How to Tell If Someone Is a Criminal (According to the DHS)
Except for the fact that they have not technically committed any crimes, these are criminals. Except for the tiny, tiny, minuscule (I hate to even mention it) quibble that we have no evidence they've done any crimes, these people deserve to be locked up. Except for the minor, minor technicality that they haven't violated any laws, other than by arriving here—which might not even have violated a law! We have asylum, or used to, before we decided to pull the rug out from under thousands of people—these are the worst of the worst.
The total lack of any evidence against them, except that Trump border czar Tom Homan thought they seemed suspicious, is just proof of what good criminals they are. Evidence, schmevidence! All you need to do is look at them, listen to them! (Homan has subsequently walked this back, or tried to.) You can simply tell when someone is a criminal, even when they keep trying to abide by the law, showing up for immigration hearings and paying taxes on time. Perhaps especially then.
So many neighbors of serial killers say that the killers were quiet, kept to themselves, and seemed like productive members of their community. If these detainees' neighbors say the same, that's so much more proof that they are some of history's greatest monsters, or would be, if they ever took up crime. These would be hardened assassins if they had ever killed anyone. If they had done a single war crime, it would have been worse than those of Slobodan Milošević. The only reason these serial killers' names don't ring in the ear with the horror of Jeffrey Dahmer's and Ed Gein's is because they have not killed or eaten anyone. But we'd better keep them behind bars to be safe. They could start at any time!
Indeed, all that stands between them and crime is means, motive, and opportunity. That's why it's good that in addition to the preemptive measure of putting some of these all-but-criminals behind bars, the DHS has also taken the extraordinarily un-racist precaution of collecting immigrant DNA into a large database for the ease and convenience of suspecting them of crimes. If these toddlers weren't criminals, would their DNA already be in this Usual Suspects Database? Unlikely.
These are almost certainly terrorists, human-rights abusers, gangsters, and more! And some of them even have parking tickets. That's why they belong in a facility that we laughingly refer to as 'Alligator Alcatraz.' ('If there's alliteration, it's not a human-rights violation.') They are probably human-rights abusers, which is why we have locked them up without due process or any kind of publicly posted list to let anyone know their whereabouts.
Remember, criminals are to be found around other criminals. ('I think we all know that criminals tend to hang out with criminals,' Deputy ICE Director Madison Sheahan noted.) And there they all are now, in a facility that we have insisted is for the worst of the worst. Sounds pretty dispositive. If they weren't the worst of the worst, what would they be doing there?
You can tell they are human-rights abusers because they are sleeping on cots 32 to a room in a just-constructed internment camp. The human-rights abusers are the ones who have been seized by masked men because they looked or sounded a certain way. The human-rights abusers are the ones packed into cages in the oppressive heat. The human-rights abusers are the ones brushing their teeth with toilet water, unable to shower for days, crammed together in a mosquito-infested swamp, struggling to access lawyers. You can tell they are criminals because of the side of the fence they're on.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
6 minutes ago
- USA Today
Brown University inks deal with Trump admin to restore funding: What's in the agreement?
Brown will not pay a fine to the federal government. Instead, the Rhode Island university said it would donate $50 million to workforce development organizations in the state. Brown University has reached a deal with the Trump administration to restore more than $500 million in federal funding to the school and close three government investigations into its campus. The compact, which Brown's president announced July 30, came exactly one week after the White House entered into a separate unprecedented agreement with Columbia University and levied fines against that school, Brown's peer in the Ivy League, totaling more than $220 million. Unlike the contract with Columbia, Brown won't pay money directly to the government. Instead, the university in Providence, Rhode Island, committed to providing $50 million in grants to workforce development organizations across the state over the next 10 years. There were other stipulations, however: The university said it would commission a survey on campus life to its Jewish students. It also said it would hand over admissions data, broken down by various factors including race, in an annual report to the federal government (a provision included in the Columbia agreement as well). Read more: The details of Columbia's extraordinary $220 million deal with Trump Brown also promised to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at benning transgender athletes in women's sports. And the university said its medical facilities would not facilitate gender-affirming care for minors. In exchange, the Trump administration promised to reinstate payments for active research grants at the university and restore its ability to compete for new federal grants and contracts. In a statement announcing the deal Brown President Christina Paxson emphasized that the agreement does not give the government any authority to "dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Read more: Ivy League colleges face a reckoning after Columbia's Trump deal "The University's foremost priority throughout discussions with the government was remaining true to our academic mission, our core values and who we are as a community at Brown,' she said. Linda McMahon, the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement, "the Trump Administration is successfully reversing the decades-long woke-capture of our nation's higher education institutions." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Why the Washington Commanders' owners are thinking hard about Trump's demand they restore the ‘Redskins' moniker
