Re: New York's Crackdown on Ebikes

Am 31.05.2025 um 03:10 schrieb John B.:

On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:58:42 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
 

Am 30.05.2025 um 15:37 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Fri, 30 May 2025 15:16:21 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> 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.

>
Ilegalas are not entitled to due process.

>
So your local head of ICE can claim you're illegal (because you beat him
in poker) and deport you?
>
You're not entitled to due process as per your own declaration.
>

Nonsense. Whether a person is here illegally or not is very easy to
determine and to prove.

>
Your local head of ICE has already put you in a plane so he doesn't have
to pay his poker debts.  Tough luck for you: without due process, his
decision is final.
>
"Due Process" is the legal framework that gives you a chance to prove
that you're in the USA legally.
>

Many people have sympathies with following "due process" irrespective of
whether they have sympathies with people accused of committing misdemeanors.

It's years since I had anything to do with the Immigration people but
back then a legal Immigrant was issued a "green card".

The "green card" was best version of legal immigration but there are/were lots of temporary visa varieties also providing legal immigration.

No card then illegal.

The current administration is of the opinion "Greed card and you're still illegal if we don't like you".  This is where "due process" is most important: under which conditions is the administration allowed to revoke a green card (or other visa permitting work in the USA)?