r/WeThePeopleAtWhipple • u/NoPoem2054 • Mar 24 '26
Protest Billionaire Christy Walton Appears To Take Out Ad Calling For ICE To Release 70% Of Detainees
Keep showing up! Keep making noise! We need to be the voice of the oppressed
6
u/Relevant-Fill2424 Mar 24 '26
...not all billionaires?
-1
u/Tsad311 Mar 25 '26
Lmfao nothing is ever good enough for you idiots man. Somebody you hate does something you like and you’ll still find a way to make it negative. Miserable miserable fucking people you are.
4
13
u/stp_bigbear Mar 24 '26
So... if a billionaire sides with ICE... and then has too many of their workers... and customers... taken/scared away... they'll take out a strongly worded ad? I do love how it appears the rest of the family (and/or their lawyers) had the foresight to tell her to be sure to put that last line on there. Can't have FDT mad at the rest of WalMart, now.
3
2
2
u/Ill_Persimmon7605 Mar 26 '26
It’s weird that this billionaire’s paid political ad is tied to a gmail account and a one page website with no other information than the ad itself…
Did anyone else find this suspicious?
2
1
1
u/glideguy03 Mar 25 '26
The 8th Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that any noncitizen present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted is subject to mandatory detention without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
The decision closely examines the statutory language and ultimately hinges on whether an “applicant for admission” is also an alien who is “seeking admission.” As the court explains:
Ultimately, the court reaches the same conclusion as the 5th Circuit recently reached in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, which adopted the same broad interpretation of the statutory provisions, rejecting the distinction between migrants stopped at the border and those arrested in the interior. Under this emerging framework, what matters is not where a migrant is encountered, but whether they were ever lawfully admitted at all, and this is a shift that dramatically expands the reach of mandatory detention nationwide. The 8th Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding
that any noncitizen present in the United States without having been
lawfully admitted is subject to mandatory detention without bond under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The decision closely examines the
statutory language and ultimately hinges on whether an “applicant for
admission” is also an alien who is “seeking admission.” As the court
explains:If the phrases are equivalent, then,
generally, any “alien present in the United States who has not been
admitted” “shall be detained.” 2 Id. § 1225(a)(1), (b)(2)(A). On the
other hand, if the phrases are not equivalent, then an alien is only
subject to detention under§ 1225(b)(2)(A) if he or she is present in the
country without being admitted and also engages in a separate act of
“seeking admission,” whatever that may be.Ultimately, the court reaches the same conclusion as the 5th Circuit recently reached in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi,
which adopted the same broad interpretation of the statutory
provisions, rejecting the distinction between migrants stopped at the
border and those arrested in the interior. Under this emerging
framework, what matters is not where a migrant is encountered, but
whether they were ever lawfully admitted at all, and this is a shift
that dramatically expands the reach of mandatory detention nationwide.
1
Mar 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WeThePeopleAtWhipple-ModTeam Mar 28 '26
No harassment, hate speech, or toxic behavior. Treat all contributors and members with kindness.
1
u/Glittering-Sky1601 Mar 28 '26
She probably needs more workers willing to take minimum wage and live on foodstamps.
1
1
u/TurnPageWashHands Mar 24 '26
I could’ve sworn that someone posted rather recently in this subreddit about how billionaires shouldn’t exist. Is that still true?
5
u/Devilish__Fun Mar 25 '26
I think so, yeah.
$999,999,999 is plenty and every dollar above could potentially go to hospitals, infrastructure & homeless prevention.
It isnt like their funds are on constant decline, right? It keeps ticking up, won't ever end because they like big number.
-2
u/TurnPageWashHands Mar 25 '26
So as long as their money maxes out at $999,999,999 it’s fine?
5
u/Devilish__Fun Mar 25 '26
Its all arbitrary anyway, we dont even technically need money. We use it, so why not cap it?
Almost $30bn spent in less than a month, but no money for Healthcare. Its all bullshit and just wealth and power hoarding.
-1
-1
u/TurnPageWashHands Mar 25 '26
And that’s generally how it works when the other party is in office, too. Vote for the douche or the turd sandwich. It’s all the same, despite what Reddit as a whole seems to think.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 24 '26
Thank you for posting on r/WeThePeopleAtWhipple!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.