A Question For A.I.

From The Bulwark

An oldie but a goodie from Nov 18, 2024

It’s Time to Consider the Worst-Case Scenario
Let’s go to the Bad Place together.

Jonathan V. Last

Until today I’ve resisted writing about the worst-case scenario for Trump’s second term. Instead, I’ve written (twice) about the best-case scenario.

But the conventional wisdom seems to have settled on the view that, Sure, this is all very bad. But also: It’s ultimately fine.

I view this as a dangerous failure of imagination.

So I’m going to lay out two big ideas for you today. The first is something like the worst-case scenario. It isn’t the literal worst-case scenario. The real worst case is always some version of “nuclear holocaust and everyone dies.” Instead what I’m going to describe is a 90th percentile variant: A set of outcomes that are the worst of the unlikely-but-not-black-swan timeline.

The second idea is that I’m going to try to persuade you that if Trump were actively pursuing such a set of outcomes, it would look very much like what we’re already seeing, right now.

In short, I’m going to ask you to expand your mind and peek over the horizon with me. But be warned: This isn’t going to be any fun.

Buckle up.

1. Forests and Trees

Last week Freddie deBoer wrote that liberals shouldn’t panic because, sure, Trump would be bad. But he wouldn’t be that bad.

A lot of awful stuff is going to happen. Some immediate pain points include the replacement of Lina Khan at the FTC with a pliable pro-corporate stooge, the dismantling of Joe Biden’s excellent NLRB, and an immediate gutting of federal wildlife and environmental protections. A lot worse will follow, very likely including even more tax cuts, which are the real reason so many upper-crust types held their nose and voted for Trump. (At the end of the day, there’s always enough will in Congress to cut taxes.) The incoherence that’s inherent to Trump’s foreign policy means that an honest-to-go shooting war might be possible. No relief will be coming for the Rust Belt or any other part of the United States hurt by deindustrialization. This all sucks and there’s going to be some dark times ahead.

At the same time, recent doomsaying has a lot of that usual Trump-era liberal chauvinism in it, where the relentless panic seems competitive and performative. . . . Yes, things are bad, but they’ve been bad before, and as destructive as the first Trump term was it wasn’t as terrible as people predicted. We’ve also had a worse presidential administration in clear living memory.

Is this a joke? Because I’m sorry but if you look at Trump’s second term and put “wildlife and environmental protections” in your top hundred concerns then something is deeply wrong with your priorities.

And the assertion that Trump’s first term “wasn’t as terrible as people predicted”?

He fired the federal government’s pandemic response team and then talked about injecting people with bleach while a global pandemic killed a million fucking Americans.

Then he assembled an armed mob and directed them to march on the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the duly elected incoming president from taking power.

If anyone had predicted either of those outcomes in 2016, they would have been dismissed as barking mad. The reality of Trump 1.0 turned out to be every bit the Worst-Case Scenario 1.0.

DeBoer is, like many people grappling with Trump 2.0, making a bunch of category errors and failing to imagine what a true worst-case scenario could look like.

And let me tell you: It has nothing to do with tax cuts, the FTC, and the NLRB.

Today's WTF

Seriously - what the fuck are we doing?

At CPAC yesterday

Gov Pritzker

It took the Nazis 1 month, 2 days, 8 hours, and 40 minutes to dismantle Germany's constitutional democracy.

JB Pritzker, sounding the alarm. Fascism is here, y'all. 2025 America is 1934 Germany. 😳👇 pic.twitter.com/XZOSx5ILUX

— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) February 20, 2025

The road to tyranny

is crowded
with people telling us
we're overreacting. 

Driving On

It has to be pretty obvious by now that everything Trump and Elon are doing is aimed at pushing towards that magic moment - The Constitutional Crisis.

I don't think we're there yet, but I can't deny we're practically on the brink. 

Trump's gang is attempting to line up as many issues as possible at the edge of the abyss so it would only take a fairly minor instigating incident to get enough people amped up - so it could all crash over the edge - seemingly as if it was inevitable and nobody's really to blame.

There could still be a Reichstag Fire, but if you have all the pieces in place, you don't really need it. In fact, you don't want that. You just pull the last lever, and all the other levers are activated, and away it goes, practically all by itself.

