Summary

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) pushed back against Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, after he suggested the DOJ investigate her for “aiding and abetting” illegal immigration.

Homan accused her of helping people evade ICE by educating constituents on their constitutional rights. AOC dismissed the threats, challenging Homan to proceed and calling him a “coward.”

Tensions are high over immigration enforcement and civil liberties, with AOC arguing that informing people of their rights is legally protected.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    255
    ·
    2 days ago

    AOC is what the democratic party needs to become. The sooner the party figures that out, the sooner they can start clawing back public support.

    • Laser@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, like what the fuck are they doing? Waiting for a ref to come in and say the other team isn’t playing fair? Time to sink to their level and fight back!

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        100
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        IMHO, she’s not sinking to their level. She’s actually being honest and authentic.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        👆 This right here. It may be oversimplified or “naive”, but I liken the Democrats as shills for the audiences of snake oil salesmen; they push back just enough to seem genuine, but they’re all in cahoots.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I find this rhetoric to be a blame game of nonfunctional government.

          Let’s say it easy. Did they want the ACA to be more, yes. Did it become more no.

          So let me ask you a simple question, do you want the ACA completely dissolved or still fighting for existence? Because that is the only real legacy of a Democratic ownership of the legislative body that has existed since Y2K.

          So do you support universal health care, or do you not? Because we are going to fight tooth and nail, claw by claw to fucking get it, and everyone who thinks otherwise is thinking that the companies lobbying against it will just suddenly “disappear” if you had the right candidate. Bull shit

          • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m at the point in my life, and understanding, that there is no right candidate. I don’t want the ACA at all. It’s been mutilated and mutated by the republicans (and indirectly by the democrats who rolled over and let it happen) so badly it’s not really that good. Sure, it’s probably better than nothing, or maybe it’s not. I don’t have that knowledge or experience to say.

            What I do want is universal healthcare (done right) and universal basic income (done right). I am sick and goddamn tired of the elites shitting on everyone below their economic status. No one — absolutely no one — needs to have that much money, power, or influence on everyone else’s lives.

            And at this point, there is absolutely no reason anybody shouldn’t be able to figure out truth versus bullshit. Anybody who believes vaccines cause harm, or trans anybody is out to rape the kids, or even as stupid as saying the earth is flat, needs to be rounded up and have something done with them; what, I don’t know. I’ll leave that to smarter people than me to figure out.

            And one more thing — let’s get this straight: free speech for the sake of being able to “express yourself” any which way you see fit is bullshit. It’s that mentality that got us here in the first place. No. If you say something - either with malice or ignorance - you need to be held responsible for any and all consequences (I’m looking at you Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carey, Rush Limbaugh (rot in hell), goddamn Republican/MAGA/Traitors). If I yell fire in a crowded theater, you’re damn right I should be punished for all damage and harm that comes from that.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              So how do you get your universal healthcare if not claw by claw in a democracy overriden by bureaucratic bribery? By pissing on those who support bits of it? Or by ignoring them and choosing nothing?

              If you want to fight for it, you do it by supporting those who support more, and tearing down those who down support any of it. Kill them if you have too, I don’t care. The point remains the same. If you compare it to a sports game, every inch matters. American football is like American politics. It’ll take 1,000,000 working class men to offset 1 oligarch at the minimal. We need about 70,000,000 working class people right now to get us pointed in the right direction. That’s just the start.

              By the way, love your thoughts about justice

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m sure they’re happy to hear they’re shills to new-hitler as per some internet rando.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    2 days ago

    Homan accused her of helping people evade ICE by educating constituents on their constitutional rights.

    Homan is saying teaching the US Constitution to people is a crime?! What the actual fuck!?

      • The2b@lemmy.vg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        107
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yes and yes. This is a long-settled matter, legally speaking.

        • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I’m having a hard time l finding anything that legally states illegal immigrants are considered constituents. What I am finding says that a constituent is a person who votes. Do you know where I can find any material supporting your claim?

          Edit: so much for polite. You people need to back off. I’m simply trying to learn something. Jesus, not everyone knows what y’all know.

            • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’m not a righty. I’m legit trying to find more info and my Google fu sucks. WTH people?

                • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I appreciate your response.

                  FWIW, I know that anyone in the US, regardless of citizenship status, has legal rights under the constitution. This is why the constitution uses the language of “people” and “person” and not “citizen”. It’s the use of the word constituent that I was lacking legal/political clarity on.

              • Maeve@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                2 days ago

                A constituent can mean either a part of the whole or someone who lives and votes in a district.

                • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Voting isn’t even a requirement. One definition is simply an individual who resides within an area represented by an elected individual.

          • TheLowestStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            The person above you that originally asked the question used “illegals” as a noun. Some of the heat focused on you lis probably coming from people who aren’t paying attention to the usernames.

            Constituents are the residents of an electoral district or the people represented by an elected official. Undocumented immigrants who live in AOC’s district are her constituents as much as anyone else.

            As far as evidence goes, I think all you need is the second section of the 14th Amendment. Undocumented immigrants are counted in the census. I’ve read that if all of the undocumented immigrants suddenly vanished from California they would lose 2 to 4 seats (this could be wrong but it sounds believable so I didn’t dig deeper, feel free to fact check it) so there are literally members of Congress who only have seat because their constituency includes a relatively large population of undocumented immigrants.

