[2/2] … about it. But we cannot trust today's Supreme Court to insist on that. But even if it does, that decision will probably take months, during which thugs will eagerly arrest anyone who looks or sounds foreign.
Texas is about to make it a crime, under state law, to cross the border from Mexico without papers. Also, thugs will be allowed arrest anyone on vague suspicion of having entered Texas by crossing the border without papers. We know that they will make that judgment based on racial profiling. Since immigration is normally a federal matter, it is not clear states are allowed to make laws …
400 or so people came to Atlanta for a nonviolent protest against Cop City. They held a nonviolence training first. They brought gas masks because they expected the thugs to attack them with violence. That's exactly what the thugs did. They started attacking as soon as the protesters came close. The thugs also attacked press. The thug department seems to be run by Putin. Is it …
[3/4] … Australia should change that policy). So it should be adequate for non-Australian criminals too. I presume that Australia makes these decisions for specific ex-convicts based on what crime each committed. For instance, if the crime was bank robbery or embezzling, there is probably no need to care whether the criminal goes near a school. If Australian courts accept a certain restriction for a certain category ex-convicts when they are Australians, I expect it will accept the same …
[2/4] … to be directed at a possible threat to the community posed by the convict. Each of those two purposes calls for its own response; mixing them up is a mistake. For making sure the state can find the ex-convict in case deporting per ever becomes an option, keeping track of per movements is justified and should be sufficient. As for protecting the community from a possible threat posed by the ex-convict, whatever Australia does with Australian ex-convicts is presumably adequate (or …
Australia is rushing to make new policies for ex-convicts who are foreigners that it is impossible to legally deport. But they seem to be based on confusion of purpose. The imprisonment policy that the court rejected was used ex-convicts who would be deported if that were allowable. However, they have been mixed with policies that seem …
This illustrates how outsourcing of workers facilitates mistreating them. We need laws to limit outsourcing, or perhaps instead to make the ultimate beneficial employer (to borrow a term from the field of wealth-hiding) responsible for respecting workers' rights notwithstanding the outsourcing.