You want people to go fascist a little at a time, so it feels like a seduction instead of a rape.

Anyway, here's another step towards the edge. 

Fourth judge blocks Trump’s birthright executive order

A fourth federal judge blocked President Trump’s executive order to restrict birthright citizenship in the U.S., yet another blow to the president’s controversial idea.

In a pair of lawsuits, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin agreed that a group of 19 states and the District of Columbia as well as nonprofit organizations were “exceedingly likely” to prevail on the merits of their claims against the Trump administration.

“It is difficult to imagine a government or public interest that could outweigh the harms established by the plaintiffs here,” Sorokin wrote. “Perhaps that is why the defendants have identified none. Instead, they point only to the Executive Branch’s discretion in matters of immigration.”

Sorokin argued that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by 14th Amendment in the Constitution and has been moved “beyond the bounds” of executive authority from the president.

The attorneys representing an anonymous mother and immigrant groups celebrated the judge’s decision.

“We are gratified by today’s ruling,” Oren Sellstrom, the litigation director for Lawyers for Civil Rights, said in a statement. “Birthright citizenship is a sacred right granted by our Constitution, and the President cannot change that with the stroke of a pen.”

Hegseth responds to blowback from Ukraine, NATO remarks

On his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order narrowing birthright citizenship by limiting the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee to exclude children born in the U.S. to parents without permanent legal status.

Sorokin’s ruling joins him with judges in several other states who have blocked Trump’s executive order.

Just days ago, a judge in New Hampshire granted an injunction. Two nearly identical injunctions were granted by two other judges, both criticizing the decision and protecting birthright citizenship across the country, at least temporarily.

The legal battle kicked off immediately after Trump signed the executive order. The original injunction, set forth by a judge appointed by former President Reagan, was set to expire when the two near-identical injunctions came in.

A 10th lawsuit was filed Thursday afternoon challenging Trump’s order, this time from the New York Immigration Coalition.

In his ruling, Sorokin pointed to the 1898 Supreme Court decision that allowed birthright citizenship and noted that the Trump administration could try to revisit that case, but it would have to be brought to the Supreme Court. Still, Sorokin said there have been no presidents in the past who have had issue with the more than a century-old ruling.

The judge slammed the Trump administration for not having a “legitimate interest” for the order and said it has not attempted to demonstrate how the continuation of birthright citizenship would harm the American public. The judge also pointed out that birthright stood under Trump’s first term.

It's The Unitary Executive, Stupid

American Bar Association:

Misty Roundtree - JustLaw

The Unitary Executive

In American law, the unitary executive theory is a Constitutional law theory according to which the President of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch. It is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House". The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope, with more expansive versions of the theory becoming the focus of modern political debate. These expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.

The theory is largely based on the Vesting Clause, which singularly grants the president with the "Executive Power" and places the office atop the executive branch. Critics debate over how much power and discretion the vesting clause gives a president, and emphasize other countermeasures in the Constitution that provide checks and balances on executive power.

The Commander in Chief Clause has also been interpreted to reinforce the unitary executive theory, as it makes the president the highest ranking officer of the United States Armed Forces.

Historically, as part of the campaign to support ratification, Alexander Hamilton contrasted the powers of the presidency and that of the King of Great Britain. Namely, the King exercised powers in military affairs that would be delegated to Congress. In the 2020s, the Supreme Court held that, regarding the powers granted by the vesting clause, "the entire 'executive Power' belongs to the President alone".

Fuck You, Elmo

Somebody tell those fuckwads to keep their grubby fingers off my stuff.

The US Treasury Claimed DOGE Technologist Didn’t Have ‘Write Access’ When He Actually Did

Sources tell WIRED that the ability of DOGE’s Marko Elez to alter code controlling trillions in federal spending was rescinded days after US Treasury and White House officials said it didn’t exist.

US Treasury Department and White House officials have repeatedly denied that technologists associated with Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had the ability to rewrite the code of the payment system through which the vast majority of federal spending flows. WIRED reporting shows, however, that at the time these statements were made, a DOGE operative did in fact have write access. Not only that, but sources tell WIRED that at least one note was added to Treasury records indicating that he no longer had write access before senior IT staff stated it was actually rescinded.