The owners of the NFL's Washington Commanders fear they will have to snub the woke mob and restore the original Redskins name – or risk President Trump throttling their deal for a new stadium, On The Money has learned. That, at least, is the word from insiders close to private equity titans Josh Harris and David Blitzer, who in addition to the Commanders own the NBA's Philadelphia 76ers and the NHL's New Jersey Devils through their holding company, Harris Blitzer Sports and Entertainment. The buyout billionaires are facing heat to bring back the Redskins name – and its famed, feathered logo, too – after the commander-in-chief has repeatedly ripped the new nomenclature, recently referring to the franchise as the 'Washington Whatevers.' Advertisement 3 The billionaire owners of the Washington Commanders are facing pressure from President Trump to restore the original Redskins name Getty Images 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' Trump posted last week. Since then, Harris and Blitzer have been privately warning business associates that the White House does indeed have some leverage over their plans to build a new, $3.7 billion stadium for the team, a source said. Advertisement 'They're really getting nervous about Trump's attacks and how they might impact the stadium deal,' said one person with direct knowledge of the matter. Publicly, Harris and Blitzer have said the Commanders will remain the Commanders. Much of the stadium deal involves working with the decidedly woke DC government run by left-wing mayor Muriel Bowser. The deal has no direct federal funding, with DC agreeing to cover about $1 billion of the cost. Behind the scenes, they say they are parsing all the ways Trump could screw things up for them. The stadium is on federal land leased to the DC government for the next 99 years. 3 'They're really getting nervous about Trump's attacks and how they might impact the stadium deal,' said one person with direct knowledge of the matter. AP Advertisement That means it will need certain approvals from US agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the US Commission of Fine Arts – the boards of both are occupied by some Trump appointees. It also needs a nod or two from the Trump administration's environmental team. The fear is that Trump could, as he's done with left-leaning law firms, colleges and major media outfits, use his control of the administrative state to extract concessions, the people at Harris-Blitzer concede. Would Trump ever use his sway over such entities to meddle in a private business deal? Well, we know the answer to that since fighting wokeness appeals to the MAGA base, and quite frankly, most Americans. Note that Trump is a master troller. He can generate unfavorable news cycles and skewer Harris and Blitzer as woke Wall Streeters, potentially hurting team attendance since most football fans are right of center, people close to them fear. Advertisement 3 David Blitzer, left with part-owner Magic Johnson in 2023. Getty Images Recall that former owner Dan Snyder renamed the team in 2020 at the height of the social-justice movement, bowing to the woke NFL and its commissioner Roger Goodell, as well as some advertisers and activists who argued the name was an affront to Native Americans. Snyder had been fighting the switch for years, arguing that the Redskins moniker was hardly a slur, but instead a term of pride in Native American culture. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters A lot has happened since 2020, including Snyder selling the team to Harris and Blitzer in 2023 for $6.05 billion. There also has been a public backlash against all things woke: See what happened to Bud Light after it used a trans activist in a beer commercial. One sports executive, who asked not to be quoted by name and knows Trump well, said the duo will at the very least have to do what other big companies are doing when confronted by The Donald – bow and kiss the ring. 'He may not ultimately try to kill the stadium deal if they don't change the name but Harris and Blitzer are going to have to grovel before Trump relents,' this person said. A press rep for Harris-Blitzer didn't return a request for comment.
New York Post
6 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump rips ‘second tier' Sen. Josh Hawley over his PELOSI Act congressional stock trading ban
President Trump lashed out at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) Wednesday for forging ahead with his proposed ban on congressional stock trading, accusing the senator of enabling Democrats to target him. Hawley's Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in an 8–7 vote, with the Missouri Republican joining all Democrats. 'Very much like SABOTAGE! The Democrats, because of our tremendous ACHIEVEMENTS and SUCCESS, have been trying to 'Target' me for a long period of time, and they're using Josh Hawley, who I got elected TWICE, as a pawn to help them,' Trump groused on Truth Social. Advertisement 'I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the 'whims' of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!' Hawley chafed with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a key Trump ally during the committee's hearing earlier in the day Wednesday. 4 Sen. Josh Hawley banded together with Democrats to advance the PELOSI Act out of committee without the chairman's blessing. AP Advertisement 4 President Trump accused Sen. Josh Hawley of backstabbing him with the PELOSI Act. x/Acyn 'This idea that we are going to attack people because they make money is absolutely wrong,' Scott, the wealthiest member of the Senate, argued during the hearing. 'I think it's disgusting what's going on here. But I completely agree with you, we've got to stop people from trading stocks but this [bill] is way different.' Scott also asked how one could sell an illiquid asset under the Hawley proposal. Advertisement 'You're concerned about the illiquid asset provision? It's the same one you voted for last year,' Hawley shot back. The PELOSI Act restricts lawmakers from owning individual stocks or trading them. Due to opposition from Committee Chairman Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Hawley needed to get Democrats on board and reportedly agreed to tack on language ensuring that the president and vice president would face the ban as well. 4 Sen. Rick Scott publicly tangled with Sen. Josh Hawley over the bill to ban congressional stock trading. Getty Images Advertisement Trump seemingly caught wind of that. 'I wonder why Hawley would pass a Bill that Nancy Pelosi is in absolute love with — He is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats. It's a great Bill for her, and her 'husband,' but so bad for our Country!' the president fumed on Truth Social. 'Why would one 'Republican,' Senator Josh Hawley from the Great State of Missouri, join with all of the Democrats to block a Review, sponsored by Senator Rick Scott, and with the support of almost all other Republicans, of Nancy Pelosi's Stock Trading over the last 25 years.' Hours before the Truth Social post, Trump conveyed open-mindedness to the proposal but cautioned that he would need to dive deeper into the details of it. 'I like it conceptually and you know Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information. She made a fortune with her husband, and I think that's disgraceful,' he told reporters Wednesday. 'I study these things really carefully, and this just happened. So I'll take a look at it.' 'What I do think is Nancy Pelosi should be investigated.' Paul Pelosi, the California Democrat's venture capitalist husband, has amassed a fortune through investments he's made over the decades. Pelosi's estimated net worth is $262 million, according to Quiver Quantitative. Advertisement Critics, particularly Republicans, have argued that Paul's activities pose conflict of interest concerns given that his wife is one of the most influential Democrats on Capitol Hill. 4 Rep. Nancy Pelosi has been dogged by concerns for years about her husband's stock trading. Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto/Shutterstock 'Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions,' Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager told The Post when asked about Trump's comments. The Post reached out to a Hawley spokesperson for comment.
