.

Oh, and due to your sarcastic remark, I’m assuming that you will include proof of your bona fides (thus demonstrating that you are not an amateur), and a picture of the page(s) from the law book you’re using (since using “an” internet is apparently not a valid source). If not, then I reserve the right to dismiss your explanation out of hand.

 

[Larry1700]

There is WAY too much personally identifying information available to anyone with sufficient time or a little money.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t have a law degree, and I actually do have access to “an” internet.

If you are in the USA you should be able to find how trespass is codified into law for your state. Presence on/in someone’s property is a necessary condition for trespass but might not be a sufficient condition. It isn’t a sufficient condition for my state.

As trespass law may have some variation from state to state knowing that someone has entered a yard doesn’t give enough information to determine if trespass has occurred; one might also need to know where the property is located to know what conditions apply.

 

[Larry1700]

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co ., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)

I read the case summary at Supreme.Justia.com, but I guess I’m not seeing your point. If you’re saying that my scenario could be prosecuted as causing economic damage on the theater, I tend to agree. The same could be said for business owners identified on Castro’s list. Are you and I in agreement, or am I missing something?

Check your local laws for the required elements of trespass. I am only speaking on the laws for my region.

Understood.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll take the “amateur with an internet” shot from you, because I don’t have a law degree, and I actually do have access to “an” internet.

That was a shot at society, not you. We all seem to have an expert opinion on everything based on internet access. Digital information will be the undoing of this generation. To make matters worse, people are drawn to that which confirms them in their beliefs. That is why Trump supporters trust places like Breitbart, and those in the Sanders camp would migrate to Huffington, while both accuse CNN of fake news.

To answer your question, though, trespassing requires knowledge that one is trespassing. In most cases, this requires a trespass warning be given by an officer first, though in areas where the signage meets the law, then such a warning may not be required. That is in Texas. Likewise, the mere presence of someone in this country is not trespassing. It might be illegal entry or not. There have been American citizens arrested and detained for looking and sounding too much like an illegal alien, in direct contradiction to the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, and due to your sarcastic remark, I’m assuming that you will include proof of your bona fides

I am confused by this. I thought you were opposed to this sort of doxing.

 

[Larry1700]

We all seem to have an expert opinion on everything based on internet access. Digital information will be the undoing of this generation. To make matters worse, people are drawn to that which confirms them in their beliefs. That is why Trump supporters trust places like Breitbart, and those in the Sanders camp would migrate to Huffington, while both accuse CNN of fake news.

I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said. Our country is becoming more and more divided, largely based on where each of us gets our news. I disagree only to the extent that your post seems (to me) to imply that CNN is middle of the road. They used to be a great source of just-the-facts news. I was an avid watcher from its inception. Unfortunately, they drifted away from that model.

 

[Larry1700]

How am I doxxing you?

And please accept my apologies for thinking you were being sarcastic against me. I think I understand your comment better now.

 

[pnewton]

We are not supposed to ask for personal information. So without specifics, and with nothing to back it up but my word, I have said this much here at CAF; I have been in law enforcement for three decades. I have seen so much harm coming from the internet. I know there is a lot of good, but with human nature being what it is, I wonder if we might not all have been better off without it.

One last thought on this subject. Lincoln once stated:

A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

… then at Gettysburg, he said,

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Or last great division cost us a generation of young men. What this will cost remains to be seen. However, I will predict, though not live to see it, that the party that provides the leadership to bring us back together, to relearn the lesson of common ground and compromise, will be the party that leads us for decades to come.

Joaquin Castro has provide an excellent example of what we do not need leading us.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I read the case summary at Supreme.Justia.com, but I guess I’m not seeing your point. If you’re saying that my scenario could be prosecuted as causing economic damage on the theater, I tend to agree. The same could be said for business owners identified on Castro’s list. Are you and I in agreement, or am I missing something?

One of the elements of the case is that members of the NAACP were posted outside of the businesses that were being boycotted. If they saw someone violate the boycott they would take down the persons name and the names of the people that didn’t adhere to the boycott were read at the next NAACP meeting. You may be able to see some parallels with the scenario that you constructed above.

Trump supporters watching carefully to see who goes to see the new “Hunt” movie, taking pictures of their faces, their cars, and their license plate numbers, then publishing that information, along with other pertinent publicly available information, in the local paper or local digital news source?

When things went to court there were a number of issues to be addressed, many of which I am ignoring here (ex: prosecuting for antitrust). What was relevant is that when the case made it’s way to SCOTUS they ruled that the activities of the boycott including sharing the names of the people that were shopping at the stores anyway to be Constitutionally protected.

