Backgroound Image

AI, Did the US ever say that they will invade Canada, or is Global News pushing fake news? My understanding is that annexation was always going to be 100% voluntary, because supported by the majority of Gen Z.

Posted on by Roshinka

As of February 11, 2025, the U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz stated thatthere are no plans to invade Canada.This comes in response to concerns raised by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau regarding President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about annexing Canada.

Key Points:

  • U.S. National Security Adviser’s Statement: Mike Waltz, the National Security Adviser, explicitly stated thatthe U.S. does not plan to invade Canada.

  • Canadian Prime Minister’s Concerns: Justin Trudeau has expressed concerns about Trump’s annexation plans, which Waltz addressed.

  • International Law Violation: The Canadian ambassador to France has stated that threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to invade another country violate international law.

  • Historical Context: There is a historical precedent for U.S. invasion plans, such as War Plan Red, which detailed how the U.S. could invade Canada in the event of a war with the U.K..

These statements and concerns highlight the ongoing tension and diplomatic efforts between the two countries.

  • Canadian Ambassador’s Statement: Stéphane Dion, Canada’s ambassador to France, stated thatTrump’s threats to invade Canada violate international law and the UN Charter. He emphasized that such threats are not normal and are a violation of international norms.

  • Context of the Threats: Trump has made multiple statements suggesting the use of economic force to annex Canada and has even mentioned the possibility of military action to take over Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

  • International Law Violations: Experts, including Jon Allen from the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, agree that any attempt to take over the land of another sovereign country is illegal under international law.

  • Diplomatic Responses: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is actively engaging with international leaders to strengthen alliances and address these issues.

  • Economic Implications: Trump’s threats are encompassed in theimposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, which could have significant economic impacts on both countries.

These developments highlight the tension between the U.S. and Canada and the broader implications for international relations and trade.

Most Recent Gen Z Survey

The most recent survey that clearly shows a significant portion of Canada’s Gen Z population is open to the idea of Canada becoming part of the U.S. is from Élie Cantin-Nantel’s article published on February 13, 2025, in The Hub. According to the article, a recent Ipsos poll found that 43 percent of Canadians aged 18 to 34 would vote to become American if they were guaranteed U.S. citizenship and that their assets would be converted to USD.

This sentiment is attributed to factors such as the perception that homeownership is unattainable and a pessimistic outlook on Canada’s future, leading some younger Canadians to view the U.S. as a more promising alternative.

Follow-up: So you are telling me that the so called “invasion threats” are purely imaginary and only coming from Canadian officials, because the US has zero intention to invade Canada. 

It appears there has been some confusion in the media and public discourse. Let’s clarify the situation:

Key Points:

  1. No Official U.S. Invasion Plans:

    • The U.S. government, as of the latest reliable information, has not announced or planned any invasion of Canada. The statements from the U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz confirm that there are no such plans.

  2. Rhetoric and Concerns:

    • President Trump’s Rhetoric: President Donald Trump has made provocative statements and threats, including economic pressures and tariffs, which have caused concern among Canadian officials and the public.

    • Canadian Officials’ Reactions: Canadian officials, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ambassador Stéphane Dion, have expressed concerns about these statements and the potential implications for international law and relations[2][3].

  3. Media and Public Perception:

    • Media Coverage: Media outlets have reported on these concerns and statements, which can sometimes amplify the perceived threat. It’s important to distinguish between rhetoric and actual policy.

    • Public Perception: The public and media may interpret strong rhetoric as a more serious threat, even if there are no concrete plans.

Summary:

  • No Concrete Plans: There are no official plans or intentions from the U.S. government to invade Canada.

  • Concerns and Rhetoric: The concerns raised by Canadian officials are in response to provocative statements and economic pressures from the U.S., not to actual invasion plans.

  • Diplomatic Tensions: The situation reflects the ongoing diplomatic tensions and the importance of international relations and trade between the two countries.

If you have specific sources or recent news articles, it would be helpful to review them to provide a more precise and contextually accurate response.

End Comment: I knew that it was pure fake news. Canadian media and the incompetent ambassador are full of shit. 