          • The2b@lemmy.vg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”

            From a Supreme Court decision in 1952, even undocumented immigrants are subject to the due process clauzes of the Constitution: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep345/usrep345206/usrep345206.pdf

            Per Evenwel v. Abbott (2016), even those who cannot vote have a say in policy “Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates and in receiving constituent services. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation.”

            Undocumented immigrants are also counted im the census, and thus are represented in Congress and the Electoral College. And since they are represented in congress, they are constituents of their congresspeople just the same as citizens or documented immigrants.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        “aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law.”

        From a Supreme Court decision in 1952: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep345/usrep345206/usrep345206.pdf

        It had long precedent and has been upheld since: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

        Now, the question about whether or not they’re constituents could probably be debated, since they can’t vote. But if a person who didn’t vote for an official is still a constituent, then a person who couldn’t vote for an official is as well.

      • Carvex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yes because they’re human, just not American. Inalienable rights are inherent to all people.

      • FinnFooted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The people related to immigrants are often voting constituents interested in their and their families rights if that’s what you mean. Immigrant do have constitutional rights. For example, you can’t just deny them freedom of speech or enslave them just because they’re non citizens. That would be wild.

      • guy@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think laws apply to everyone inside a country, not just citizens. Not sure about the US though, I’m not american and who knows what the fuck is going on in that clown country 🤷

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’ve wanted to develop a conversation on this subject for a long time, because it’s a fallacy “both sides” have fallen for: The fact that illegal actions are often right, and legal actions are often immoral.

        People will often harp on the fact that an act was “technically not legal”; yet throughout history, we have needed illegal acts to frame what’s right in the world. When we discuss these things online, it’s more honest to talk about “What the harm is” - a subject that often leans in favor of left-leaning opinions both for what’s illegal (living in the USA illegally, generally causing negative harm) and improperly using presidential powers to shut down government agencies (not just illegal, but also extremely harmful).

        If you disagree and specifically want to harp on legality, then I invite you to see what happens if you start shooting jaywalkers in the street for their flagrant violation of the law. Prosecutorial discretion exists for a very important reason.

  • Lukas Murch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    2 days ago

    The only thing about this is I don’t trust them. I would totally expect them to plant shit or just lock her up like Navalny. In a normal would, the investigation would fizzle like a Gym Jordan investigation. If they take AOC, we’re gonna suit up, boys.

    • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not letting my kid grow up to be a Nazi. Not without a fight.

      The education system here might be crap, but it did do an effective job at showing me the significant damage a few can do, but also showed me the overwhelming power of the many.

  • caboose2006@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Does he understand how weak this makes him look? This little girl is making your job difficult? But you’re a big strong man with a mandate, and youve said it almost a dozen times now, you know exactly where these criminals are. Which is it? Wittle bitty AOC is a big meanie head that’s making it hawd to find deeze big bad criminal maniacs. Or you know exactly where they are and we have nothing to worry about. If you know where they are and you have ample evidence of their crimes getting a warrant shouldn’t be any problem at all and there’s nothing AOC can do or say to stop you.

    WHICH IS IT!?

    Oh that’s right it’s the one where YOU want to violate rights and YOU want to break laws and having people be informed of their rights means you can’t be a tyrant.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

      One of Umberto Eco’s 14 properties of fascism

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

  • venotic@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    If Trump was dead serious on immigration, he would’ve challenged and sent Musk packing. But Trump’s idea of tackling the immigration issue is in the same vein as tackling anyone else he don’t like. So he would delightfully target AOC and get rid of her at any chance.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 days ago

    Go ahead Tom Homan, show Republicans how much the Trump admin and DoJ is being made to care about free speech and 1st amendment rights.

  • ehpolitical@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    I wouldn’t be daring known liars to do anything… you have to be wise when dealing with people like that.

    • qprimed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      idk, man. at some point bodies have to go on the line. people need to stand in the way.

      I am thankful that some in the Democratic party seem to be willing to lead on this. makes it a little easier for the rest of us to get the fuck up off the couch.

      edit: creeped your posts. usa here. double thumbs up on your american blackout day on the 28th. stand up to the bully - I am proud for canada.

      • ehpolitical@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thanks for your support, it means a lot!

        I’m by no means saying do nothing, just do it very wisely. These liars are in positions right now where they can make up anything about almost anyone to get them outta the way.

    • xyzzy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You need to push back hard. If they come at you to arrest you (as a sitting representative), maybe it’ll wake people up. You just have to hope they aren’t going to barge in at 6 am with machine guns, because historically that doesn’t end well for anyone.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, doesn’t sound like the challange was the issue, it was actually being guilty of what he was accused of. I mean it could be horrible if AOC is doing something terrible in secret, but at least to my knowledge it’s what she’s accused of is what she’s doing publicly (teaching people their rights).

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Gary Hart had a scandal to expose.

      If AOC had anything to hide it would have been plastered all over Fox News already. The best they could do was try to knock her for a recording of her dancing in college or something equally irrelevant.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          AOC has been a thorn in their side for years. You really think it’s possible for them to investigate her even harder than they’ve surely already done?

            • Maeve@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Idk why this is dv’d. It’s the same thing as "don’t talk to the cops even if you’re innocent " I have had more than one attorney term me multiple times the only thing anyone ever needs to say is: lawyer, lawyer, lawyer and lawyer.