Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Illegal Immigrants Block Traffic in Grand Rapids Marching for Driver’s Licences, Other Rights

Illegal Immigrants Block Traffic in Grand Rapids Marching for Driver’s Licences, Other Rights

“Whose streets? Our streets!”

https://youtu.be/H-1c59klVUk

Thousands of protesters marched in Grand Rapids, Michigan this week demanding rights for illegal immigrants. Blocking traffic has become a staple tactic for the left despite being extremely dangerous and annoying.

MLive reports:

Immigrant rights protesters block streets in downtown Grand Rapids

Grand Rapids resident Guadalupe Diaz said she remembers a time in her life when every time she drove, she was afraid of being taken away from her children.

She said she lived in fear without a driver’s license for 25 years until she could change her legal status and get one, which is why she joined hundreds of other marchers on May 1 for an immigrants’ right march.

“We are working for dignity in our lives,” she said. “As immigrants we deserve to have a decent life like any other member of the community and by that we need to have a driver’s license and have a path for immigration as well.”

Organized by Movimiento Cosecha GR, “Gran Marcha del Puente del 1o. Mayo” started at Roosevelt Park and ended in Clyde Park in Downtown Grand Rapids, roughly a three-mile march.

As they moved through Grand Rapids and blocked traffic on some of the city’s streets, the protesters asked for respect, dignity and the rights of “under-documented immigrants” to have driver’s licenses.

Karla Barberi, a volunteer organizer for Movimiento Cosecha, said one of the most terrifying experiences for an undocumented worker is being pulled over by the police.

Consider the irony of chanting “Whose streets? Our streets!” when you’re in a country illegally:

Here’s more, via Twitter:

Do they want more Trump? Because this is a great way to get more Trump.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

They came here without following the rules. Now they demand new rules. And they’ll follow those because, er, um, who cares? Dignity!

She said she lived in fear without a driver’s license for 25 years until she could change her status (from illegal to legal) and get one, which is why she joined hundreds of other marchers on May 1 for an immigrants’ right march.

“We are working for dignity in our lives,” she said. “As illegal immigrants we deserve to have a decent life (in your country, illegally) like any other (criminal) member of the community and by that we need to have a driver’s license and have a path for immigration as well.”

Fixed it for you, you are welcome…

    C. Lashown in reply to onlyabill. | May 2, 2018 at 5:28 pm

    I just don’t understand people. America gives people “rights” and then they line up and start whining for their “rights” without exercising the ones they have.

    Illegal aliens have the “right” to leave the country immediately and peacefully. When they refuse to exercise that “right” then serious problems will hopefully ensue, assuming there isn’t a liberal or progressive involved to pervert justice. Yup, ‘perverts tend to pervert’ everything they touch.

      pwaldoch in reply to C. Lashown. | May 3, 2018 at 2:35 pm

      What SHOULD happen is ICE ought to roll up some vans behind the protesters and gather up anyone that can’t prove on the spot they are legal citizens. The rest get charges for blocking traffic. Then process the rest and remove anyone here illegally, and every one of those now has a charge against them for blocking traffic and we ever see them again, we ship their butt’s out liek any other felon that returns.
      I’d beat ya that be the last year you’d see those protests clogging the streets.

I think it’s wonderful they all gather in one place. Ice needs to buy some of Soros buses and scoop them up at these tyoe of things

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to rduke007. | May 2, 2018 at 11:08 am

    Make sure to give the fuel contract to the Koch Bros.

    Detain them in an empty Trump Casino.

How about, we simply pass a law that any illegal found in the country will be subject to the laws of their original country?

    Milhouse in reply to onlyabill. | May 2, 2018 at 10:41 am

    Um, how would that help? Do you want to exempt them from our laws?! That would be pretty dumb, even if it were constitutional to do it (and I don’t think it would be).

    Whether they’re subject to their home country’s laws is a matter for their home country, not for us; their home country may claim they’re still subject to its laws, but so long as they’re here it can’t enforce them. For that matter their home country may claim even you and I are subject to its laws; if so we’d be well-advised never to visit that country or we may find ourselves facing charges for things we’ve done quite legally here. But I don’t see how this helps your suggestion or makes it a good idea.