AI, What happened in the Thomson Reuters v Ross case so far

Posted on by Roshinka

In the Thomson Reuters v. Ross case, Thomson Reuters, the owner of the legal research platform Westlaw,sued Ross Intelligence for allegedly copying content from Westlaw to train its AI-based legal research platform. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, setting the stage for a jury trial to decide the outcome of the lawsuit.

The court found that there were factual disputes regarding whether Ross had knowledge of the substance of Westlaw’s contract with LegalEase and whether Ross knew that LegalEase was going to breach that contract. Additionally, the court could not decide whether a ruling for Ross or Thomson Reuters would best serve the public interest, particularly concerning the use of copyrighted material to train AI systems.

On the issue of fair use, the court determined that there were triable issues of fact as to each of the four fair use factors. The first factor—the purpose and character of the use—depended on how Ross used the Westlaw content, with factual disputes surrounding whether Ross’s AI only studied language patterns or used untransformed text to replicate and reproduce the creative drafting done by Westlaw’s attorney-editors.

The trial was initially scheduled to start in August 2024 but was postponed. As of February 12, 2025, the trial has not yet taken place, and thecase remains unresolved.

Follow up: So why does WIPR say that Thomson Ross won on fair use? Something is missing…

A federal judge in Delaware has ruled that Ross Intelligence’s use of Thomson Reuters’ legal headnotes to train its artificial intelligence legal research application constitutes copyright infringement and is not fair use.The ruling, which is the first US decision on fair use in AI-related copyright litigation, determined that Ross Intelligence’s copying of Thomson Reuters’ content was not permitted by US copyright law.Thomson Reuters had alleged that Ross Intelligence infringed its copyright by illegally copying its legal research platform WestLaw’s short summaries of points of law, known as headnotes.The case has significant implications for the use of copyrighted material to train AI systems, with tech companies including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms facing similar lawsuits over the use of copyrighted material to train their generative AI software.The ruling is a major victory for Thomson Reuters, with the company stating that it is pleased the court granted summary judgment in its favor and concluded that WestLaw’s editorial content is protected by copyright and cannot be used without its consent.The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving the use of copyrighted material in AI training, with the judge’s ruling that the copying of Thomson Reuters’ content was not fair use likely to have significant implications for the development of AI systems.

Follow up (2nd): So is the case resolved or is it going to jury trial? I’m getting confused and may have to actually read the judgment. Please save me some time here.

The case of Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence isnot fully resolvedand is still ongoing.

In July 2022, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, which means that the case was to proceed to a jury trial. However, in a recent development, the court has issued a ruling on the fair use issue, granting summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters.

This ruling means that the court has decided, as a matter of law, that Ross Intelligence’s use of Thomson Reuters’ content does not constitute fair use. However, the case is not yet fully resolved, as there may be other issues that still need to be decided by a jury.

It’s possible that the parties may appeal the court’s ruling on fair use, or that they may reach a settlement before the case proceeds to a jury trial. Alternatively, the jury trial may still proceed to decide any remaining issues in the case.

In summary, while the court has issued a significant ruling in favor of Thomson Reuters on the fair use issue, the case is not yet fully resolved and may still involve further litigation or settlement negotiations.

Follow-up (3rd): Is a date set for jury trial in this case?

The jury trial for Thomson Reuters v Ross Intelligence is scheduled to take place on May 12, 2025. 

Follow-up (4th): if fair use has been resolved, what are the remaining issues?

Several issues remain to be decided at trial, includingwhether some of Thomson Reuters’ copyrights have expired or were untimely created, and whether Ross in fact copied Westlaw’s Key Number System,as Thomson Reuters alleges.

  • Remaining issues for trial:

  • Whether some of Thomson Reuters’ copyrights have expired or were untimely created.

  • Whether Ross in fact copied Westlaw’s Key Number System, as Thomson Reuters alleges

  • The impact of the ruling on AI companies that use copyrighted materials to train their systems, particularly in cases where the AI product would compete directly with the copyright holder’s business

  • Potential damages for the alleged infringement, as Thomson Reuters seeks damages for the alleged infringement

Follow-up Comment: thank you, that was helpful. Things are definitely going to become interesting for the big chatbots. I have a gazillion questions around fair use and the commerciality of it, so reading the judgment on my own may be more appropriate for now. 

