Re: New York's Crackdown on Ebikes

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 07:32:47 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 5/31/2025 12:15 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/31/2025 7:57 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 5/30/2025 5:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/30/2025 1:43 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 5/30/2025 12:28 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/30/2025 11:07 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2025 10:41:51 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/30/2025 9:16 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Am 30.05.2025 um 14:36 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Fri, 30 May 2025 08:25:26 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 5/26/2025 10:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/26/2025 8:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/26/2025 4:16 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:36:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike
traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the
paywall:
>
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ ebikes-scooters-
cyclists- nyc.html?
unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share

>
>
“This is a direct attack on immigrant workers,” Ms. Guallpa
said.
“The
intent is to criminalize workers and to create a situation
where our
communities could be targets for deportation.”
>
Typical NYT woke nonsense...
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
+1 with the typical misdirection and conflation.
>
Legal Resident Aliens (taxpaying, working people who cannot
vote) are
ignored, along with US citizens. Criminal illegal aliens
who, by
Statute, cannot work and who are subject to summary
deportation by the
same Statutes, are where her sympathies lie.

>
Damn. The right wing of this newsgroup is always on hair
trigger!
>
The article contains over 2000 words. Of those, only about three
paragraphs mention immigrant delivery workers. The rest deals
with the
disparity between ebike and car enforcement policies, noting
that cars
kill far, far more pedestrians. It doesn't even mention that NYC
life is
totally dominated by the negative effects of car traffic. Yet
people
are
enraged about the comparatively minuscule effects of ebikes,
and ebike
riders are in some ways being treated more harshly than car
drivers.
>
Look, I think ebike riders should ride legally. I think U.S.
ebikes are
too fast, and/or should be legally treated more like
motorcycles -
meaning integrated into traffic and kept off bike paths.
>
But you guys ignore all that, blinded by the brief mention of
immigrants. You never fail to respond to right wing dog
whistles, even
if  you have to blow the whistle yourself.

>
Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will
consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their
ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink
nonsense.
>
Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda
- there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal
aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."

>
Since deportation only applies to people in the USA illegally, her
statement absolutely indicates her sympathies are with the
illegals.

>
Deportation applies to people "presumed illegal" by the
administration,
not only to people legally determined illegal.
Sadly the current admisitration has declared people illegal and
attempted to deport without due process.

>
+1, There have already been several well documented detentions and
attempted deportations of _legal_ immigrants.
>

>
Mistakes were made. All were quickly corrected.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
Compare with some 20 million errors in the other direction in the
past four years.
>

>
Oh, great, now you're on board with 'The Great Replacement' theory.
>
Interesting that an admitted atheist would be supportive of
blatantly white christian nationalist fascism. Gee Andrew, who's
going to be there when they come for you?
>

>
I have no idea what you're raving about.

>
yes you do, you're just unwilling to admit it.
>

>
Go find a blatant white Christian nationalist fascist who's
expounding some 'replacement theory' and give her a piece of your mind.

>
Just for everyone else's edification who might be ignorant:
>
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-twisted-logic- behind-the-
rights-great-replacement-arguments/
>
Don't try to feign ignorance Andrew, you're far too well- read and
aware for me to buy that bullshit.
>

>
Even SCOTUS agrees that open borders as fiat policy is unlawful:
>
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court- immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905

>
WTF? Are you taking kunich lessons now? You changed the subject then
posted a link which doesn't support your claim.
>
1) we weren't discussing open borders, we were discussing due process
for deportation of illegal immigrants.
>
2) your website doesn't address open borders, it addresses revoking
_legal_ status for asylum seekers. The first sentence states:
>
"The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump
administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of
thousands of immigrants".
>
Regardless of your attempted distraction, the premise floated in this
forum by the floriduh dumbass that illegal aliens have no due process
protection is flat out wrong.
>
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/ removal-
of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states
"Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme
Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the
United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due
Process Clause, which applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United
States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
unlawful, temporary, or permanent.”"
>
>
>

 
My link is germane because making up a fictional legal status is a
purposeful attempt to thwart the actual Statute.

>
What "fictional" legal status? The only fiction being promoted here is
the dumbasses claim that illegal aliens have no due process rights.
>

 
Regarding rights, US citizens enjoy full Constitutional rights including
full due process. We proudly keep to that standard even when it perverts
justice. And that's a good thing overall. We haven't changed it for good
reasons.
 
Franklin:
“That it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that
one innocent person should suffer is a maxim that has been long and
generally approved.”
 
Resident Legal Aliens have limited rights and their status can be
revoked. RAs do have significant process rights in that event. More than
merely not enjoying the franchise, RAs are importantly not citizens.
Unlike our new fellow citizens who completed the naturalization process,
Resident Aliens have not sworn loyalty to the nation and the nation in
turn may revoke that status, but not summarily.  RAs have rights, but
more limited than citizens' rights.
 
Temporary visa holders are different again. These include people
permitted entry for tourism or business, student/educator, seasonal
work, specialty skill employment and more.  All of those may be revoked
much more easily than Resident Alien status by the Secretary of State or
his agent, _"at his or her discretion"_:
 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/41.122
 
Illegal entry is a crime. Those in the country illegally are subject to
summary deportation.

>
Let me see if I can make this so simple that even you understand it:
>
ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
>
Does that make it more clear?
>

 
Anything above unpleasant to you may be changed by Statute. Write your
Congressman with your ideas.
 

>
The unpleasantness is the magatard's constant demonstrably false
declaration that illegal aliens have no due process rights. Everything
you've written above is true, the issue is that you're purposely
avoiding the due process issue.
>
You may find due process afforded to illegal aliens to be unpleasant,
but that is protected by statute, and as such may be changed by statute.
Write your congressperson about your ideas.

The cite JUnior posted said that they are limited according to their
legal status.

From Junior's cite:

"The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence indicates that, although aliens
present within the United States generally have due process
protections, the extent of those constitutional protections may depend
on certain factors, including whether the alien has been lawfully
admitted"

--
C'est bon
Soloman