    If you meant to say that our police and legal system, in dealing with illegal immigrants, should be free to break our own laws and commit whatever crimes they like, so long as what they’re doing would be lawful in the victim’s home country, that’s an astonishingly lawless suggestion, and of course thoroughly unconstitutional. Everybody in the USA, regardless of their citizenship or legal status, is protected by the bill of rights and the 14th amendment.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 10:53 am

      The 14th amendment needs to be amended to end the anchor baby problem.

        Milhouse in reply to JusticeDelivered. | May 2, 2018 at 11:07 am

        Lotsa luck with that. It would be easier to amend the 2nd than the 14th. But even if you managed such an amendment it wouldn’t change the rest of the amendment, which gives everyone in the US the same protections. And amending or repealing that would be as difficult as doing so to the first amendment.

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to JusticeDelivered. | May 2, 2018 at 11:12 am

        Major problem with rich foreigners flying in to have their babies and flying back out. Hmmm, maybe we should be flattered!

          No. It is a long term strategy. Most of these foreigners are influential people from influential families who want to have ‘native born’ children for future political moves in the US.

        the problem isn’t the amendment, it’s the judicial interpretation of that amendment that is the problem. even if you could get it written to exclude anchor babies, a court could come along and put it back in.

          Milhouse in reply to ronk. | May 2, 2018 at 3:34 pm

          BS. It is the amendment itself, which has only ever been interpreted one way because there is simply no other way to interpret it. Its text is as plain as day. Anybody born in the US and subject to their jurisdiction, i.e. anyone who, if they were to commit a crime here, could be arrested by US police and tried in a US court, is a citizen. Anybody validly naturalized is a citizen. And once someone is validly a citizen they can never lose it without their consent, no matter what they do. (Of course it may be discovered that someone thought to be a citizen was actually born on the wrong side of the border, or wasn’t properly naturalized, and thus was never a citizen in the first place.)

        Milwaukee in reply to JusticeDelivered. | May 2, 2018 at 2:32 pm

        Tread carefully in desiring to end the “anchor baby” part of the 14th Amendment. My understanding is that France is not so “hobbled”. What they have instead is descendants of Algerians, who are several generations removed from Algeria, who have only ever lived in France, and yet are not French citizens. They speak French. That creates a whole new set of problems, which might be worse. At least, if a baby becomes a citizen, we can treat them as a citizen, and ask they behave as a responsible citizen.

        I recall hearing the author of the book Project Girl tell of her experience of living in Paris, as a Black woman from Brooklyn. She could speak French like a native, but then was treated as if she was a North African, so she left a little Yankee in her speech. When she was identified as a Yank, she was treated much better, regardless of her skin color.

          pwaldoch in reply to Milwaukee. | May 3, 2018 at 2:46 pm

          France is hobbled by their reluctance to deport people that aren’t citizens. If they actually did that in conjunction with their law, they wouldn’t have long term non citizen issues liek that. But then again neither would we in the USA.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2018 at 8:30 pm

      I totally agree. Foreign laws have no place in our courts. I’m thinking Sharia. I will do nothing to hurt my own cause. And no, Sharia is not compatible with American law. Unless you think laws that allow for honor killings, men can beat their wives because men are in charge of women because they are superior which is why they can beat them, and because women are inferior they only inherit half of what a man inherits and that it takes two women’s testimony to equal the testimony of one man, there is no freedom of conscience or religion expressly provided for in our First Amendment, and apostates from Islam must be killed.

      https://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

      “Reliance of the Traveller. ‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence.”

      I know this is going to come as a huge surprise, so sit down and take a deep breath. When Muslim Brotherhood front groups, like CAIR, or other Sharia supremacists like Linda Sarsour tell you that Sharia is benign, they are lying.

Were they chanting, “Who’s streets? Our Streets.” in English or Spanish?

    Milhouse in reply to DanJ1. | May 2, 2018 at 10:42 am

    “Whose”, not “who’s”. Though they may not know the difference.

      mrboxty in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 1:19 pm

      Keep your repressive, patriarchal pronouns to yourself or I’ll start insisting you use “xhose” instead of “whose!” 🙂

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2018 at 8:53 pm

      Of course they don’t know the difference, Milhouse. They can’t be bothered to learn English. They’re told it’s racist for us to insist they learn English. I was stationed in Japan for seven years. I learned to read my electric bill inside of three weeks.

