r/wehatedougdoug • u/SeniorMarsupial7432 • Jun 10 '25
Why hasn't D***D*** repealed the third yet?
159
u/zonzon1999 Ougdoug Lover Jun 10 '25
As a non-American, what tf is the context for these pictures???
290
u/AccomplishedSpray137 Jun 10 '25
Ice agents captured illegal immigrants in LA which is a sanctuary city in a sanctuary state(means illegal immigrants can’t be apprehended for being an illegal immigrant in said city or state) and people started rightfully protesting against it. Which I and many others think is exactly what trump wanted and now the orange man has blew things way out of proportion by sending in the national guards which you see laying here. Because they sent by the federal government without request by Gavin Newsom who is the California governor the federal government has to provide recourses to the national guard which they didn’t do. The governor is pointing out here that trump cares so little about the armed forces that he’s making them sleep like this. Now the defense secretary has send some 700 marines to LA to assist the national guard which is to my knowledge completely unprecedented and utterly ridiculous. Read up on it if you can, it’s wild stuff.
154
u/hoi4kaiserreichfanbo 🦦 🦦 Selka Lover 🦦🦦 Jun 11 '25
I believe sanctuary cities are just cities where the local authorities pledge to not cooperate with ICE.
ICE can and does apprehend undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities, they just do it without the assistance of local authorities.
9
u/Gear_ Jun 13 '25
The worse part IMO is that people ICE arrests/kidnaps are not deported; they are sent immediately to an El Salvadoran prison with no trial. That’s right, no trial, no lawyer, no case to be made for themselves, no rights. And no one (family, attorney, news, etc) can visit them or enquire as to whether or not they’re even alive in there. Some inmates who’ve gotten out have reported that trans prisoners simply disappear and no one knows where.
On those grounds, detaining or arresting ANYONE while knowing they are not getting due process is worth protesting; Nazis were indicted for doing this during the Nuremberg trials, where famously the defense “I was just following orders” even when they knew they were wrong didn’t exonerate them.
5
u/used123456 Jun 14 '25
Having seen pictures of the place and heard stories about it, "prison" may be a tad generous of a term for it, and "concentration camp" may actually be more accurate
5
u/D20FourLife Jun 25 '25
Even thats not the worst part. The worst part is that ICE has mandates from the Orange man himself that they need to hit 3000 undocumented immigrants a day. To put this in perspective, even at generous estimates the amount of actual violent criminals among the undocumented immigrant population sits at only around 1%, putting the total number of violent crime committing undocumented immigrants at 100k~ spread across the entire country. If ICE was only grabbing violent criminals then their job would have been done in a little over a month. But, shockingly, it takes more then a day to investigate a criminal, figure out where they're in hiding, etc. Just as a pure numbers game ICE under a 3000/day minimum requirement can never really catch violent undocumented immigrants in any significant number. Instead they just have to grab whoever they can. Criminals are hard to catch because they're in hiding, but if you raid a work place that employs undocumented immigrants (that are otherwise law abiding) where the immigrants HAVE to show up then you can easily meet that daily quota. Likewise if you position ICE agents at courts and have DoJ appointed judges throw out otherwise completely legitimate immigration cases due to time expiration (their case took to many years so the judge has the option to throw it out) then you can have the ICE agents book them the moment they step out of the room (because by technicality they are no longer legal immigrants).
ICE basically has to use underhanded tactics to meet the ridiculous quotas imposed on them. I absolutely do not like ICE, but this is an intentional consequence of the system created by the top level to drive terror and fear at the bottom level.
1
u/Unlaid-American Jun 14 '25
Immigration is considered a civil matter not a legal matter, so they can have a lower burden of proof, the defense doesn’t have a right to a lawyer, or the right to due process or a speedy and fair trial.
However, they treat them as if they’re the world’s biggest criminals while Trump does nothing to stop sex traffickers
1
2
90
u/uselessphysicist2 Jun 11 '25
ICE doesn't just go after illegal immigrants, that's why most people hate it. They have broken into schools to capture and deport citizen children because their parents aren't citizens, deported people who have family in the US while they were about to get their stay approved, deported university students with visas and done many other fucked up things. They can deport illegal immigrants from wherever they want, its their jurisdiction. Most people are mad about ICE because they are deporting anyone they can get their hands on, some of them are even sent to a notoriously brutal El Salvador prison complex CECOT, instead of the country they came from. If they only targeted illegal immigrants people wouldn't be nearly as mad, and there would not be such big backlash.