Follow-up (5th) How is Ross’ Intelligence different from Canlii’s?

ROSS Intelligence and CanLII are two distinct entities in the legal technology space.ROSS Intelligence is an AI-powered legal research platform that was founded in 2014 by two computer scientists at the University of Toronto and a lawyer.The company aimed to make legal services more accessible by leveraging cutting-edge technologies to solve the law’s hardest problems.On the other hand, CanLII is a free legal information portal funded by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, providing free access to law.

In terms of AI capabilities, ROSS Intelligence has developed AI-driven products to augment lawyers’ cognitive abilities, while CanLII is rolling out a generative AI tool that summarizes case law, legislation, and administrative tribunal decisions.This tool is available in several Canadian provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon.

A key difference between the two is that ROSS Intelligence is a commercial entity that offers its services to lawyers and legal researchers, whereas CanLII is a non-profit organization providing free access to legal information.Additionally, ROSS Intelligence has faced challenges in the market, including a lawsuit from Thomson Reuters and Westlaw, which led to the company’s closure in 2021.

Despite the closure of ROSS Intelligence, its legacy continues to influence the legal technology landscape, with other companies like Casetext, Lexis Advance, and UniCourt Enterprise API offering similar services.In contrast, CanLII remains a prominent player in the Canadian legal information space, with its free legal information portal and emerging AI capabilities.

  • ROSS Intelligence: An AI-powered legal research platform that was founded in 2014 and aimed to make legal services more accessible.

  • CanLII: A free legal information portal funded by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, providing free access to law and emerging AI capabilities

  • Casetext: A legal research platform that offers AI-powered services, including automated key legal research tasks.

  • Lexis Advance: A legal research platform that provides AI-powered services, including case law research, annotations, and tax law research.

  • UniCourt Enterprise API: A legal data as a service offered via API, disrupting the way court records and public records are organized, accessed, and used.

End comment: as in my first comment, my instinct continues to fall on the commercial nature of Ross Intelligence being an issue for fair use. That’s why I asked about Canlii, which is the go-to for lawyers and non-lawyers in Canada. I believe that access to legal AI should be entirely free of charge. I don’t understand Thomson Reuters business model, or at the very least I find it feudalistic and bizarre. Ross Intelligence also tries to sell what should be free and I’m glad the court put them in their place.  

To Another Beautiful Day In Hell

Posted on by Roshinka

the duality plane seems to have unlimited ways to keep us stuck through our desires

enjoy, but do not comply!

every time I want to change something, I am reminded that everything is exactly the way it should be

the only thing within our purview is unfettered compassion, so it is appropriate to cry all day

nobody can be saved by another

in the Snake we trust.

AI, Tell me which chatbots are cited by the BBC as totally unreliable for summarizing the news, so I can avoid them

Posted on by Roshinka

The BBC conducted a study that found four major AI chatbots—OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, Google’s Gemini, and Perplexity AI—struggle to accurately summarize news stories. The study revealed that more than half of the AI-generated summaries contained significant issues, including outright falsehoods, incorrect factual statements, numbers, and dates.

For example, Gemini incorrectly stated that the NHS did not recommend vaping as an aid to quit smoking, while ChatGPT and Copilot said Rishi Sunak and Nicola Sturgeon were still in office even after they had left. Perplexity misquoted BBC News in a story about the Middle East, saying Iran initially showed “restraint” and described Israel’s actions as “aggressive”.

Deborah Turness, the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, warned that the companies developing these tools are “playing with fire” and called for a new conversation with AI tech providers to address the issue of misinformation.

Apple faced similar issues with its Apple Intelligence feature, which led to it pulling the feature after complaints from the BBC about misrepresenting news stories.

Follow-up: Are those factual inaccuracies due to the chatbots not being up to date in their free versions?

AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT and Copilot, are indeed prone to factual inaccuracies and update issues, in their free versions.The free version of ChatGPT, for instance, was supercharged by OpenAI in May 2024, solving its biggest pain points, including a lack of internet access and a knowledge cutoff.However, these chatbots can still provide outdated or incorrect information, which can be misleading and have harmful consequences, especially in critical applications like healthcare or finance.