Marko Elez, a 25-year-old DOGE technologist, was recently installed at the Treasury Department as a special government employee. One of a number of young men identified by WIRED who have little to no government experience but are currently associated with DOGE, Elez previously worked for SpaceX, Musk’s space company, and X, Musk’s social media company. Elez resigned Thursday after The Wall Street Journal inquired about his connections to “a deleted social-media account that advocated for racism and eugenics.”

As WIRED has reported, Elez was granted privileges including the ability to not just read but write code on two of the most sensitive systems in the US government: the Payment Automation Manager (PAM) and Secure Payment System (SPS) at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS), an agency that according to Treasury records paid out $5.45 trillion in fiscal year 2024. Reporting from Talking Points Memo confirmed that Treasury employees were concerned that Elez had already made “extensive changes” to code within the Treasury system. The payments processed by BFS include federal tax returns, Social Security benefits, Supplemental Security Income benefits, and veteran’s pay.

Over the last week, the nuts and bolts of DOGE’s access to the Treasury has been at the center of an escalating crisis.

On January 31, David Lebryk, the most senior career civil servant in the Treasury, announced he would retire; he had been placed on administrative leave after refusing to give Musk’s DOGE team access to the federal payment system. The next morning, sources tell WIRED, Elez was granted read and write access to PAM and SPS.

On February 3, Politico reported that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Republican lawmakers in the House Financial Services Committee that Musk and DOGE didn’t have control over key Treasury systems. The same day, The New York Times reported that Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said that DOGE’s access was “read-only.”

Are you a current or former employee at the Treasury or Bureau of the Fiscal Service? Or other government tech worker? We'd like to hear from you. Using a nonwork phone or computer, contact the reporters securely on Signal at velliott88.18, dmehro.89, leahfeiger.86, and timmarchman.01.

The significance of this is that the ability to alter the code on these systems would in theory give a DOGE technologist—and, by extension, Musk, President Donald Trump, or other actors—the capability to, among other things, illegally cut off Congressionally authorized payments to specific individuals or entities. (CNN reported on Thursday that Musk associates had demanded that Treasury pause authorized payments to USAID, precipitating Lebryk’s resignation.)

On February 4, WIRED reported that Elez did, in fact, have admin access to PAM and SPS. Talking Points Memo reported later that day that Elez had “made extensive changes to the code base for these critical payment systems.” In a letter that same day that did not mention Musk or DOGE, Treasury official Jonathan Blum wrote to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, “Currently, Treasury staff members working with Tom Krause, a Treasury employee, will have read-only to the coded data of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems.” (Krause is the top DOGE operative at Treasury and CEO of Cloud Software Group.) The letter did not say what kind of access the staff members actually had.

Sources tell WIRED that by afternoon of the next day, February 5, Elez’s access had been changed to “read-only” from both read and code-writing privileges.

That same day, a federal judge granted an order to temporarily restrict DOGE staffers from accessing and changing Treasury payment system information, following a lawsuit alleging the Treasury Department provided “Elon Musk or other individuals associated with DOGE” with access to the payment systems, and that this access violated federal privacy laws. The order specifically provided a carve-out for two individuals: Krause and Elez. At a court hearing later that day, Department of Justice lawyer Bradley Humphreys asserted that the order said their access would be “read-only.”

“It’s a distinction without a difference,” a source told WIRED. Referring specifically to the PAM, through which $4.7 trillion flowed in fiscal year 2024, they said Elez should not have had “access to this almost $5 trillion payment flow, even if it’s ‘read-only.’ None of this should be happening.”

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Elez did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House and Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“People will be held accountable for the crimes they’re committing in this coup attempt,” Wyden tells WIRED. “I’m not letting up on my investigation of what these Musk hatchet men are up to.”

Today's Belle

This may be what we have to do - use Trump's favorite tactic against him.

ie: Delay, appeal, delay, appeal, delay, appeal ... repeat as needed.