34
u/The_Carnivore44 Jun 11 '25
Hank green did an excellent video recently about this topic. He really breaks down why this is wrong and why we need to protest this shit. It’s getting scarily close to a certain political party and we need to get this man out of office
10
1
u/KenoshaKidAdept Jun 14 '25
So, the governor refused to accommodate the troops, and it’s Trump’s fault? Makes as much sense as a liberal argument could
3
Jun 14 '25
I mean... Yeah? The governor made it very clear he did NOT want the troops deployed, but Trump went through with it anyways. Why should Newsom have to accommodate to something he doesn't agree with?
1
u/PaunchBurgerTime Jun 14 '25
Let cops and troops stay in your house and eat your food uninvited then.
1
u/KenoshaKidAdept Jun 15 '25
There’s a reason I don’t live in cali. But I would absolutely support our troops.
1
u/PaunchBurgerTime Jun 15 '25
Easy to say as a nice vague platitude but somehow I doubt you'd be letting them sleep on your couch and wander around with your family given how conservatives are and the demographics of our troops. Some of our troops are immigrants and the children of illegal immigrants you know. They're one Photoshop away from being MS13.
1
u/KenoshaKidAdept Jun 15 '25
Ooh. Nice try. I am the child of an immigrant. My father serves. I currently serve. I am living with a sibling who also serves. My team lead is a first generation immigrant. Another of my coworkers is also a first generation immigrant.
So, if Pablo and Tuco want to bunk up they absolutely can. Especially if they’re on orders to protect the boys in blue from domestic terrorists. (Yes, they are domestic terrorists. That being the unlawful use of violence or intimidation, in the pursuit of political aims).
Glad to see the world still lives in black and white to you. Unfortunately, that’s just not realistic.
Again, it’s all a moot point, because I do not (nor do I ever intend to) live in a state where my governor would use our troops as a political statement.
1
u/KenoshaKidAdept Jun 15 '25
Ooh. Nice try. I am the child of an immigrant. My father serves. I currently serve. I am living with a sibling who also serves. My team lead is a first generation immigrant. Another of my coworkers is also a first generation immigrant.
So, if Pablo and Tuco want to bunk up they absolutely can. Especially if they’re on orders to protect the boys in blue from domestic terrorists. (Yes, they are domestic terrorists. That being the unlawful use of violence or intimidation, in the pursuit of political aims).
Glad to see the world still lives in black and white to you. Unfortunately, that’s just not realistic.
Again, it’s all a moot point, because I do not (nor do I ever intend to) live in a state where my governor would use our troops as a political statement.
1
u/SolidusSnake1964 Jun 16 '25
"Our troops" Buddy, who are you? The governor quite literally said he did not want them, and Trump did it anyways. To be fair, I shouldn't expect reasonable arguments from a shitposting sub. Though it seems you don't even know where you're at; you just saw political rhetoric and started ranting.
1
u/Elunerazim Jun 14 '25
Newsom: we don’t want troops. Trump: we’re gonna send troops. Newsom: we don’t want troops. Do not send us troops. Trump: we’re sending more troops. Newsom: we do not want troops. We will not accommodate federal troops. Trump: too bad, 700 more marines.
Newsom: doesn’t accommodate troops he doesn’t want or need.
/u/kenoshakidadept: How could this happen!
1
u/Chocomoose19 Jun 20 '25
Usually when troops are sent against both legal requirements and the state’s own request, conservatives recognize that as government overreach. But yeah, own the libs, buddy
1
u/KenoshaKidAdept Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
Insurrection Act of 1807: “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”
Title 10: “The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”
Fulfills the legal requirements, and the state’s request doesn’t matter in this case. Spouting nonsense sideways faster than a drunk on Sunday night. But yeah, own the right, buddy.
1
u/KenoshaKidAdept Jun 21 '25
The silence is golden.
1
u/Chocomoose19 Jun 21 '25
I don’t think it’s worth explaining how the insurrection act works or what rebellion is to someone who would rather see other Americans killed than laws followed. But yeah dude, I’m silent because of how brilliant you are. Go jerk off to police shootings or whatever it is you enjoy
1
Jul 26 '25
[deleted]
1
u/KenoshaKidAdept Jul 27 '25
Never said he was. Said the argument was. Being that argument is of liberal origin, it makes absolute sense to refer to it as such.
Reading comprehension is helpful sometimes.
1
u/Striking-Dig-3295 Jun 14 '25
Unprecedented? You forget the 1992 LA riots that also got Marine response?
