DeSantis sends planes of illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard

[hanson]

This is human trafficking - almost the exact definition of it.

Oh, really? And what exactly IS the definition of "human trafficking"? Please define it and provide a source.

Let's try this one:

18 U.S.C.
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

§1201. Kidnapping

(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when—

(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;

inveigles

Definitions from Oxford Languages ·
in·vei·gle

"persuade (someone) to do something by means of deception or flattery."

[Rate This]

Advancing DeSantis's political ambitions is the service they are unwittingly performing.

Nice try, but nope. A person has to be coerced into performing some type of labor for it to be human trafficking. I am unable to access to the Oxford OED (as you need a login), but here are definitions I am finding:

------------------------------------------------------

Cambridge Dictionary: the crime of buying and selling people, or making money from work they are forced to do, such as sex work;

Oxford Learner's Dictionary: the crime of transporting or controlling people and forcing them to work in the sex trade or other forms of forced labour;

Merriam Webster: organized criminal activity in which human beings are treated as possessions to be controlled and exploited (as by being forced into prostitution or involuntary labor)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... rafficking
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... rafficking
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... rafficking

-------------------------------------------------------

So first off, for it to qualify as human trafficking, you must establish that what he did was a crime (ie, cite the specific law he violated); Second, you have to show that the human beings involved were forced into doing some kind of physical work (sex work, labor, etc).

Merely transporting people from Point A to Point B doesn't cut it.

They were promised work and given an address that turned out to be a parking lot. You might be able to get them on kidnapping… something is wrong about this. You might be able to get DeSantis for violating the law he begged for to be able to do this in the first place.

[Matt]

Mmmbop is very angry.

[TC Talks]

Advancing DeSantis's political ambitions is the service they are unwittingly performing.

Nice try, but nope. A person has to be coerced into performing some type of labor for it to be human trafficking. I am unable to access to the Oxford OED (as you need a login), but here are definitions I am finding:

------------------------------------------------------

Cambridge Dictionary: the crime of buying and selling people, or making money from work they are forced to do, such as sex work;

Oxford Learner's Dictionary: the crime of transporting or controlling people and forcing them to work in the sex trade or other forms of forced labour;

Merriam Webster: organized criminal activity in which human beings are treated as possessions to be controlled and exploited (as by being forced into prostitution or involuntary labor)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... rafficking
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... rafficking
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... rafficking

-------------------------------------------------------

So first off, for it to qualify as human trafficking, you must establish that what he did was a crime (ie, cite the specific law he violated); Second, you have to show that the human beings involved were forced into doing some kind of physical work (sex work, labor, etc).

Merely transporting people from Point A to Point B doesn't cut it.

They were promised work and given an address that turned out to be a parking lot. You might be able to get them on kidnapping… something is wrong about this. You might be able to get DeSantis for violating the law he begged for to be able to do this in the first place.

but they are Republicans, breaking the law is standard operating procedure for the new GOP.

[bmw]

Words matter. The specific accusation raised was "human trafficking." But since we're playing "let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks," I'll bite on kidnapping. Just like with trafficking, you're missing an important element - that of holding captive for reward or ransom. Even in the language of the federal statute cited by hanson, there's an "and" - "and holds for ransom or reward." Desantis' actions don't constitute kidnapping as he didn't hold anyone captive for reward or ransom.

And as far as state law, here's Florida's kidnapping statutory definition of kidnapping:

(1)(a) The term “kidnapping” means forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority, with intent to:
1. Hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage.
2. Commit or facilitate commission of any felony.
3. Inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person.
4. Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 87.01.html

So here you would have to prove that DeSantis abducted or confined these people against their will with the intent to hold them for ransom, reward, use them as a shield or hostage or an accomplice to a felony, or inflict bodily harm or terrorize them.

[Bryce]

This just shows what a bunch of disingenuous pukes limousine liberals are. Not bothered by, and even support open borders, announce to the world that they a a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and think everything is just dandy as long as someone else has to deal with the problems it causes. The minute a few of these folks (50 in a town of 17,000) show up at their doorstep, they have a meltdown.

[hanson]

Mmmbop is very angry.

kiss my ass

[hanson]

Words matter. The specific accusation raised was "human trafficking." But since we're playing "let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks," I'll bite on kidnapping. Just like with trafficking, you're missing an important element - that of holding captive for reward or ransom. Even in the language of the federal statute cited by hanson, there's an "and" - "and holds for ransom or reward." Desantis' actions don't constitute kidnapping as he didn't hold anyone captive for reward or ransom.

And as far as state law, here's Florida's kidnapping statutory definition of kidnapping:

(1)(a) The term “kidnapping” means forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority, with intent to:
1. Hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage.
2. Commit or facilitate commission of any felony.
3. Inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person.
4. Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 87.01.html

So here you would have to prove that DeSantis abducted or confined these people against their will with the intent to hold them for ransom, reward, use them as a shield or hostage or an accomplice to a felony, or inflict bodily harm or terrorize them.