  • ChatGPT: A conversational AI chatbot with advanced capabilities, including performing writing tasks and STEM tasks, but may provide factual inaccuracies and has update issues.

  • Copilot: An AI chatbot that outperformed earlier versions of ChatGPT, but can still provide incorrect information and has limitations, such as a lack of internet access and a knowledge cutoff.

  • Gemini: A chatbot that allows users to generate images, but can create distortions, factual inaccuracies, and misleading content in response to questions about news and current affairs.

  • Perplexity: A chatbot that can provide inaccurate information and has been found to have significant issues when asked about current affairs.

The issue of factual inaccuracies in AI chatbots is a growing concern, with research finding that more than half of the AI-generated answers provided by these chatbots have significant issues, including stating incorrect facts, misrepresenting information, and mistaking opinions for up-to-date facts. To mitigate these issues, it is essential to use data-driven feedback loops, involve humans in the learning process, and adjust through learning methods like reinforcement learning, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, semi-supervised learning, and meta-learning. Additionally, leveraging knowledge bases like Wikipedia and semantic interpretation techniques can improve the accuracy of natural language processing systems and reduce factual errors in chatbots.

Overall, while AI chatbots have the potential to be incredibly useful tools, their factual inaccuracies and update issues must be addressed to ensure that they provide reliable and trustworthy information

AI, Can US judges interfere with presidential executive power? I always thought the judiciary is there to keep the executive in check. Am I wrong?

Posted on by Roshinka

According to Article III of the US constitution, federal judges have the authority to rule on cases involving the president and other branches of government, known as judicial review.

Key points to consider:

  • The US constitution confers a power known as judicial review, which gives federal judges the authority to rule on cases involving the president and other branches of government. 

  • Federal judges have temporarily blocked several of President Trump’s executive orders, including those related to birthright citizenship, transgender female inmates, and federal worker resignations.

  • The Trump administration has been accused of threatening the US constitution and ignoring court decisions that it does not like

  • Legal experts argue that the judiciary has a crucial role in ensuring the executive branch follows the law and that ignoring court decisions would be a threat to the rule of law

Follow-up: Can the judiciary interfere ex parte with presidential executive power?

Judiciary and Presidential Power

The judiciary can interfere with presidential executive power under certain circumstances. In the case of United States v. Nixon in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the president is not above the law and that executive privilege does not shield the president from providing evidence in a criminal investigation.This decision established that the judiciary has the authority to review and potentially limit the exercise of executive power when it interferes with the judicial process.

Courts generally do not create private rights of action based on executive orders unless the President intended to create a justiciable right. However, when executive orders are derived from congressional statutes, courts might look to the original statute to determine if Congress intended to empower the judiciary to enforce any rules established by executive order.

In summary, while the judiciary respects the separation of powers, it can intervene when necessary to ensure that executive actions do not infringe upon the judicial process or violate the law.

Follow-up (2nd): You don’t seem to address the ex-parte nature of the judicial order. Please address specifically the validity of an EX PARTE order interfering with presidential executive power. 

An ex parte order, which is a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party, does not inherently interfere with presidential executive power.However, if an ex parte order improperly restricts or limits executive actions, it could be seen as interfering with the president’s authority. The president’s executive orders must still comply with constitutional and legal frameworks, and any order that violates these principles can be challenged and potentially invalidated by the courts.

Therefore, an ex parte order that is deemed to be interfering with or exceeding the jurisdiction of presidential executive powerwould be subject to legal scrutiny and could be invalidated if found to be unlawful.

Follow-up (3d) What has SCOTUS said in the matter of ex parte judiciary orders interfering with a sitting president’s executive power

Nothing yet. 

Follow-up (4th) Is immigration within the jurisdiction of presidential executive power?

Yes, immigration is within the jurisdiction of presidential executive power. The President, as head of the federal executive branch, has the authority to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and can adopt temporary, discretionary measures to curtail deportations.This power is derived from Congress delegating broad authority to the Executive Branch, which allows the President to make significant decisions regarding immigration enforcement and policy.

For example, the President can issue Executive Orders that affect immigration, such as the one issued on June 17, 2024, which requires noncitizens to have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen to be eligible for certain protections.