Strangling

More Storm

The point of the exercise is to overwhelm us - to make our brains fog up so we start to think there's too much happening all at once and nobody can stop the flow of shit, so we might as well just go along with it.

Understandable.

But we have to find ways to deal with both the shit-shoveling itself, and our reactions to the shit-shoveling.

Here's some new shit that they're dumping on the schools.

And remember - their project is not to improve the public school system, but to fuck it up as much as possible, knowing that'll push most of the richer parents to pay Coin-Operated Private Academies handsomely to teach their precious little Nazis how to rule and dominate, while most kids will be stuck in "government schools" learning practically nothing but obedience and jingoistic bullshit.

4 ways to cope if you feel overwhelmed by current events

Social media can be a great tool for connecting with friends and extended family. However, it can also be hard to disconnect from things we may rather not see, like traumatic events, natural disasters, politics and more. While it’s convenient to check every notification and read every headline at our fingertips, it’s probably not the best strategy to care for our mental health.

Here are four things you can do if you’re feeling overwhelmed by social media or current events.

1. Set a time limit
Allow yourself to take a break from social media and the news. Limiting how much time you spend on social platforms and news sites can help you manage feelings of stress and anxiety. It can also help free up some of your time, so you can focus more of your energy on activities and hobbies that help you feel actively engaged (rather than passive consumption).

One way to decrease your time on social media is to designate phone-free spaces. For instance, you may decide that areas designated for studying or working are phone-free zones. This could include your dining table, office, desk or other study and workspaces. By keeping your phone out of reach, you may find that you’re able to focus more on class or work tasks more easily.

Connecting with friends is another great way to take a break from online updates by focusing on the people you’re with. Spending meaningful time offline can help you disconnect from your feeds and reconnect with loved ones in your life. Try to keep in mind how you use your phone when spending time with others. For instance, you may want to silence your phone or put it in your bag if you’re meeting a friend for coffee, so you can avoid getting distracted.

2. Set boundaries
We all have different expectations for how we interact with people and how we want them to interact with us. Boundaries are a helpful tool to give us agency over our physical safety, communication, emotions, energy and time. They can also help us live by our values and determine what is and isn’t okay.

Setting boundaries online may look different for everyone. That’s why it’s important to create boundaries that reflect your personal values and protect your well-being. Here are a few examples of boundaries you can set for yourself and others on social:

• Give yourself permission to not read the news. Remember that posts will still be there tomorrow, so you won’t miss out on anything by skipping the news cycle for a day or two. You can always go back to read it if it was something really important or that you need to see. It may also be helpful to seek out short-form news outlets from credible sources, such as 15- or 30-minute podcasts or daily written summaries, to set natural limits on how you engage with the news.
• Avoid arguments and trolls. Arguments made through comments or messages online are unlikely to change anyone’s opinion, especially if the other person is committed to engaging with people in a rude, disrespectful or hostile way. It’s also important to keep in mind that some people post comments just to rile others up. That’s why it may be best to not engage. If you do find yourself stuck in a loop of comments, know that it’s okay to let someone have the last word to spare your mental energy.
• Practice enforcing limits. When traumatic events happen, it’s common for people to ask questions or request updates that may feel invasive or triggering. If this happens to you, give yourself permission to say no or walk away from situations that make you feel uncomfortable or unsafe. You can also ask to change the topic of conversation away from current events or other topics that negatively impact your emotional health.

Remember that we can’t control what other people do, but we can control how we respond to it. Boundaries are just one of the many ways to do this.

3. Focus on things within your control
Just like we can’t control what other people say or do online, we can’t control what the news chooses to report on. If we get too absorbed by the news, we may start to feel overwhelmed. When we engage with news in this way, we may also lose our sense of control.

If you find yourself feeling overwhelmed by news stories, updates, details or outcomes, it may be time to take a step back and refocus your attention on things that are within your control. Sometimes it can be helpful to create a list. Here are a few examples of things that you can directly control:

• What time you go to bed and wake up
• How you spend your free time (hobbies, interests, etc.)
• Daily activities like spending time outside, eating regularly, staying active, etc.
• How much time you spend on social platforms
• Notification and privacy settings
• What accounts you actively follow
• What posts and stories you read
• How you use your own social media accounts
• Instead of focusing on what is outside of your control, focus more of your time and energy on the things in your life that you have a say in.