Read my post. I'm referring to federal law. One does not have to use physical force to kidnap someone. I'll arrange a reading tutor for you if you want one.

[Matt]

Mmmbop is very angry.

kiss my ass

Never change, mmmbop.

[bmw]

Read my post. I'm referring to federal law. One does not have to use physical force to kidnap someone. I'll arrange a reading tutor for you if you want one.

I did read your post. And the law. Carefully. And it looks like you are the one in need of a reading tutor. Let me break it down for you:

Whoever unlawfully:
-seizes OR
-confines OR
-inveigles OR
-decoys OR
-kidnaps OR
-abducts OR
-carries away

AND

-holds for ransom OR
-holds for reward OR
-holds for otherwise

So you have to do any one of the first items AND ALSO do any one of the second items. This is how and/or works when you're reading statutes. As such, federal kidnapping requires that you hold someone captive for ransom, reward, or other nefarious purpose. Merely transporting someone from Point A to Point B and immediately releasing them is not federal kidnapping.

[km1125]

This is human trafficking - almost the exact definition of it.

Oh, really? And what exactly IS the definition of "human trafficking"? Please define it and provide a source.

Let's try this one:

18 U.S.C.
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

§1201. Kidnapping

(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when—

(1) the person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a State boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;

inveigles

Definitions from Oxford Languages ·
in·vei·gle

"persuade (someone) to do something by means of deception or flattery."

"WOW! You're a great worker and have all the credentials I need for my business!! I'm going to send you an offer letter via mail and convince you to come to my state and work for my company" (and I'm going to profit from it!)

[Rate This]

Read my post. I'm referring to federal law. One does not have to use physical force to kidnap someone. I'll arrange a reading tutor for you if you want one.

I did read your post. And the law. Carefully. And it looks like you are the one in need of a reading tutor. Let me break it down for you:

Whoever unlawfully:
-seizes OR
-confines OR
-inveigles OR
-decoys OR
-kidnaps OR
-abducts OR
-carries away

AND

-holds for ransom OR
-holds for reward OR
-holds for otherwise

So you have to do any one of the first items AND ALSO do any one of the second items. This is how and/or works when you're reading statutes. As such, federal kidnapping requires that you hold someone captive for ransom, reward, or other nefarious purpose. Merely transporting someone from Point A to Point B and immediately releasing them is not federal kidnapping.

Based on the wording on “inveigles” there’s a case for that here. The people were coerced into taking this trip on the false promise of work. The address they were given was a parking lot.

I think the bigger story is that DeSantis asked for this pile of money to move migrants out of
FLORIDA and the law passed creating this pile of money was very specific. He used that money to move people out of TEXAS and had them make a 1 hour stop in Florida or whatever it was and is trying to claim that makes it kosher under their system for this sort of thing. That’s a plain and simple abuse of power. There could be migrants to move if they come over on a raft from Cuba. But he would piss off a whole lot of Cuban Republicans if he touched them.

If I were Charlie Crist I would be shouting from the rooftops that DeSantis is misappropriating Florida tax dollars moving Texas migrants around in violation of Florida statute.

[hanson]

Read my post. I'm referring to federal law. One does not have to use physical force to kidnap someone. I'll arrange a reading tutor for you if you want one.

I did read your post. And the law. Carefully. And it looks like you are the one in need of a reading tutor. Let me break it down for you:

Whoever unlawfully:
-seizes OR
-confines OR
-inveigles OR
-decoys OR
-kidnaps OR
-abducts OR
-carries away

AND

-holds for ransom OR
-holds for reward OR
-holds for otherwise

So you have to do any one of the first items AND ALSO do any one of the second items. This is how and/or works when you're reading statutes. As such, federal kidnapping requires that you hold someone captive for ransom, reward, or other nefarious purpose. Merely transporting someone from Point A to Point B and immediately releasing them is not federal kidnapping.

Rate This gets it, be like Rate This.

[bmw]

You would both make terrible lawyers. You're still overlooking the AND. Even if you prove that inveigles applies here, that's still only one of the two elements. The other is holding. You have to prove that they were held for ransom, reward, or something similar. They weren't held. They were immediately released.

I don't know how else to explain this. I feel like I'm talking to a couple of brick walls (no offense intended). The words "and" and "or" have very specific meanings in the field of logic, and their meanings apply the same way in statutory interpretation. In the case of kidnapping, there are 2 elements that need to be met. The first element can be satisfied by any of those items in the first list, and the second element can be satisfied by any found in the second list. But you need one from each list, otherwise you have no crime.

[craig11152]

Liberals are handed a golden opportunity to walk the walk and instead of embracing the opportunity all they do is point figures.
As morally disingenuous as republicans are in this mess Democrats are worse because they are hypocritical.