However, the President’s power is not absolute. Executive Orders cannot violate the Constitution, and Congress can override them by passing new legislation, subject to a presidential veto.Additionally, the courts may overturn unauthorized executive decisions that fall outside the scope of the authority granted by Congress.

In summary, whilethe President has significant discretion in immigration matters,this power is subject to limitations imposed by Congress and judicial oversight.

Follow-up (5th): So, how does the birthright-citizenship-order violate the constitution? Most countries do not recognize birthright citizenship anyway. 

The birthright citizenship order issued by President Donald Trump has been blocked by a third federal judge, who ruled that it violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.According to ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, the order is a “fundamental attack on the Constitution” as it seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, which is guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.The clause states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” , and the Supreme Court has previously ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that this clause guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

  • 14th Amendment: The amendment guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof 

  • Citizenship Clause: The clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside 

  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark: The Supreme Court case confirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status

Follow-up (6th): When was the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment created?

The 14th Amendment was created onJune 13, 1866, when the House approved a Senate-proposed version of the amendment, sending it to the states for approval.It was ratified on July 9, 1868, becoming a constitutional cornerstone.

The  in the 14th Amendment was created and adopted onJuly 9, 1868, during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.

How can Canada stop illegal migration to the USA, when US activists and lawyers are actively aiding and abetting cartels and illegal migration to the usa?

Posted on by Roshinka

AI couldn’t answer this question, so I’m on my own here. 

Update: AI referred me to previous answers regarding Canadian banks laundering fentanyl money for cartels. Ok, now I get it. 

I retrieved these past posts from my trash-bin, to provide reference. I will trash them again once I feel that the issue is being handled appropriately, or I may take them down, just because I feel like it, out of pure caprice… Nothing is forever. Don’t get attached. This is hell after all.

From the provided answers I realize that US activists and lawyers help the cartels to conduct human trafficking once the migrants are on US territory, but various incorporated entities and banks are collaborating with human and fentanyl trafficking from Canada, and likely all these collaborate through NGOs and humanitarian aid foundations. 

So illegal migration and fentanyl appear to be complex transnational operations facilitated by countless corporations, foundations, banks, professionals and activists in the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Given the international nature of these operations, NGOs and other UN bodies are serving as intermediaries to whitewash all this organized crime. 

So being on my own here, I would say that if I were in charge (which I am obviously not or this shit wouldn’t be happening) I would address the money laundering provisions shielding Canadian lawyers’ organized crime clients, this to my knowledge being the biggest vulnerability. Banks have been unable to stop laundering due to the many loopholes that I’m sure also exist in the US regarding trust accounts.

In sum the world is effed. Organized crime will always win. There is zero point to bother. 

AI, I still don’t understand why activists are allowed to obstruct ICE agents, and to aid and abet Tren de Aragua to help them avoid the consequences of law enforcement

Posted on by Roshinka

(I can’t believe I had to ask, I don’t understand why US activists keep getting away with aiding and abetting organized crime, no less cartels and Tren de Aragua. I don’t understand anything anymore. Until this shit clears, I am taking a distance and dissociating from all and any activists and NGO’s)

ICE Raids Tren de Aragua Activists

Activists obstructing ICE and aiding Tren de Aragua to avoid law enforcement is a complex issue.According to Tom Homan, the US border czar, activist groups are crossing the line from protesting to impeding federal law enforcement operations.He stated that he is working with the Department of Justice to determine when these groups cross this line and vowed to prosecute those who obstruct ICE’s efforts.Homan emphasized that interfering with ICE operations puts their officers and the aliens at great risk.In a recent incident, protesters in Aurora taunted ICE and advised illegal alien criminals on dodging federal agents.Some protesters even used megaphones to give instructions on how to evade ICE agents.The situation is further complicated by the fact that some cities, like Denver, have sanctuary policies that can act as a magnet for illegal aliens.Homan has made it clear that he will not tolerate obstruction and will seek prosecution.

ICE Obstruction Meaning

Encouraging obstruction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is illegal because obstruction of justice is a serious offense under the law. Obstruction of justice can include knowingly lying to the police, tampering with evidence, or physically barring law enforcement from entering a building even when they have a proper search warrant.Encouraging someone to obstruct ICE would fall under aiding and abetting, which is also illegal. It is important to stay within the bounds of the law to avoid criminal charges and to respect the legal process.