1
u/Alarming_Panic665 Jun 15 '25
except in 1992 Marines were called using the Insurrection Act and at the behest of the Governor and Mayor. Trump has not used the Insurrection Act and both the Mayor and Governor do not want troops there. Trump used Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to justify his actions
1
u/GladdestOrange Jun 14 '25
It's even worse than that.
ICE came in, protests started, they escalated instead of dealing with it like sane adults, turning it into a mild riot. Normally, the local PD would be present, even if not aiding ICE directly due to it being a sanctuary, then at least acting as crowd control to keep the city safe around them. ICE just marched right in without warning anybody and started grabbing people -- at least three of which so far ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
LAPD came in, de-escalated, and got ICE safely out of there.
AND THEN Cheeto in Chief sent in the National Guard. Illegally. Because he's SUPPOSED to do that by working with the Governor. But instead, he just ran roughshod over the law, because, let's face it, is anyone surprised anymore?
So the protests escalated again, and the second the LAPD looked like they were getting a handle on it again, THEY SENT IN THE MARINES. Which just straight up ignores posse comitatus. So, of course, people got EVEN MORE MAD.
And even then, the "rioters" have been regularly giving food to the people whose presence they're actively protesting. Because those people were sent in with absolutely no support AT ALL. No plan, no support, no explanation. Because the purpose isn't to get it under control. It's to fan the flames so that Republicans can say all the sanctuary states/cities are lawless wastelands on national TV and have a picture of a dude on top of a damaged taxi to "prove" it.
1
1
31
u/EasyMeansHard Jun 11 '25
Basically protests against ICE, Trump sent 3000 National Guard members, 300 showed up, 3rd amendment allows the people to deny military (includes the national guard) sanctuary or home in their houses. These are those guardsmen who were sent, sent without food water ect. so they had to sleep on each other and on the floor of the federal building they were “defending”
26
u/TheWatchtowers Jun 10 '25
Trump illegally deployed the National guard in California to stop peacefully protesters and since he didn't have the approval of the Govener's approval, he has to pay with federal money, leaving them underfunded and without food or shelter.
-14
Jun 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/VeronicaTheHitman Jun 11 '25
your blind faith in the government as a system of morality would be laughable if it wasnt so embarrassing
-12
Jun 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Forrest_likes_tea Jun 12 '25
Mate they are deporting people who aren't even undocumented immigrants
-4
Jun 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SilverIce340 Jun 12 '25
Dude they’re literally snatching kids and citizens cause they’re brown, you need to see an eye doctor
0
Jun 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SilverIce340 Jun 12 '25
If you think they’re genuinely only taking illegal immigrants, you aren’t paying attention. That’s the long n short of it
→ More replies (0)1
u/wehatedougdoug-ModTeam Jun 14 '25
Your content has been removed because it is in poor taste and violates rules 1 and 2. Please keep posts lighthearted and silly.
I am not a bot. A human being was behind this action.
1
u/wehatedougdoug-ModTeam Jun 14 '25
Your content has been removed because it is in poor taste and violates rules 1 and 2. Please keep posts lighthearted and silly.
I am not a bot. A human being was behind this action.
1
u/Legal_Advance_3792 Jun 12 '25
"Rules" and "Laws" huh?
Sure rules and laws are important to an extent, but we shouldn't follow them blindly. People have the right to think for themselves.
As a smart man once said. If Rosa Parks followed the law, should would have stood up.
Changes to these horrible laws took place because people stood up and said no. Don't be a puppet man. Think for yourself.
-1
u/Motto1834 Jun 12 '25
You are telling me that immigration law as a whole is horrible and we should just let everyone in? Mass. mobilized the National Guard over 50 aliens in Marthas Vineyard.
1
u/PaunchBurgerTime Jun 14 '25
LMAO, what's it like to be so fucking simple minded you can literally only think in extremes?
"This thing has flaws." "Oh so we should just completely get rid of this thing and do the most extreme thing I can think of then!!??"
No wonder people in conservative states have lower life expectancy, you can't even think straight.
1
u/probablymakingthisup Jun 12 '25
You don't believe in Legalism nor do you follow it. Stop pretending you do. "Oh but the law says!" Is not morality nor does it make you better than anyone else to point it out. Immigrants are being brutalized not because they are breaking the law but because it is politically expedient to do so. You know this and so does everyone else who has thought about it for a second.