4. Mute or unfollow

It’s important to remember that you have the power to control what appears on our feeds. If your social platforms feel hostile, overwhelming or are negatively impacting your mental health, it may be time to turn off notifications, mute or unfollow.

Muting can be a great tool to hide disturbing posts or rescue yourself from heated debates and discussions. If you don’t have a close relationship with someone, unfriending or blocking them can also be good options. This will remove them from your view entirely and stop any notifications about their posts, comments and messages. Remember that muting and unfollowing don’t have to be permanent. You can always refollow or unmute people in the future as things change.

1. Pick 2 or 3 key issues to concentrate on, and see if you can connect with others who've picked 2 or 3 different issues. Get together once in awhile and compare notes.
2. Use aggregators and trusted knowledgeable friends for synthesis.
3. Take breaks. Walk away for a bit and see if you can find a little sunshine outside.
4. Take some time processing. Go slow, even tho' it all feels urgent. Urgency can cloud important aspects that we need time to consider.
5. Build some kind of community. I'm not talking about holding hands with 20 new friends and singing folk songs and shit (unless, of course, that's what turns your crank). What we need to do is fight the divide-n-conquer strategies.

I'm going to try to focus on these 3 issues:

• Ukraine
• Schedule F
• Immigration

Good luck to us all, and if you feel so inclined, lemme know what's up with you.

Leave a comment here,

or you can find me on most social media sites as:

@eVilleMike

Thug-In-Chief

The road to tyranny is crowded with people telling us we're overreacting.

When We Were Great

Here in USAmerica Inc, the top 10% currently own close to 70% of all the wealth in the country, while the lower half own down around 3%.

When "we were great" (ie: the late 1800s - back where Trump and his plutocrat buddies want to take us) the top 1% (about 4,000 families) owned as much wealth as all other families combined.

It's my contention that they're not trying to push us back to the 1950s, or the 1850s, but all the way back to the 1750s.

Watch This

... and then tell me Trump isn't pulling the same shit that Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn were pulling 70 years ago.

People have called the Cohn's life (and his antics of the period) the first Reality Tv Show.

What else do you need?

It's Moving Right Along

WTF, bubba? Slave patrols now?

Ramping Up

Overheard

Go ahead and find ways to fuck with 'em.

Just be a little careful - these assholes are itchin' to punish people.

Here It Comes

Bill would end 'no-fault' divorce for some Indiana couples

The bill would require a witness or the couple to convince the judge of the "irretrievable breakdown" of the marriage, if the couple has children together.

INDIANAPOLIS — A bill that would end "no-fault" divorce for couples with children in Indiana has been sent to the house judiciary committee, as part of the 2025 Indiana Legislative Session.

House Bill 1684 says that if someone sites "irretrievable breakdown" of the marriage as the grounds for divorce, and the couple has one or more children, they need to prove the breakdown. They can do that in one of two ways:

Having a witness testify that the marriage is irretrievably broken
Both parties convince the judge the marriage is irretrievably broken

• The bill also specifies who can be a witness:
• Officiant of the marriage
• Signed witness to the marriage
• Parent or sibling of either party
• Friend who has known a party for at least 60 days
• Religious leader with knowledge of the marriage
• Licensed counselor with knowledge of the marriage
• The bill also says the witness cannot be someone who "has received any form of compensation for acting as a witness at the final hearing."

The bill's author, Rep. Timothy Wesco (R-District 21), who represents parts of Mishawaka and Elkhart in northern Indiana, posted his reasoning for the bill on social media.

Domestic violence victim advocates worried

The bill has received pushback from advocates for domestic violence victims, who fear that some victims could be trapped in abusive relationships because they were not believed.

"HB 1684 is a terrible idea," said Kelly McBride, executive director of the Domestic Violence Prevention Network. "Victims of domestic violence are not believed when they come forward so many times, especially within the court systems this is going to have people not come forward, have victims not come forward to say what is happening in their home."