      It’s a matter of respect. The war with Japan ended in the early ’50s. We were no longer the conquering invaders by the time I got there in the early ’90’s. I gave it to the Japanese without being forced. But American leftists hate us as much as the Islamists. Get a clue.

    filiusdextris in reply to DanJ1. | May 2, 2018 at 10:45 am

    Gotta be English, in Spanish it would be like 5 extra words. (“De quienes son las calles? Son las nuestras.”)

Here’s the moral choice. When illegals block the street in front of you, do you maintain speed or do you accelerate?

They block traffic in an effort to get somebody killed. Somebody will die. My guess is that it will be some teenage girl with poor situational awareness.

It is heartening to see the entire Grand Rapids police force mobilized to keep the roads open and the taxpaying citizens safe!

    Close The Fed in reply to Chicklet. | May 2, 2018 at 10:40 am

    No, they’re protecting the illegal alien marchers.

    Should be 287(g) participants so they can enforce immigration law and pick these people up and send them to ICE for deportation.

    Horses for the illegals!!

OleDirtyBarrister | May 2, 2018 at 9:39 am

They have already won half of the battle by getting the weak to call them “illegal immigrants” or “undocumented” instead of illegal aliens. It shows that Americans care what they think when in fact they do not care what Americans think about them and their invasion at all.

    Milhouse in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | May 2, 2018 at 10:51 am

    Wrong. “Illegal immigrants” is the correct term. They are people who have immigrated illegally. “Illegal aliens” makes no sense. As they say, 100% correctly, a person cannot be illegal; only actions can be illegal. Immigration is an action, which they have done illegally, so they are illegal immigrants, just as someone driving illegally is an illegal driver. “Alien” is a status, not an action, and they broke no laws in becoming aliens. “Illegal alien” is no more valid a concept than “illegal redhead” or “illegal tall person”; people are aliens or they aren’t, and no law can forbid them from being so.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 11:06 am

      As is the case with some frequency, you are not correct.

      The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
      —United States Code, Title 8, §1101(a)(3)

      An illegal alien…is any alien (1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without inspection, or (2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and—(A) whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or (B) whose unlawful status was known to the Government, before the date of the commission of the crime for which the alien is convicted.
      —United States Code, Title 8, §1365(b)

        Milhouse in reply to Edward. | May 2, 2018 at 4:07 pm

        The US Code cannot change English grammar. USC 8 §1365(b) merely gives the definition for the term as used in the previous subsection.

      Granny in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 11:41 am

      Wrong. ILLEGAL ALIENS is the correct term.

        tom_swift in reply to Granny. | May 2, 2018 at 12:18 pm

        “Invaders” is a better one.

          Arminius in reply to tom_swift. | May 3, 2018 at 8:47 pm

          If they are claiming the right to OUR streets, then invader is only appropriate term. I’m sure Milhouse will say something completely unconvincing in opposition.

      Obie1 in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 12:08 pm

      So you must also conclude that there is no such thing as an illegal gun.

        Milhouse in reply to Obie1. | May 2, 2018 at 4:04 pm

        Not at all. Objects can be illegal. People can’t be. Making a person illegal would be a bill of attainder.

        But people can do illegal things, thus becoming illegal doers of that thing. Someone who drives illegally is an illegal driver. Someone who practices medicine illegally is an illegal doctor. And someone who immigrates illegally is an illegal immigrant.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2018 at 8:44 pm

          Milhouse, I don’t understand why you insist on covering yourself with FAIL so often. Because sometimes you seem to be intelligent.

          https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxation-of-nonresident-aliens

          The correct term for foreign national in this country legally on a non-immigrant visa is “alien.” They are here legally on non-immigrant visas because they bothered to jump through the hoops and come here as workers of US companies, or business owners, or executives of foreign companies opening plants in the U.S., or a variety of other reasons. And the legal term for them them is not “non-immigrant immigrant.” They are legal aliens.

          Illegal aliens couldn’t even bother to do that. The legal term is illegal alien. I will not comply with your irrational insistence to dignify the presence of illegal aliens in this country with the term “immigrants.” The only immigrants in this country are those who came here on an immigrant visa.

          Game, set match.

          walls in reply to Milhouse. | May 6, 2018 at 10:22 am

          You’ll never understand the difference between an IMMIGRANT and an INVADER. Sad.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | May 2, 2018 at 5:40 pm

    Milhouse, you ignorant poser.

    Don’t you have any other hobbies besides pretending to be an attorney on the internet?

Well, if American law enforcement does nothing to stop such behavior by criminals, then maybe these are “their streets.”