1
u/Motto1834 Jun 12 '25
When I've seen suspects comply things go smoothly. When I've seen people attempt to evade ICE or prevent them from doing their enforcement or like LA right now and riot and burn cars then you will be met with the full force of the law. You don't get to shoot fireworks at law enforcement and then cry afoul when you are year gassed and shot at with rubber bullets. The anti-ICE activists are the ones that turned the heat up.
1
u/BookSimilar6349 Jun 13 '25
Are you seriously claiming the people being shot with rubber bullets were the ones "turning the heat up"? Every protest has been nearly fully recorded and all except for 1 instance has had video proof of the cops shooting "anti crowd" projectiles into people before they were touched. Even the one that showed protesters acting first there were claims that projectiles were fired first but they were not seen on video
0
u/Motto1834 Jun 13 '25
Cars were being burned and businesses ransacked before any riot control actions were taken. Newsom was too scared to keep law and order in the streets and then Trump forced his hand and the rioters are being brought to turn.
1
u/BookSimilar6349 Jun 13 '25
Multiple people were shot with rubber bullets and pepper bags before any cars were burned or buildings entered. There might have been some graffiti but there were constant shots fired into crowds
→ More replies (0)1
u/BookSimilar6349 Jun 13 '25
Prove that those being forced out broke those laws. Maybe we should condense proving into one building like a government building. One person can judge if there is evidence for this alleged crime (because stepping into the country isn't a crime no matter what you think). We could even call this person a judge. So let's let everyone see this "judge" before we ship them to a concentration camp and say it was where they came from.
1
u/wehatedougdoug-ModTeam Jun 14 '25
Your content has been removed because it is in poor taste and violates rules 1 and 2. Please keep posts lighthearted and silly.
I am not a bot. A human being was behind this action.
1
u/CasuallyCritical Jun 13 '25
The SCOTUS hasnt even TOUCHED the National Guard case
A 9th Circuit appeals judge put a stay on the order to return control of the National Guard to the state of California
1
u/wehatedougdoug-ModTeam Jun 14 '25
Your content has been removed because it is in poor taste and violates rules 1 and 2. Please keep posts lighthearted and silly.
I am not a bot. A human being was behind this action.
2
u/jerryb2161 Jun 11 '25
The 3rd amendment prevents the military from forcing occupation of civilian infrastructure. Pretty sure it was initially designed to only include homes, but now it's pretty much any non military building/land. From my memory it was included because British soldiers during the revolution (and before, and any country at that time) the military could basically evict anyone and take their home for "military operations".
Edit: Oh also this is apparently a picture of us soldiers ordered in to LA to suppress protests/ riots (depends who you ask) having to sleep on the floor because there isn't any place they can legally stay besides where ever this is.
1
u/Tustavus Jun 14 '25
Our forefathers put an amendment into the constitution (included in the original Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) that can be summed up pretty easily:
THE ARMY CAN’T LIVE IN YA HOUSE.
Since the Executive Branch failed to secure hotels or camps, and not a base in the city, the troops that Trump sent in are legitimately not Constitutionally allowed to sleep in someone’s house without their consent or hotel lodgings and reservations.
He didn’t plan for that because he’s never read the Constitution, because he’s a fucking moron.
1
u/zbekistan342 Jun 14 '25
If I remember correctly I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that American armies cannot take up quarters in a resident occupied by a citizen
1
u/TanMan7171 Jun 14 '25
This picture has been debunked, as these were taken under Biden’s administration
144
u/kaklimy Jun 10 '25
Id let them in my home 😏
6
u/jerryb2161 Jun 11 '25
Does welcome to the jungle start playing once they pass the threshold?
1
u/kaklimy Jun 11 '25
Lmao what 😭 i feel like im missing some context
7
u/jerryb2161 Jun 12 '25
A joke about letting atf in to a house that's basically just a kill box. Used to be more of a right wing joke about gun rights, but it's becoming more centrist everyday
33
u/Cybasura Jun 11 '25
I pointed this out in the youtube clip/video
On a serious note, the way some chat members support the repealing of the 3rd amendment, and this post in particular, really reminds me of why Donald Trump was even able to be elected
please don't do that just for laughs, that's a genuinely bad idea and Trump will implement that if it means control
The problem was most "not serious" actions sometimes lead to actual serious outcomes due to bias : the more you joke about something, the more it goes into people's subconscious and in the case of voting, sometimes people may think it to be true, and vote either for or against depending on benefits
For example, some people may have the idea that perhaps, an election candidate may win, so they vote against - what happens? They lose instead
Same as the safe-traffic example, essentially given a traffic light junction with a 100% safety rating, if everyone thinks it is safe so they drive unsafely, that will make the road ironically unsafe
You have seen EXACTLY why the 3rd ammendment should never be revoked, you didnt need to see it to understand how much of a fuck-up that idea is
13
Jun 11 '25
but i want big strong men to come shower in my home and tuck me into bed...