That said, if one were planning to do the above it would be a good idea to consult a legal professional to ensure they don’t do anything that steps outside the law. There are a number of ways someone could stray into illegal territory and one might want to stay on the right side of that line. There may also be limits on what information one can publish and the conditions under which it can be published or restricted.

 

[Felicia1]

Has Trump ever referred to legal immigrants as anything remotely like “invaders”? No, he has not.

Has he referred to undocumented immigrants as “invaders”? What is the typical response to an “invasion”?

 

[TheLittleLady]

The trade off of a free society with modern technology

 

[Ridgerunner]

Has he referred to undocumented immigrants as “invaders”? What is the typical response to an “invasion”?

I don’t know if he has or not. The typical response to an invasion is resistance; initially by demonstrating a willingness to resist, then by actually repelling the invader. Trump, I believe, wants to do the first by building a wall, and the second by going through the process necessary for deportation. Democrats, as near as I can tell, want to do neither.

 

[Felicia1]

I don’t know if he has or not.

It’s interesting that you’re so familiar with Trump’s words that you can claim categorically he has never called documented immigrants “invaders” but when it comes to Trump’s actual use of the term you suddenly don’t know. I’ll help you out: Trump has, just as the El Paso shooter, referred to undocumented immigrants as “invaders” many times.

The typical response to an invasion is resistance; initially by demonstrating a willingness to resist, then by actually repelling the invader. Trump, I believe, wants to do the first by building a wall, and the second by going through the process necessary for deportation.

Given that that’s been the response to the “invasion” for decades now and doesn’t seem to work, what’s the next step? Shooting from the top of the wall or strafing immigrants from the air?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s interesting that you’re so familiar with Trump’s words that you can claim categorically he has never called documented immigrants “invaders” but when it comes to Trump’s actual use of the term you suddenly don’t know. I’ll help you out: Trump has, just as the El Paso shooter, referred to undocumented immigrants as “invaders” many times.

Sorry if my memory does not meet your standards. But I really don’t know whether he has used the term for illegals. Probably has, but I didn’t want to guess. I think if he had referred to legal immigrants as “invaders” I would have heard it for weeks straight.

Given that that’s been the response to the “invasion” for decades now and doesn’t seem to work, what’s the next step? Shooting from the top of the wall or strafing immigrants from the air?

I don’t think your “given” is really a given. Democrats have been resisting wall building for 2 1/2 years now, and have resisted securing the border with every means they have. So the responses haven’t failed. They have been prevented by the open borders party that wants every means to fail.

 

[pnewton]

Something else to consider is that there are laws on the books to protect fallout from those that will abuse this information. I was reading where one donor received a phone call stating, " “I think you’re a scumbag and I f***ing despise everything you stand for." That is the very definition of telephone harassment and is a criminal act in Texas, where it happened. So, simply swear out a warrant and arrest the man who broke the law. Remind others that free speech has limits, one of which is that you are not allowed to use one’s phone in a harassing manner. Likewise, any thing said as a threat is criminal and should be prosecuted. Let Castro see his supporters in jail, and maybe he will accept some responsibility for his speech as well.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I love how conservatives justify the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrants by saying “Look, the Democrats did it too!”

I didn’t claim the Dems did exactly what the Trump administration is doing. The Obama administration tried to keep minors and their putative parents together, but the Ninth Circuit said they couldn’t detain children by law enforcement, which is what Border Enforcement is. To my understanding, the Obama administration then just let them all into the country. Obama did keep minors, more than Trump has, and for longer, in detention, but they were unaccompanied minors. Trump administration, I believe, does the same thing, but also minors who are with putative parents or other guardians. Some of those relationships are real, some are not.

Trump attempted to resolve the Ninth Circuit’s problem by detaining the adults as before, but putting the minors with HHS, which is a welfare agency that has authority to take care of children and is not “law enforcement”. That was further restricted in time, but not forbidden, by the Ninth Circuit.

That, I believe, is where we are at the moment.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Nice! Does that include the 20,000 others who came along with me?

How do you suggest I get around my scriptural obligations?

Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
—Exodus 23:9

The foreigners residing among you must be treated as native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
—Leviticus 19:34

Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters. Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers for by doing that some have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.
—Hebrews 13:1-2

Peter reminds us that we ourselves ultimately don’t own the place we reside here on earth.

… live out your time as foreigners here with reverent fear.
—1 Peter 1:17

I’ve been Catholic since I was born and these principles form my perspective.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Some more wonderful addresses from the past. That’s why America was a great place, inspired under the tutelage of these wise and prudent men among men.