Quit voting for Marxists, Communists, Socialists, or Fascists at any level of government and this will rapidly change.

    Edward in reply to OldNuc. | May 2, 2018 at 11:17 am

    But for whom will the voters who are registered as Democrats vote?

      meyou in reply to Edward. | May 2, 2018 at 2:21 pm

      Communists in America SOMETIMES reveal themselves to be Communists. Not usually, though. They are Democrats; did you not know that? Communist Party USA always endorses the Dem candidate, unless they have a Communist candidate running for a position. Communist=Democrat. If you do the research you’ll see.

        Milhouse in reply to meyou. | May 2, 2018 at 4:09 pm

        That the communists endorse someone doesn’t make that person a communist, any more than nazis endorsing someone makes them a nazi.

        tom_swift in reply to meyou. | May 2, 2018 at 9:28 pm

        Communist Party USA always endorses the Dem candidate, unless they have a Communist candidate running for a position.

        This doesn’t really say anything, since prior to the 1980s the CPUSA usually ran its own candidates for President and Veep. In a couple of elections circa 1950 there was no Communist Party candidate; instead the CPUSA endorsed the Progressive Party candidates (not the Democratic ones). Since the late 1980s the CPUSA has “urged” voters to support the Dem candidates, although it doesn’t “endorse” them—perhaps some Marxist thing, though it seems a distinction without a difference.

Wonder why they picked Grand Rapids. It is like one of the most conservative towns in Michigan.

    Edward in reply to MarkSmith. | May 2, 2018 at 11:19 am

    Why irritate your friends when you can do it to your enemies. And it seems incontrovertibly true that they see conservatives as the enemy.

I think there should be many, many more instances of blocking traffic, particularly in cities larger than Grand Rapids, but cities large and small will do just fine. Piss off everyone else, that’s the ticket! If you extensively employ this tactic you will surely get what you want, or at least deserve.

UnCivilServant | May 2, 2018 at 10:02 am

So, why weren’t these crowds rounded up, the illegals separated from people with the right to be here, the legal residents released and the illegals bounced straight back to their countires of origin?

    Tom Servo in reply to UnCivilServant. | May 2, 2018 at 10:11 am

    why weren’t they rounded up? In all seriousness, because this march was organized and financed by the local democrat party, which is seeking more than anything to sign up a horde of new voters that they can control and count on to maintain power.

    Since the local democrat party organized this, and the police and the city in Grand Rapids are run by them, the reason they weren’t “rounded up” is because the local police and the local city council were standing on the sidelines cheering and waving, and high fiving each other on a “job well done”.

    The illegal aliens are a huge problem – but an even bigger problem are the “Americans” who aid and abet and who bring them here and who organize crap like this in order to advance their own political power. The Illegals are stooges, pawns. There are big, wealthy, powerful people running this entire charade.

The horrifically stupid angle here is that the so-called authorities allow these clowns to block the streets. If they’re going to have their rally, fine. But they must not be allowed to block streets. Rudi Giuliani has opined on this. Keep them to the squares and sidewalks.

Once you let them have the streets they can bring a city or town to a halt. IOW, this is not a legal demonstration, when they block traffic. It’s a riot.

I am past sick of these illegals. The nerve! Making demands! They should try this in Mexico.

    Rick in reply to Titan28. | May 2, 2018 at 10:41 am

    I agree with your sentiments, but it does not take any “nerve” for illegals to do this.

      Edward in reply to Rick. | May 2, 2018 at 11:26 am

      Indeed. They know the people most likely to oppose them rarely, if ever, engage in violence as a response to this sort of provocation. And the police will protect them from the National Socialist fanbois* who might attack otherwise them.

      * The National Socialists (which includes White Nationalists) need no particular irritation to encourage them to violence against those who are aliens or even citizens of different culture and/or color.

Aw, the woman brought her dog to the march.

Is that an anchor baby dog?

IMMIGRANTS are already entitled to driver’s licenses.

Illegal ALIENS on the other hand are invaders and entitled to nothing.

Please use the correct terminology rather than muddying the waters by using “immigrant” when you mean “alien”.

