SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump will sign an executive order to allow local police departments to receive or purchase military surplus equipment:
Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."
The move rescinds limits on the Pentagon handouts that were put in place by President Barack Obama in 2015 amid a national debate over policing touched off by a spate of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of the police, including the shooting death in 2014 of 18-year-old Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., by a white officer. Some local residents viewed police use of military equipment during the ensuing protests as an unnecessary show of force and intimidation.
In a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Mr. Sessions said Mr. Obama had made it harder for the police to protect themselves and their neighborhoods. "Those restrictions went too far," Mr. Sessions said. "We will not put superficial concerns above public safety."
Mr. Sessions said that President Trump would sign an executive order on Monday fully restoring the military program, called 1033, and that the president was doing "all he can to restore law and order and support our police across the country." [...] The program was started in the 1990s as a way for the military to transfer surplus equipment to federal, state and local police agencies fighting the drug war. More than $5 billion in surplus gear has been funneled to law enforcement agencies.
Organized gangs get to play soldier.
Also at The Hill and USA Today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:58PM (16 children)
That was true during the past few elections, but there's an obvious difference between President Trump and other candidates in recent elections. It's pretty much impossible to consider him "Republican establishment" in any sense, and it's clear that his policies are very different from what the Democrats want.
Just look at a major issue like border control as an example. Democrats and their supporters appear to want the borders to be wide open, allowing all sorts of third-worlders to flow into America unchecked. President Trump has proposed the exact opposite of this, which has of course angered many on the political left.
President Trump's policies are significant different from those of the Democrats, and even sometimes different from what the establishment Republicans want.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:06PM (11 children)
> Just look at a major issue like border control as an example.
Shall we?
> Democrats and their supporters appear to want the borders to be wide open, allowing all sorts of third-worlders to flow into America unchecked.
Total bullshit, thanks for spewing Fox rhetoric.
Remember the part where Obama's tenure had the most deportations of any president?
Sure, he was evil enough to not reject refugees, or offer protection to people who were brought in as kids, or prioritize criminals for ejection, or build the border fence that Congress voted, or call for immigration reform, or raise the number of border patrols... Oh wait, I lost my point ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:18PM (6 children)
Deportations, regardless of who's doing them, is a sure sign that there are significant border control issues. If somebody needs to be deported for being in a country illegally, that inherently means that they violated the border in some way.
Ideally it would get to the point where no deportations are necessary, because border security would be properly enforced. This enforcement would include physical barriers that would prevent border violations, or at least make them much harder to accomplish.
If Obama had been serious about border control, then there would not be the current problem that President Trump is trying to deal with. Why is that? Because during his 8 years of power, Obama would have ensured that all illegal aliens would have already been deported, and a border wall would already have been built.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:09PM (3 children)
So, besides proposing to deport 11 million people in 8 years (without funding, I'm sure), despite the opposition of Rep-loving employers who love to pay poverty wages, you also think that a 2000-mile wall through a huge variety of difficult landscapes could be build in under 8 years (also without extra funding, I'm sure), by a country which was at the bottom of the deepest recession in 8 years while engaged in 2+ wars?
Can't tell if troll or total idiot.
Additional question: Do you know what's the ratio of illegals who just overstay a legal visa, rather than run through Arizona? You might want to educated yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:13AM (1 child)
The highest cost estimates for the wall are comparable to the amount we spend each year to deal with illegal aliens. Even if a wall has to be replaced every two years, it's still financially beneficial.
Another comparable number is the cost of a government shutdown. The last one was actually a bit more than the wall cost. Anybody willing to cause a government shutdown to avoid the cost of a wall is thus full of shit.
Walls are dirt cheap compared to interstate highways. Take a look at a road map of the USA. Yes, we can build this.
The visa issue is a red herring. Some criminals break windows, and others rush in when you step outside, so maybe there is no point having a lock on your door? No, that makes no sense. Each security failure should be dealt with. In the case of visas, that obviously means issuing fewer of them. It also means tracking people down, checking to make sure they leave, and putting out rewards for finding those that slip away. It is the same as tracking any other type of criminal really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:48AM
That assumes, of course, that a wall would actually be effective; it probably wouldn't. They have tunnels, would climb over the wall using various means, and often just fly into the country anyway. This is not an army of primitive barbarians that you can slow down with a simple wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:14PM
Not to mention the amount of visa overstays that are due to the fact that they can't get their visas renewed because there isn't funding for the department that renews the visas?
Basically, those people are made criminals by a bureaucracy that can't do its job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:10PM
Not while there's any way to legally enter the country without acquiring permanent resident status, dumbass. Any temporary or conditional visa can be overstayed or violated, and the person who entered legally then needs deported.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:22PM
Since you appear to have not been paying attention the last few decades (at least!) I am going to pour some cold water on your little screed. Fact: illegal aliens have been in this country far longer than since 2008. Hell, there have been illegals in this country far longer than Obama has been alive. Fact: Obama did deport many illegals out of the country; I'm not going to bother to look it up for you but I seem to recall that he has in the past been referred to as the "Deporter in Chief". And a border wall is an expensive boondoggle; it will do little to nothing to stop the flow of illegals into the country.
Next time: Read. Think. (optionally) Post. Do not change this order.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday August 30 2017, @02:55AM (3 children)
No. Turns out he didn't have [migrationpolicy.org] the most deportations of any president, both Clinton and Bush had a lot more. Obama had 5.3 million deportations over his two terms while Bush had 10.3 million and Clinton had 12.3 million deportations. Where Obama policy differed [aljazeera.com] was in the harshness of the deportations ("removal" versus "return" with the former having much nastier legal repercussions, including prison, for those who illegally immigrate repeatedly).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:17AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:56AM (1 child)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
What's the point of having laws if there are no consequences?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 01 2017, @01:13AM
Status signaling for law makers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:01PM (3 children)
Yes, this is exactly what we Democrats want! And we want these non-white immigrants to rape your horses and ride off on your women! Hahahaha! Would you say we Democrats have a plethora of Piñatas? [amazon.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)
I'm pretty sure I vote Democrat so that the South Americans get to rip the Hearts out of the white men's chests, give them to the Chinese Organ traffickers, who will use an app coded by Indians to sell them to Muslims, while the Blacks burn the rest of the bodies on crosses to warm up the Natives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:59AM (1 child)
The parent comment should be modded -1, Psychotic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @05:42AM
Time to recalibrate your sarcasm detector. I don't think bob_super is correct about much, but even so I can read the parent, bob's reply, and see the obvious and sane mockery bob makes of the post he replied to.