Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Democracy on a bad day (Score 1) 281

He does the same thing with copper. Bases it off old technology, ignores aluminium as a conductor, ignores recycling, and vastly over-estimates the requirement.

I am not familiar with other points, but this seems to be spot on. You don't replace copper with aluminum for very known reasons. Recycling for most rare materials is only theoretical, as it doesn't happen in practice, and batteries in 2026 are still currently largely just landfilled instead of recycling. So if I extrapolate from these points - Michaux is spot-on while you are confusing what ought to be with what is.

We might disagree on many points, but I think we can both agree that recycling should be much further along for all aspects of common goods - batteries, electronics, consumer plastics, etc.

Comment Re:You cannot destroy data, harmless or not ... (Score 1) 321

Nope, it has nothing to do with it as he is literally not being charged with a crime related to a border search.

Wrong. The border search is what allowed a legal search of his device.

That's not the article the prosecution went with. When you search without warrant or without cause you're not in the process of taking lawful possession of anything.

Unless you are Customs. They take lawful possession of things every day, contraband for example, and deny the contraband's entry into the USA. The person from which the contraband was confiscated may be allowed to proceed and enter the USA.

This isn't my view here, this is the prosecution. They themselves are declaring it has nothing to do with it.

No, you falsely conflate the obstruction with the circumstances of the search. The circumstances matter to the extent that the search was legal. Beyond that the obstruction stands on its own.

The part of the section you are ignoring is that of taking lawful possession.

Nope. That is thoroughly covered by performing a custom's inspection. Again, customs inspections lead to the government taking possession of property all the time.

"The statute lists examples including knowingly destroying, damaging, wasting, disposing of, or transferring property. It also includes taking “any other action” with respect to the property or records.

This will be an interesting test case for this law, because as far as anyone is concerned he didn't do *anything*.

You mean other than create a circumstance where the data was destroyed by providing false information? That sounds like an "any other action".

Perhaps you should review case history regarding setting "booby traps".

Comment Re: Projection (Score 1) 321

I think the states doing proportional allocation of electors rather than winner take all would effectively solve the problem.

Well, that and George Washington's opinion that political parties (factions) are evil and we should just vote for the better candidate regardless of party/faction. So I guess the other problem besides winner take all is that too many people vote party not candidate.

Comment Re:Fines forgiven, free transport, $3,000, may ret (Score 1) 132

I posted a google query, "what percentage of ICE detainees have a criminal warrant or removal order". Answer: 70.6% of people held in ICE detention have no criminal convictions, according to data from TRAC Reports current as of July 11, 2026 .... Does Holman have it wrong?

No, because the statics being referred to are much narrower than what Holman referred to, they only considering US based criminal activity.

Holman cited in the interview (Chris Cuomo ?) the statistics that just came across his desk, 70% (something like that IIRC) of detainees have a US criminal conviction or warrant, or removal order from an immigration judge, or a foreign criminal conviction or warrant, or are immediately deportable under a national security order (ie from Iran or other countries designated state sponsors of terrorism).

Many individuals with convictions have been found to have only minor offenses

CBP enforces the law as written by Congress. If they encounter someone here illegally they will deport them unless a judge tells them otherwise.

Comment Re:Fines forgiven, free transport, $3,000, may ret (Score 1) 132

Of course the purpose of the money was to steer future administration contracts

I think he was trying to help them get contracts now. The likelihood of a 2nd Trump admin seemed quite remote for most of the Biden term. The people who review the proposals and submissions doesn't really change admin to admin. It a technical specialty of part of the bureaucracy. The are tons of contractors out there that specialize in federal paperwork regarding contracts, grants, etc. Its a weird process and insider knowledge can make a huge difference. I see it all the time in academia, hiring a contractor to help write a grant proposal is common.

doesn't affect the fact that he was taking fast food bags stuffed with cash. That's weird no matter what job he had at the time.

I've done freelance software development. Some guy has three auto repair shops and wants a custom piece of software to help track parts and tools flowing between them. I estimate $3,000. He wants to pay cash. Weird, but I say sure and go buy one of those pens that verifies the ink of real currency.

Wrong (see, two can play at this idiotic game of just writing a single word vehement denial without specific reference to anything).

Read past the one word to the explanation that follows.

What I said about them not being part of the judicial branch is entirely true. They are so called 'administrative judges" and really should be considered in the same league as judges at a pie eating contest.

What you said was irrelevant. The Supreme Court has ruled that "due process" is sometimes an administrative process. And immigration based decisions have often been an administrative process for centuries.

Yes, the vast number of fake asylum claims have really screwed up the system.

Oh. Uh huh. Right, sure.

They take time. They contribute to the delays. Economic migrants are often coached as to what to say. The statistics on denial speak for themselves, even under liberal administrations with normal immigrations rates. Let alone the Biden era flood that swamped a system designed for the more normal rates.

You are confusing required to honor with actually honoring. They use various workarounds, like rushing people to airports to make it a fait accompli, ...

Nope. You claimed "judges have handled all this time often by simultaneously issuing a "final order of removal" and a stay on that order at the same time".

What you refer to is an extreme outlier where a judges "stay" order had not been sent to CBP until the civilian charter plane had left US territorial airspace and was in international airspace approaching its destination. A US judge has no authority to order a civilian aircraft in international airspace to return to the US. Then there is the issue of fuel, as it was nearing its destination the aircraft may not have had the fuel for a return.

and of course the classic of simply coercing people to "choose" to deport through various dirty tactics including ones that look a whole lot like human rights violations.

Fines forgiven, free transport, $3,000, may return in the future for legal immigration?

The fact that Homan is trying to pretend that it's all about stopping illegal immigration when a large part of what they are doing is throwing a monkey wrench into what would otherwise be legal immigration. For example, revoking green cards on the spot for things that don't meet the traditional crimes of moral torpitude standard.

Crossing the border at a place other than a "port of entry" has never been legal. Not even under liberal administration. There is a legal process. It requires showing up at a port of entry, identifying oneself, being interviewed, having a health screening, etc. As we did at Ellis Island for millions of legal immigrants.

Slashdot Top Deals

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...