Re: New York's Crackdown on Ebikes

On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 06:28:42 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 6/1/2025 10:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/1/2025 6:32 AM, zen cycle 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.

 
"What "fictional" legal status? "
 
The Biden administration created a 'parole' designation out of thin air
to facilitate a lawless 'open border' regime. SCOTUS wasn't having it:
 
https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-immigration-
deportation-8bc46820c6444fbb3540c09764e32905

>
oh fer fucks sake. Would you _please_ read your links before you post them?
>
1- Humanitarian parole is no more fiction that the sun will rise
tomorrow. It's well within the presidents authority to create such LEGAL
pathways.
>
2- It's not an "open border" policy...stop parroting karoline leavitt.
>
2- Scotus didn't determine that humanitarian parole was not legal. The
case in your link determined that Trump had the authority to revoke the
status. The white house _wants_ to spin the policy as illegal, but that
was never the question, and the courts didn't come anywhere close to
claiming humanitarian parole was illegal.
>
It's funny how you people rant fictitious claims of biden creating 'open
borders' and unconstitutional protections, but remain silent when trump
wants to overturn constitutional protections (birthright citizenship) by
executive order.
>
You may find birthright citizenship to be unpleasant, but that is
protected by the constitution, and as such may be changed only changed
by constitutional amendment. Write your congressperson about your ideas.
>

 
Persons who are present illegally are subject to deportation with
extremely limited process:
 
https://www.usa.gov/deportation-process
 
Mostly a finding of fact that they are, indeed, illegally present.

>
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.
>
While you're at it, see if you can start a petition to allow trump to
change the constitution by executive order. But only for trump, of
course, because a democrat president would only use it as a means to
become a dictator.
>

Actually, noting the extremely limited due process afforded to
illegals isn't particularly unpleasant. It's not as though it has to
involve a courtroom and a judge.

--
C'est bon
Soloman