McBride says that most victims do not end up calling the police or going to the hospital before trying to leave the abusive relationship. Often, victims of domestic violence are in real, physical danger from the partner they are trying to leave.

"If you are fleeing a domestic violence relationship and you need to go into hiding, that will make it impossible to do that," McBride said. "If you have children and you need to go to the Julian Center, I'm not sure what that looks like, right? I mean, we don't really know the full repercussions of what this entails at this point. It's very challenging and scary."

McBride says she doubts Wesco considered the domestic violence implications when he wrote the bill.

"I don't think they put any thought into this other than how can we keep couples married in a traditional household with children because that's what the belief is to make a healthy community; it's absurd," McBride said. "Healthy communities do not rely on somebody who's being abused to stay in a marriage — that is just more learned behavior by the child, who is going to grow up and become a victim or a perpetrator themselves."

McBride says this isn't just an issue for women. Many men are also victims of domestic violence. It impacts:

• 1 in 3 women
• 1 in 7 men
• 1 in 5 people

McBride said is very difficult for anyone to come forward to talk about domestic violence, but men can face a special stigma.

"Especially for men, there is so much shame from coming forward," McBride said. "We need to be as supportive a community as possible and not a punitive community. This (HB 1684) is punitive."

McBride also says that forcing a couple to stay together, especially if there is domestic violence, does more harm to children than good.

"Children who witness domestic violence, the trauma changes their brains," McBride said. "They are more susceptible to addiction, depression and anxiety. They are more likely to become perpetrators or victims themselves. They grow up thinking this is OK and normal."

DVPN sends counselors into schools around central Indiana to help teach teens healthy dating habits and sees the impact firsthand.

"One of the things we've heard from our instructors is that the kids will talk to them after class," McBride said. "They'll say 'but that's how I've grown up, and you're saying that's not OK.' It's brand new information to them."

Domestic violence resources

Domestic violence is a pattern of behaviors used by a partner to maintain power and control over another partner in a relationship, according to The National Domestic Violence Hotline. Abuse can be physical, but it can also appear in several other ways.

If you or someone you love is in a relationship that may involve abuse, there is help available. Here are some resources with people to talk to and places to turn to for assistance:

The National Domestic Violence Hotline, call 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or follow the link to live chat with someone.

Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, this resource helps you find a shelter near you and find help, including domestic violence programs, batterers’ intervention programs and housing and eviction assistance.

Julian Center is the largest organization supporting victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and other life crises in Indiana. Call the 24-hour Crisis Line at 317-920-9320.

Today's (Not So) Weird Shit

The standard thing here would be something like - "There's something wrong with this guy". But we know that. We've known that for a long time now.

And we know that he craves the attention so he'll do whatever weird thing he can think of to get it. Plus, we know he craves the attention because that's how he gains power and money - and money and power - and first one and then the other - and sometimes both at the same time.

So if we just blow him off, it could mean we're ignoring a signal of real danger.

We have to keep looking for the method of his madness, which may be nefarious (probable), or benign (doubtful), or just plain looney because there is, in fact, something wrong with that son of a bitch.

But we also get to watch out for his madness being used as cover for the extreme plutocratic shit that his henchmen and supporters are trying to inflict on us.

I hate living in interesting times.

Those Sneaky Bastards

Republicans can't get their policies through Congress if they tell us what they're really trying to do, so they have to disguise it.

Melanie Stansbury (D - NM 01) unmasks another shitty thing Republicans are trying to pull.

That Slippery Slope Thing

The kicker here of course is that they're creating a new agency to grace this fucked up racist shit with the appropriate official imprimatur.

And I realize this is the classic Slippery Slope Fallacy, but if this thing is left to its own devices, it will morph into a spoils system, where people can point at an immigrant-owned business or property, make whatever claims of illegality that seem to fit, and confiscate that commercial entity, splitting the proceeds with the coin-operated asshole running the Missouri Illegal Alien Certified Bounty Hunter Program.

Sure hope everybody's ready for an American version of Kristallnacht. Cuz that's where we're headed if we don't wise up and stop it.

Missouri Republican proposes $1,000 bounty program to turn in undocumented immigrants

State Representative An incoming Missouri Republican lawmaker introduced a bill this week that would offer $1,000 bounties to residents who turn in undocumented immigrants to the state highway patrol.