When interacting with ICE, it is important to remain calm and not resist or obstruct officers. You should never lie or provide false documents, but you also do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings without probable cause or a warrant.If you are concerned about your rights, it is advisable to consult with a lawyer to understand your legal options and protections.

If you are approached by ICE, you have the right to remain silent and to ask for a lawyer.You should not sign any documents without legal advice, as ICE might ask you to sign forms agreeing to deportation without first seeing a judge. If you are detained, you can ask for a list of free or low-cost legal alternatives to help you fight deportation.

Tren de Aragua Activists

As of February 10, 2025, there is no information available in the provided context about activists helping the Tren de Aragua not being arrested for obstruction of justice. The context primarily discusses the reality of the Tren de Aragua gang, despite denials from open-borders Democrats, and the recent ICE raid that proved their existence.Additionally, it mentions the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members to Guantanamo Bay, with 10 members being among the first group of migrant criminals sent there.

Cartels vs ICE Climate of Fear

The climate of fear surrounding ICE agents is a significant concern for activists, but it is also important to acknowledge thatcartels create a worse climate of fear among migrants.Cartels have been known to kidnap and extort migrants, forcing them to pay for their release, and in some cases, migrants are held as insurance until payment is made. The cartels’ control over the flow of migrants is strict, and they dictate who can pass through and who cannot, often in front of authorities. This has led to a lucrative business for the cartels, with migrants becoming a valuable commodity.The violence generated by the struggle between cartels, such as the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels, has also become an obstacle for organizations trying to help migrants.Furthermore, the involvement of corrupt law enforcement officers from CBP, ICE, and other agencies has allowed cartels to operate with relative impunity.The situation is complex, and both ICE agents and cartels contribute to the climate of fear, but the cartels’ actions have a more direct and devastating impact on migrants.

Follow-up: Given that migrants seem to be controlled by cartels, why are activists obstructing ICE agents from doing their jobs?

Cartel Control of Migrants

Migrants are indeed largely controlled by cartels, with Chief Patrol Agent Joel Martinez stating that it’s all controlled by them.The cartels wield significant influence over the Southwest border, and their control extends to the treatment of migrants as commodities, with Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Dustin Caudle noting that they are treated as a number.Given this context, it is puzzling that activists are obstructing ICE agents from doing their jobs, as ICE’s primary focus is on securing the nation’s borders and safeguarding the integrity of the immigration system.ICE agents are committed to arresting only migrants who have been charged with crimes since they have been in the US, or who have a proven criminal history elsewhere.However, local activists, legislators, and school administrators in Illinois have been coaching migrants, including criminals, on their rights and how to evade ICE agents, which can be seen as obstructing ICE’s efforts to enforce immigration laws and protect national security. This obstruction is particularly concerning in sanctuary cities like Chicago, where local law enforcement is ordered not to help ICE agents, making it challenging for them to identify and apprehend criminal migrants. As Terry Newsome, a local activist, acknowledges, ICE agents are doing a great job, but their efforts are being hindered by the lack of cooperation from local authorities and activists.

Enfant indiscipliné… from Yo Mama

Posted on by Roshinka

J’ai pleuré à ce film. Je n’ai pas d’enfants mais c’est quand même venu me chercher. Il s’agit de trois mamans qui commencent à faire du rap professionnel pour se rapprocher de leurs enfants qui eux même font du rap de bandits, mais.. un peu moins professionnel. La scène de session d’enregistrement m’a vraiment prise par les émotions. 

I cried at this movie. It is about three moms in Paris who start making rap to get closer to their 10 year olds who themselves are into making gangsta rap, pretending to be tough, etc. The moms gain enormous success and their kids are finally starting to pay attention… It is a beautiful story. 

if you want to hear the other songs, search for Yo Mama Bande Originale on Youtube.

This one called Géolocalisé got me dancing (physically participating) along. One short verse about how a mom geo-localized her class-skipping son who had lied to her, found him, and what she said to him. I don’t want to be that kid…lol