    Milhouse in reply to Granny. | May 2, 2018 at 11:03 am

    You are wrong. Anyone who has immigrated here is an immigrant. Some have done so legally and some illegally. Your position is just as illogical as claiming that an illegal driver is not a driver at all, or that an illegal building is not a building.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 11:13 am

      When it comes to Mexicans, I bet the majority are illegals. The 14th amendmendment needs to change to make their spawn illegal, and it would be a plus if that thas retroactive back 40 or so years, sweeping up all those illegals Reagan gave amnesty. That really worked out well for America.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 11:29 am

      Oh drat! My other reply was three minutes too late to keep you from being wrong again.

      Granny in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 11:43 am

      Milhouse, you’ve been sold a snow job. Nowhere in immigration law will you find the term “illegal immigrant.” They are and have always been termed ILLEGAL ALIEN as in not a citizen and with no legal right to be here.

      neanderthal in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 12:00 pm

      The proper term is illegal alien.

      How would you distinguish between the people who are living here temporarily — e.g. for a job, or school and those who intend to move here permanently? For people who are here illegally, there is no declaration of intent to move here permanently, and so no way to know that someone intends to immigrate. So the broader term of illegal alien is correct.

        Milhouse in reply to neanderthal. | May 2, 2018 at 4:37 pm

        There is no need to make such a distinction. Their legal status is the same. So why not just take their word for it? If they say they intend to go back they’re illegal visitors; if they say they intend to remain they’re illegal immigrants. Either way they’re here without permission.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2018 at 10:51 pm

      Milhouse has just invented the non-immigrant immigrant visa. Remarkable.

Translation: Michigan is losing democratic voters and they are attempting to import the voters they want, using your tax dollars.

Michigan can expect their homeless populations to surge as well. It’s another way to use federal dollars to improve the democrat voter rolls.

“She said she lived in fear without a driver’s license for 25 years until she could change her legal status and get one, … ”

translation: “I was here for 25 years before I bothered to change my legal status, and I want you to feel guilty about it.”

No, thank you.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | May 2, 2018 at 11:04 am

    What makes you think she could have changed it earlier? Do you have any idea how difficult (rather, impossible) it is for most illegal immigrants to change their status? There is no line for them to join.

      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 11:23 am

      An illegal immigrant can change their status to one of legality by simply self deporting to their native country and then applying for admittance. If they have any family members leaglly in the US or are related to any American citizens, they move to the head of the que, for admission.

        Edward in reply to Mac45. | May 2, 2018 at 11:31 am

        Don’t confuse Milhouse with facts when he’s on a roll.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | May 2, 2018 at 4:19 pm

        No, they don’t. And from most of these countries there is no queue anyway.

        Facts?! From the person who thinks Reagan defeated Goldwater?!

      elle in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 11:31 am

      wow, you actually stumbled over what the actual problem is – No good pathway to LEGAL immigration for labor.

      Illegal immigration is human trafficking for cheap labor. There is nothing noble about supporting the maintenance of a servant class, forced to pay coyotes and cartels to cross the border where they are often robbed and raped – just so you can be afforded a higher status of living.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | May 3, 2018 at 10:56 pm

      Of course there’s not line for them to e**ing join. They’re here illegally. You think we’d make a special line just for them?

JusticeDelivered | May 2, 2018 at 10:46 am

Take enough animal transport semi trailers to the site, do not clean them up first, load illegals and haul them to Mexico. I am really sick of illegals demands. These people effectively cost every American money, and they have the gall to make demands.

Send them home.

Trying to make it all right to wave the Mexican flag by putting it under the American flag. Won’t work. Don’t wave the *^%*#@* Mexican flag in America!!

Question then Millhouse, my green card said “alien” on it? Wasn’t I a legal Allen?

    Milhouse in reply to scfanjl. | May 2, 2018 at 4:30 pm

    You were an alien; the terms legal or illegal don’t apply to that noun.

    You were a legal immigrant, i.e. you had immigrated legally.

Sorry, legal alien?

The real truth is that the people who use this cheap labor don’t want their workers legal so they don’t have to pay them a fair wage or even treat them well. What can illegal labor do about it? Go to the police?

These employers want to maximize their profits while we the taxpayer, pick up what the farmer does not have to provide for them to live – low cost housing, welfare, etc.

We get some of it back in cheaper milk – true, but at what cost? A shadow servant class of labor, forced to gamble their lives and savings to cross a dangerous border in the hopes of a better life. How can anyone feel good about that?

It used to be a fair enough deal. But the family farms and construction are mostly large corporate enterprises now. So why should we allow these million dollar corporations keep all the profit while we pick up the tab for the living cost of their labor?