The bill, filed by Sen.-elect David Gregory, a St. Louis-area Republican, would require the Missouri Department of Public Safety to create phone and email hotlines as well as an online portal where Missourians would be able to report alleged undocumented immigrants.

The bill is among several pieces of legislation that deal with illegal immigration ahead of next month’s legislative session. They come as President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans across the country have made frustrations with immigration, and the U.S.-Mexico border, a hot-button issue.

In addition to the payouts, Gregory’s bill would require the Department of Public Safety to create a “Missouri Illegal Alien Certified Bounty Hunter Program.” The program would certify people to become bounty hunters to find and detain undocumented immigrants.

Individuals who are licensed as bail bond agents or surety recovery agents would be able to apply to become bounty hunters under Gregory’s bill.

Undocumented immigrants who are caught by the bounty hunters would be considered guilty of “trespass by an illegal alien.” Those found guilty of the offense could face jail time and would be prohibited from voting and other rights.

Gregory, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment, had made illegal immigration one of the central focuses of his Senate campaign. He filmed a campaign ad at the southern border with Mexico and has promoted media coverage of his bill on social media.

Edgar Palacios, executive director of Revolución Educativa, a Kansas City group focused on education issues in the Latino community, said Gregory’s bill was “horrendous.”

“Immigrants are human and humans aren’t meant to be hunted,” Palacios said in an interview. “This idea of having a bounty hunter for immigrants is wild and I think it displays a narrative that, again, people see, not everybody, but certain people see immigrants as inhuman.”

Nimrod Chapel, president of the Missouri NAACP State Conference, drew parallels between Gregory’s bill and legislation historically aimed at marginalized groups such as the 1820 Missouri Compromise which admitted Missouri as a slave state.

“This bill by our new senator has returned exactly to those roots,” Chapel said. “You’re going to create a system that is not only going to differentiate people based on how God made them, which, in my spiritual belief, is just fundamentally wrong, but then you’re going to try to create in a system…that seeks to differentiate people in much the same way that some of the Jim Crow laws did.”

Chapel referred to the bill as “a really draconian and racist piece of legislation.”

“It scares the hell out of me,” he said. “And the reason it does is because I already know that Black and brown people have been catching hell in the state of Missouri for a very long time.”

Impact on Kansas City

While Gregory faces blowback for his bill, it comes as Missouri politics have been awash in rhetoric about migrants. The focus on immigration would have an outsized impact on the Kansas City region, which has become a center of migrant arrivals over the last decade, according to U.S. immigration court data analyzed by The Washington Post.

Since 2014, roughly 8,300 migrants have settled in Jackson County since 2014 and 37% came from Honduras.

Earlier this year, Republican Gov. Mike Parson sent Missouri National Guard troops to aid Texas, which has promoted a plan dubbed “Operation Lone Star” that uses Texas state resources to combat illegal border crossings.

Parson, who will term out of office next month, heavily promoted the deployment, even though he later vetoed funding to continue it.

Candidates for office in both major parties emphasized illegal immigration on the campaign trail, including Democrat Lucas Kunce. But the issue was perhaps the most prevalent in the race to succeed Parson as governor, with all three major GOP candidates touting immigration frustrations in campaign ads and public statements.

Each of the three candidates, including Gov.-elect Mike Kehoe, also seized on comments Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas made in April welcoming migrant workers who are in the United States legally.

Amid the campaign rhetoric, outgoing House Speaker Dean Plocher, a Des Peres Republican, also created a committee that focused on “Illegal Immigrant Crimes.” The committee held hearings across the state, including in Kansas City, to maximize public attention on the issue.

For Palacios, with Revolución Educativa, immigrants are coming to the U.S. in search of a better life and to pursue “the American dream.” He said politicians should be focused on ensuring everyone has access to education and opportunities.

“I think the narrative is harmful. I think it’s designed to create fear amongst certain members of our community,” Palacios said. “It riles up a base that may not fully appreciate, again, the value that immigrants and folks from the migrant community bring, not to our state, but to our country.”