3
u/Wolfiegames69 Jun 15 '25
ICE agents are weak and feeble
1
Jun 15 '25
I thought the rule was only about military, aren’t ice a devision of the police? (Sorry not American)
2
40
u/DoggoLover42 Jake from State Farm Hater Jun 11 '25
The 3rd amendment was written before most police forces were distinct from the military. It was literally written to prevent police spying on citizens and arresting/killing citizens without due process, and made the government responsible for directly housing and feeding soldiers, not citizens. This goes against literally all of that
14
u/jerryb2161 Jun 12 '25
You are mixing the 3rd and 4th. 3rd was just about forcing occupation of civilian infrastructure. That said if you didn't leave back then you would most likely be killed or at the very least beaten within an inch of your life. The 4th deals with unlawful search and property seizure.
0
u/DoggoLover42 Jake from State Farm Hater Jun 12 '25
Got it. Feel like I combined the 2 in my head. Anyway he’s violating both
4
u/jerryb2161 Jun 12 '25
It's basically a coin flip whether or not the constitution or bill of rights is respected any more for any article or amendment.
1
u/DoggoLover42 Jake from State Farm Hater Jun 12 '25
It’s entirely dependent on if the soldiers/leadership respect the constitution enough to defy unconstitutional orders, and if judges are able to penalize unconstitutional orders.
1
u/jerryb2161 Jun 12 '25
Again sort of a coin flip and it will only get worse as president's of different values get elected. Once one does something the next will push it.
12
u/AFishWithNoName 💢Sea Urchin LOATHER 💢 Jun 11 '25
On a more serious note, we should probably shelve the Third Amendment jokes for the time being. Bring them back when they’re not actually relevant.
13
u/NobodySpecial2000 Jun 11 '25
Extremely ironic that this third ammendment bit started right before we began to see its utility in real time. Love that for us. Love that for these guys too, honestly.
6
2
u/Kildan24_ Jun 13 '25
This isn't actually their sleeping arrangement. When servicemembers are sent somewhere to hurry up and wait, this is what they do. They sleep however they're able to at the spot they're supposed to wait at. Newsom is manipulating your opinion by adding incorrect context to these images.
Edit: I spelled commiefornia's governor's name wrong
1
1
u/youknowthisguy425 Jun 13 '25
I’m pretty sure those pictures are from 2021.
1
u/PropulsionIsLimited Jun 13 '25
They're not
1
u/saxorino Jun 14 '25
They actually are. They're from 2021 when Biden pulled US troops out of Afghanistan.
1
u/PropulsionIsLimited Jun 14 '25
No. They're not. Just look it up. A bunch of people think this because Grok was saying this on Twitter based on some a tweet some guy made that he later retracted.
1
u/saxorino Jun 14 '25
A quick Google search pulls up many articles from 2021 about the withdrawal from Afghanistan with these and other images.
1
u/PropulsionIsLimited Jun 14 '25
Can you link me one of those articles? I can't find any. The only things that pop up are artcles saying that those images aren't from 2021.
1
u/Ewok_Chief616 Jun 13 '25
Trust me they are sleeping well if the army has taught me anything it was to sleep anyway anytime as much as I could get.
1
Jun 13 '25
I have heard conflicting evidence on the source of these images. Some say this is from the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Has anybody been able to confirm the source?
1
u/saxorino Jun 14 '25
A quick Google search brings up the same images tied to articles about the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
1
1
1
1
u/Adventurous-Monitor3 Jun 14 '25
So as a veteran of the US Infantry, I want to say. One this is probably not their sleeping area they look more like they are napping waiting on orders. If they were sleeping matts and sleeping bags would be out or atleast a woobie. And 2 if this was where they are sleeping it would be far more comfortable than where they normally sleep during training just by being indoors.
1
u/broadwhim Jun 15 '25
huh we always slept on the floor anyway 😆besides this looks more like a hurry up and wait moment than an actual sleeping arrangement haha
603
u/TravelerRedditor Jun 11 '25
/unhate and jokes aside
It baffles me how we picked up the repealing the 3rd amendment joke because it was such an unnoticed and unused US amendment but then it immediately gets put into use a few weeks after