They rally the tools, not to better the lives of immigrants, but to keep the spigot of servant class labor flowing. Anyone who supports it is their tool.

    Arminius in reply to elle. | May 3, 2018 at 11:48 pm

    The real truth? Do you think after spending 20 years enforcing our borders in the Navy I now want to compromise them? That’s insane. But, typical. I realize you who don’t want our laws enforced now look to me as the front line of border enforcement. That really should be the cops jobs. Again, insane, but again, typical buck passing. You know I can get sued by the deep-pockets illegal alien lobby?

    But what do you care? If it makes you happy, please know I’m still in business. But thanks to you I’ll never employ anyone again.

    Arminius in reply to elle. | May 4, 2018 at 12:19 am

    It burns me that you’d ya think I’k exploit people for money. And I realize you won’t believe me, Christ won’t forgive me if I’m lying. Maybe if no prosecutions come of it you may believe me.

Elle,

Which is why the only real economic way to stop the invasion is to target and punish or fine if convicted employers who game the system and take advantage of desperate people.

Yet this never seems to happen. We chase, intermittently, after an endless supply of illegal aliens. It’s like whack-a-mole.

So, yes. If the growers and raisers are forced to provide a proper wage, we will pay more for veges and fruits. So be it. What also may happen is that harvesting will become even more mechanized. Giant Combine harvesters everywhere.

People are shocked to find out that these characters are everywhere, in huge numbers. If it wasn’t in your back yard before well it is now. I repeat, the Constitution is now an artifact designed for a Western European population, not for 3rd worlders. These people were brought here by the cheap labor cabal who ignored the fact that the breed like amoeba.

    n.n in reply to jack burns. | May 2, 2018 at 1:29 pm

    Cheap labor, minority votes, diversity leverage/racketeering, remittance, immigration reform (e.g. social justice adventures/wars and collateral damage), redistributive change (e.g. welfare and social services for profit), population management in their native nations, and compensation for Planned Parenthood including selective child/abortion rites and other social progress.

    tom_swift in reply to jack burns. | May 2, 2018 at 9:53 pm

    Well, yes. The United States was intended to be run and administered by a subset of the total population. A large subset, but still a limited one. Determining the exact boundaries of those limits caused a bit of social and political unrest circa 1780, but excepting Shay’s Rebellion things didn’t get too bad. And later there was a gradual drift toward oligarchy which wasn’t arrested until the Civil War. Postwar emancipation of the freedmen advanced the idea of a more universal franchise than the eighteenth century had been prepared to accept. But things didn’t really go to hell until the early 20th century, with the idea that full voting citizenship would demand no qualifications whatever of the citizen. And we’re still stuck with that bizarre and ahistorical fantasy, with results we can see every day.

Albigensian | May 2, 2018 at 3:20 pm

These protesters may as well carry “Let’s see our way to another Trump presidency in 2020!” banners.

Do they realize how effective they are in recruiting Trump voters and just not care, or are they just oblivious to the actual consequences likely to flow from their actions?

Release indelible dye, such as is used in bank robbery bait money, to make the complainants readily and steadily identifiable. Then begin processing them for relocation to wherever they had their last driver’s license or the land of their native tongue.

Whenever someone going about his lawful business is obstructed by people deliberately blocking his way, it ought to be lawful, after giving due warning, to plow right through them as if they were not there, regardless of the consequences to their safety. By standing in the road they should be deemed to have consented to being hit. The same should apply to those who lie down on railroad tracks, and to those who invade a gun range or a bombing range (such as Vieques back when that was a thing). Keep on shooting or bombing and if they get in the way that’s their lookout.

    randian in reply to Milhouse. | May 2, 2018 at 9:21 pm

    Isn’t blocking people and preventing them from leaving the crime of false imprisonment? Florida law, for example, says this: the term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will. A large crowd clearly constitutes a threat even if they aren’t actually hurting you yet. These crowds should be arrested for that crime if they’re blocking roads and preventing drivers from leaving.

C. Lashown | May 2, 2018 at 5:19 pm

LIKE a fungus spreads, so does lawlessness. All three coasts are under attack for generations, and now the ‘heartland’ cries out: #MeToo. America has two main sets of ideological enemies in this meme warfare: truly lawless illegal immigrants and then their ideological supporters. They are both spreading the same message, let them both receive the same reward. Uphold the LAW!

any arrests? am sure ICE will be accommodating

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend