[flagged]
Are you willing to pay for these things? It'd be much more efficient for a cop to simply murder anybody suspected of a crime. Efficiency should not be the goal when it comes to people's rights.
The court system cannot possibly fulfill these tens of millions of cases in any reasonable time frame. These people will be in court for the rest of our lives and in the meantime they will have children and ultimately be allowed to stay forever by some future administration. Which is basically the same as just making them citizens.
Do you have a proposed solution other than decades worth of court dates? It doesn’t really seem like the other side has a good faith solution to the problem other than just letting them all stay here forever.
Or maybe I’m missing something and haven’t heard the other side’s arguments.
They just increased the budget for ice prisons form 3 billion to 40 billion, and did not increase the budget for the legal infrastructure needed to adequately process everyone.
Why they need to do is increase funding for judges, and make the process faster. Aka, like what the Larkin bill did, but the GOP killed that, because solving the immigration issues would be bad for them electorally.
Is seems like the plan is to just lock people up... And then nothing, except maybe deport them to random countries and let them sort them out.
Keep in mind that this has not been a 'biden' issue. The illegal immigrants already have in many cases been in the US for decades, due to ag/construction/hospitality wanting labor at rates Americans were unwilling to work.
Instead, of actually addressing the issue (why are people allowed to hire illegal immigrants in the first place, seems like cutting off the job supply would work as well).
But the question becomes, why are they increasing the infrastructure for locking people up, but not the infrastructure for due process, seems like they want to throw out due process.
Keep in mind, the people they grab off the streets have not all been illegal immigrants, many are legal on work/student/refugee visas.
And maybe you disagree that these people should have been allowed visas in the first place, but there are ways to change those laws.
A decent percentage of these immigrants are seasonal. A very, very small percentage of the total of undocumented immigrants have criminal histories. Focusing efforts on violent criminals is reasonable, but that doesn't meet the propaganda numbers from the current administration. Deporting tens of thousands of people just doesn't rally hate the same way.
Rather than spending time and money building concentration camps, building out secret police (ICE), and deporting people without due process, we could be fixing our immigration system.
Let's make work visas that allow migrant workers to work seasonally. Let's add paths to citizenship to migrant workers. Let's prioritize fast paths to citizenship for students, especially those with masters and PHDs. Let's introduce a point system to encourage immigration of the best and brightest from high demand countries, allowing them prioritized visas, PRs and naturalization. Let's fix the DREAMER situation by providing those folks clear paths to citizenship.
The reason the immigration situation doesn't get better is because republicans need it to be broken. They use undocumented immigrants as a group to target hate against, which rallies their base.
I try to keep an open mind but its very hard to take the debate seriously when you end with disingenuous points like this.
We could end all illegal immigration in an instant. But this doesn't let the GOP stoke racial hatred and enact its vision of a police state.
wdym
Most undocumented immigrants are here for work. If we change the immigration system to give them work visas, the problem mostly goes away. Some of them don't want to stay here permanently, and not even for the entire year. They come seasonally. Others would like to stay permanently, and offering them a legal path to citizenship is likely a good idea.
I think it's not possible to end all illegal immigration instantly, but the vast majority is easily within our reach.
It's worth noting that asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, and the way the current administration handles the situation itself it what's illegal.
If immigration issues are mostly solved, then republicans lose one of their rallying points.
As someone else pointed out, this is exactly why republicans killed a bill that had support across the aisle. Trump was going to run on mass deportations, and it's hard to do that, when a bill was just passed, co-sponsored by your own party.
I think we are at a point where we should accept that there will be decades of court dates. The real alternative is that anyone can be taken away because there would be no process for even a multi-generation born citizen to challenge the arrest. The real deterrent for it happening to such a citizen is reporting and publicity, which is increasingly seeming like it can be thwarted by a population that is primed to strip the humanity of those they disagree with.
The way this is being handled, the timeline where we just let those 10 million stay in the country and avoid similar things in the future seems very appealing indeed. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as the saying goes.
But this is what I’m getting at, this is not the first time this has happened, it’s been happening with millions of people for generations now. Heck Reagan pardoned millions back in the 1980’s. So how long are we supposed to keep saying “okay you guys can stay but let’s do better in the future”? After so many decades it is obvious that nothing is going to change without some kind of drastic political change, which is basically why Trump was elected.
But just looking at the system from a Birds Eye view: it’s easy in, difficult out. All it takes is one president to not enforce the law and the law is basically moot. Just seems disingenuous the people saying deporting people is horrible yet offering no solutions other than to just let them all stay here forever. We are well past the point where saying we’ll do better in the future is an argument that anyone will accept.
Why is there nobody suggesting a law to expedite or fast track the “due process”? That at least seems like a moderate approach.
No, you are not hearing what I am saying. This particular implementation of deportations puts you and I and anyone else at long-term risk of being deported in a similar manner. It puts legal residents at a more immediate risk of being deported in a similar manner. You can’t fast-track due process; that is the point. If you are not afforded due process for allegations that you are an illegal immigrant before you are shipped away then the damage is done and it doesn’t matter that you can prove you were born here to parents who were born here.
> You can’t fast-track due process
We can make laws and change systems, a serious good faith solution would be to propose changes to the due process to account for this case we keep finding ourselves in where we have 20 million people who need to be processed and a system with no hope of handling them all.
We thought you were kidding, this isn't a fact, it's the complete opposite of a fact, in otherwords, a lie. Very famously the number of arrests of people cross the border went up while biden was president.
Aside from that ludicrous lie, we have to evaluate the situation where we actually live. If there was a literal magic genie who could cause 10 million people to instantly teleport then maybe we could talk about it, but there isn't, so we don't.
In actual reality land, spending 100 billion dollars in order to arrest and deport millions of people who work and pay taxes and in general support the economy of this country is hilariously stupid. Also evil, lets not forget that.
Every axis you want to try to evaluate this on fails at the most cursory examination. Obviously it's a waste of money because you're spending money to remove tax payers and consumers, so that's a double negative. It's also immoral due to the sheer amount of crimes and human rights violations that have already taken place and will continue to take place.
It's not even particularly effective as some kind of macho statement, deporting your own citizens isn't going to impress anyone.
No, a serious good faith solution would be to establish an actual working immigration/citizenship system with clear rules and then enforce them, because the current situation endangers everyone.
I'm from a different country. We have ID cards. You strictly need an ID card (or a different proof of citizenship or right to residence) from the age of 18 (or even sooner if you are attending schools, using the health system etc) to do basically anything. It's not possible to live here your whole life as a full member of the society without that. When I read how someone lives 60 years in the US without actual legal basis to do that I just shudder. People should be forced to resolve their legal situation one way or another much sooner. And I am pro-immigration, but also there should be order in that.
Once you have a clear, fast proof of right to reside in a country, you don't need to touch due process because it can go fast.
That's essentially how it is in the states, we have the U.S. passport and individual State's drivers licenses as the primary forms of ID. And government bureaucracy is actually notorious for requiring tons of information (two forms of government ID, and proof of residence, sometimes the literal SS card or birth certificate itself) that everyone inevitability ends up running into an issue with forgetting some document at least once in their lives.
> It's not possible to live here your whole life as a full member of the society without that.
It's not really possible here either, even private companies usually require it in some way or another (such as LinkedIn[0]). The issue is illegal immigrants simply forego these things, or work for companies and live in blue states that don't check any form of ID in the majority of places, on purpose (such as when citizens vote in the presidential election, which is still insane to me)
> Once you have a clear, fast proof of right to reside in a country, you don't need to touch due process because it can go fast.
Well, once you have the undocumented migrants inside your borders, how are you supposed to get rid of them other than how the current administration has been attempting to (utilizing private intelligence and beefing up ICE)?
That means it's actually not like in country. Once you have an ID card, you don't need anything else (only very rarely the birth certificate).
> The issue is illegal immigrants simply forego these things
That would in our country mean no phone, no driver's license, no electricity, no bank account, you can't be employed, etc., so really not something anyone could do for a longer time and lead a normal life.
> how are you supposed to get rid of them
Offer them a clear path to legalize their status. Create a system where it's not possible to live a nearly whole life this way. This is clearly a systemic problem and needs a systemic solution, not one that can be created or cancelled on the whim of a president.
We could just increase the amount of places that need a Passport for verification, then.
> That would in our country mean no phone, no driver's license, no electricity, no bank account, you can't be employed, etc., so really not something anyone could do for a longer time and lead a normal life.
I don't know about phone plans or electricity, but you can't get a driver's license without being a citizen in most states (a few blue ones are the exception), and without a social security number you can't open a bank account or get legally employed (employers need your SSN to pay you), but the issue is some employers knowingly hire illegal immigrants and pay them under the table, oftentimes in cash and without reporting it to the IRS, because they like the cheaper labor. This is illegal, but oftentimes unenforced.
> Offer them a clear path to legalize their status.
Why should we have to legalize them? We have a path to legal immigration in this country, and they decided not to go through it. Reagan legalized all illegal immigrants in the past, and that turned out horribly, and set an awful precedent.
> Create a system where it's not possible to live a nearly whole life this way.
Why should we have to? We've been around for ~250 years, this hasn't been a big problem the entire time. Clearly, it's possible to fix this without it.
> This is clearly a systemic problem and needs a systemic solution, not one that can be created or cancelled on the whim of a president.
It's not just the Executive, the BBB passed the Senate and House too, and deporting illegal immigrants has large bipartisan support [0] (though not to the extent the current administration is doing it, unfortunately)
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/am...
You don't have to, of course. But once someone has strong ties to only one country, lives most of their life there, in some cases even is not a citizen of another country, it's the only humane thing to do - in these cases they are de facto citizens already.
> It's not just the Executive
But before the BBB it was, and it was Biden doing one thing and Trump doing another without any laws changing and this is not a stable environment to be in. And it is reasonable to expect some stability from the State.
This bill did not do that.
You are free to offer something yourself. I was answering your question:
> Do you have a proposed solution other than decades worth of court dates?
No, I don’t. At least, not one that doesn’t degrade rule of law. I’m all ears for better solutions but this shit I’m seeing ain’t it.
Wait just a minute... that's not a valid solution under our laws at all!
Haha! Gotcha! You don't recognize your own words?!
Oh no I do, but my words made sense in the context I wrote them. They don't make sense here.
It turns out words have meanings, and you can't generally copy/paste little substrings from one conversation into another haphazardly.
Feel free to connect the dots between what I said and your response, if you'd like.
lol funny how that doesnt apply to an obvious bad faith argument like "deport people I disagree with".
Are you sure you want to talk about the topic? Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Why not just say what you mean, and we can all have a civil discussion? Everybody wins then, right? Not that I'm forcing you to discuss anything civilly if you're not into it.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44466687
1: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/can-trump-strip-musk...
* "It's your job to come up with an alternative" (not helpful)
* "Just let them all stay" (not realistic)
* "Actually Republican want illegal immigration, not Democrats, so they can rile up their base" (retarded)
* Lots and lots and lots of ad hominem: "check your carbon monoxide monitor"
The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought and lacking in any civility. It's a collective tantrum full stop.
> Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so.
Don't gaslight.
I reiterate that it was a direct response to a bad faith comment. There is nothing unclear about it. He suggested an unrealistic course of action which while he would be personally happy with, goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable and hence fails the request for a "realistic alternative".
> We simply deport anyone who makes the argument he's making
The response is clear: that's unrealistic and not up to him. He understood exactly what it meant but didnt like his very own words used against him.
The problem people are raising is not "mass deportation." The problem is violation of due process rights.
This is not a viable solution because it is 1) blatantly illegal under the American Constitution and 2) undermines the very premise of the rule of law.
One reason it is clearly not a viable solution is because if it were, then it would also be a viable solution simply to deport aydyn and people who think like him/her. Doing so would only entail the same convenience-driven Constitutional violations that the current administration is undertaking. Neither is a viable solution.
Let's just get to the meat of the matter so you can pick between hypocrisy or ignorance.
Please answer these yes/no questions:
1. Under the US Constitution, does someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant have a right to due process?
2. Is it acceptable to violate the US Constitution when convenient?
> Check your carbon monoxide detector.
It’s a recipe anyone can follow:
1. Find MAGA pseudo-intellectualization
2. Ask basic factual question
3. Observe theatrical short-circuiting as brain fails to find footing in reality
It's been kind of a weird (non-sequitur perhaps?) request, for a couple of reasons:
First because the dismissive nature of some of your responses frames you as the judge of what is acceptable/realistic, which I think we can all agree here without any offense, you're not;
Second, because mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, is itself not an acceptable solution. Indeed, "do nothing" is both more acceptable (viewed more acceptably by others) and more realistic (doing nothing is easier than doing something). Thus, it is unhelpful to rule that out as an option while preserving the even-less-acceptable option of maintaining the status quo.
And let's be clear here: the relevant question is of acceptable solutions, not simply realistic ones. As we've unfortunately seen in human history, even killing millions is realistic, but obviously not acceptable.
> [Doing nothing] goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable
"The vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable. Why, then, must the response be more reasonable than the initial suggestion?
Maybe that's why all the replies expressed confusion at the quoting: it is missing that context, and the full context makes the quote cut against the position of pro-mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc.
> Don't gaslight
Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude. The more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation.
> The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought
This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters. If you want to call your fellow posters thoughtless, you might seek greener pastures.
The majority of Americans agree with mass deportation even if they don't agree with exactly how ICE is proceeding.
There's lots of room for discussion which obviously isn't happening here.
> Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude.
Given the context and aggressive sarcasm of the post, the vastly more likely explanation is the poster didn't agree with the point rather than not understanding it at all.
You understand now that it is simple direct response. Thus, if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead.
> This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters.
I'm happy to have a civil conversation. I'm also happy to have an uncivil conversation. I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started.
> Given the context and aggressive sarcasm of the post, the vastly more likely explanation is the poster didn't agree with the point rather than not understanding it at all.
Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included), the more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation.
Now that we have the context explained in my previous post, we see why the quote was confusing: because it does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you.
> if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead
I think I have been civil. If I've insulted you personally, I am sorry, and wouldn't mind you pointing it out.
> I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started
That other poster isn't being nice either, but I don't like to comment purely to criticize tone. I prefer redirecting to substance when I can. That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context quote, were asked what you meant, and refused to explain.
Now that you have civilly explained what you meant (thank you), we can focus on substance, which is that if you don't provide an acceptable solution, then it's probably not reasonable to expect others to.
It is not critical context, the root post asked for realistic alternatives.
> Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included)
All two of you?
> That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote,
Flatly untrue.
Yes, reasonable alternatives to mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc.
The response included options even more reasonable than that one, so no problem there.
> All two of you?
As opposed to all one of you? Why would your own comprehension of your own words somehow nullify other people saying they were incomprehensible? Of course your words weren't confusing to you, they came from your brain!
> Flatly untrue
Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously.
I noticed you totally excluded the substantive part of my reply where it's explained why everyone found your quoting confusing. I'm sure it's much easier to just ignore it and say 'nope'. Makes for a better conversation, right? Like this one? Anyways, here is the substance again, if you want to focus on it:
The quote, as used by you, does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you. So why quote it in that context?
Thats not the adjective I used.
> 2 people who tell you the same thing
An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument.
> That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote,
>> Flatly untrue
>>> Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously.
For clarification (since you seem to need it a lot) I am responding to your claim that incivility started with me. That is flatly untrue, obviously.
> Thats not the adjective I used.
Maybe, but that's what you meant when you said "realistic", right?
The holocaust and the holodomor were both, unfortunately "realistic". Surely you're interested in reasonable, acceptable, realistic options, not simply "realistic" ones, however unreasonable and unacceptable? Otherwise, you'll have to share why you're not interested in realistic, reasonable, acceptable options, which as we've seen, are superior to options which are simply "realistic".
> An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument.
An appeal to the authority of one person with even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument.
Since we're on the topic of soliciting alternatives from others: You might suggest a realistic, reasonable, acceptable alternative to what that other poster suggested. This time, I'll play judge, instead of you.
No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic".
> even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument.
I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
You must, yet you still have not! Instead, you omitted everything of substance from my response and just focused on snideness here. Maybe reply to the part of the post that followed that sentence?
> I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
This goes even moreso when I say it:
Myself and other-poster have not even given our perspectives, so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, those people are biased.
Not sure why you took that hard left into accusing others of being biased, but we don't have to have a conversation like that. We can rise above it.
Unfortunately, your post contained nothing about the actual topic: you're just arguing. If you're interesting in having an interesting discussion, focus on substance in your response, rather than attacking me. For guidance there, check the parts of my previous reply which you omitted.
I am not the topic here, and I'm not interested in you making me it.
Check your carbon monoxide detector.
Then come back and try to connect the dots between your non-sequiturs.
It's truly amazing how all the "curious" "just asking questions" types cannot get literally 3 exchanges into a conversation without short circuiting.
The point of "deport people I disagree with" was to highlight it as an illegal solution, much like the "don't give due process" solution.
If we are to take your solution seriously (of simply ignoring our Constitution), then we have all sorts of "solutions" on the table, including ones like "deport people I disagree with." That is to imply that neither of these are actual solutions because both of them would require violating our Constitution.
I suppose I made an error expecting I was speaking to someone with the cognitive firepower required to understand analogies and implicature, so I hope this helps.
Anyway, here’s a better solution: let them stay. I can’t see how that would be nearly as bad as this. For me personally, for my neighbors, for the rust belt, indeed for anybody except those wanting to abuse power.
Let's reset.
They are asking for a solution that is realistic. Something that is happening right now is, by definition, a realistic outcome. "Let everyone stay" is not a realistic solution for obvious reasons.
Indeed, they asked for “a good faith solution to the problem other than just letting them all stay here forever” and I explicitly said I did not have this. I also see them and you saying “someone” should come up with a solution and, failing to find one yourselves, say deportation without any court hearing is acceptable. I’ve outlined my reasons for why that is dangerous and unacceptable and you just throw up your hands and say it must happen because it’s happening.
(Did you notice how you went from “solution” to “outcome” and then back to “solution”? People are decrying the “outcome” because it’s a shit “solution”. Yes, it seems we are talking past each other.)
Thats perhaps a bad habit of mine, finding synonyms as I dont like to repeat the same word in the next sentence.
> Indeed, they asked for “a good faith solution to the problem other than just letting them all stay here forever” and I explicitly said I did not have this. I also see them and you saying “someone” should come up with a solution and, failing to find one yourselves, say deportation without any court hearing is acceptable.
So on the other side "just letting them all stay here forever" is also an unacceptable solution.
So what then? There's no acceptable solution we are just screwed?
This is a false dichotomy and a false equivalence. I’ll let you figure out what that means.
In other words: this is bullshit. Try again?
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812474279/court-blocks-trumps...
All rights for criminal defendants make the state's job harder.
1. What to do with people apprehended entering the country illegally and who then claim asylum.
2. What to do with people already inside the country who are suspected of being here illegally.
The first thing is complicated and badly in need of a rethink because clearly our asylum laws are being gamed. I don't have any ready answers but I'm sure that there are a zillion proposals for reform.
For the second thing, yes I believe that if you are suspected of being in the US illegally then you should absolutely have the right to challenge deportation in court. Otherwise literally anyone can be scooped up off the street and deported with no recourse whether they are an American citizen or not. And honestly it is a bit maddening to see people continuously fail to grasp (or pretend to fail to grasp) this basic point.
US citizens were deported because of their skin color?
I think this is disinformation.
>Eventually, the officers reviewed the identification in his wallet and released him
I thought you said they were deported based on their skin color? Both of these articles seem to say the opposite of that.
> Gavidia was released, but Javier Ramirez, another US citizen who is Gadivia’s friend and coworker, was detained by two agents, forced facedown on the ground and taken to federal detention, where he has remained in custody, the New York Times reported.
Arrested and eventually released is guilty until proven innocent.
Yes, even Western democracies sometimes fail at this - through mistakes, bad laws, or moments of fear. That's precisely why we need to call it out when it happens, not shrug and normalize it.
Rights are inherent to all people. When any government - Western or otherwise - punishes peaceful political expression, they're violating fundamental human rights.
'That's just how it is' is how rights erode. We should aspire to strengthen protections for everyone, not excuse their violation by pointing to other failures.
Most countries aren’t America.
[1] https://www.constitucionpolitica.mx/titulo-1-garantias-indiv...
[2] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html under article 2(c)
You can change the Constitution if you don't like it!
Can you back that up with evidence? Just because someone claims that they were denied entry / detained / deported due to skin color doesn't mean that was the case. Many such cases where media has jumped on to claims that turned out to be false.
> This is why no one from the rest of the world wants to vacation, work, or live in America anymore.
Absolutely false, only those who let them be manipulated by scare media think there is actually a measurable risk for coming to the US legally.
I'm not them, but there have been reports of tourists locked up for weeks.
https://apnews.com/article/border-tourists-german-canadian-d...
Free speech is (was?) an American interest. Further, the country contains multitudes of different, opposing interests, not just those of the current regime.
For all its grandstanding over “cancel culture” this regime’s unusually thin skin when it comes to opposing views would be laughable, were it not so dangerous and abusive.
If a legal immigrant in the US starts recruiting for ISIS (entirely legal behavior), don’t you want the ability to remove them? Generally countries don’t want immigrants who support people who want that countries destruction.
Recruiting for a terrorist organisation is textbook lending of material support. Very illegal.
Providing material support is, which is a gray area when it comes to recruitment as recruitment doesn't have to be explicit.
What if I post information that indirectly support terrorist groups such as justifying their actions? What if I post information that supports groups indirectly connected with terrorist groups (say a fund raising arm the US government hasn't listed as a terrorist group)?
None of those things are illegal.
Shouldn't the US government, well any government for that matter, be able to deny such people entry?
As they say "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". It wasn't intended to be a mechanism by which foreigners can destroy the country itself.
It’s absolutely not a grey area, what source do you have that’s claiming this?
> What if I post information that indirectly support terrorist groups such as justifying their actions?
That’s fine. That’s speech. Terrorist or freedom fighter is like mandatory freshman dorm banter.
> What if I post information that supports groups indirectly connected with terrorist groups (say a fund raising arm the US government hasn't listed as a terrorist group)?
If it links to a listed group you’re fucked. Even if you didn’t know about the connection.
Grey areas resolve differently depending on context. When it comes to terrorism, we tend to be fine being more brutal. Debating Hamas is fine. Waving their flag is questionable, potentially fair grounds to deny visa entry (or at least do a very deep dive into whether actual support occurred). Encouraging folks to join Hamas, directly or indirectly, should result in immediate detention and incapacitation.
US legal code? You made the claim recruiting is illegal, find me the law that says so.
> That’s fine. That’s speech.
So you’d be fine with a neo-Nazi being admitted to the US? Or someone actively supporting ISIS in their speech?
And you never really responded to my point - the Constitution doesn’t require the US admit people actively working to destroy the US.
America shouldn’t be sending masked goons into courthouses to disappear people.
I was actually supportive of Trump’s illegal immigrant pitch at the get go. But then he totally ignored the gangs, going after tax-paying migrants because Miller found them easier to round up. And then he started deporting Americans.
This isn’t even a problem of evil. It’s one of incompetence. We have a bunch of nutwads in masks wearing camo doing whatever they can to hit numbers. This is bureaucratic failure on steroids.
> I'd support their right to do so
Honestly, I’m fine with this. I am also fine with someone publishing this app. (We frankly need a database of ICE agents who have broken the law so they can be dealt with down the road.)
> Three young children who are US citizens - including one with cancer - were deported to Honduras alongside their mothers last week, according to advocacy groups and the families' lawyers.
> One of the children is a four-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was sent without medication, a lawyer for the child's family said. [0]
Lots of evidence showing the hard police work of pursuing gangs is being substituted for the easier task of deporting tax-paying migrants. I don’t have any particular issue with the latter. But it’s incorrect to claim this administration is pursuing gangs; its deals with Bukele have essentially freed multiple members of MS13’s leadership.
You’re correct. But in a somewhat irrelevant way. The problem for most Americans aren’t the deportations. It’s the lack of due process, extrajudicial torture, and expansion of these police privileges to now encompassing all naturalised Americans.
The new one they're building is clearly going to have all this bullshit so they can cherry pick at lightning speed reasons to exile, rendition or punish people.
But just so we're clear, the SS doesn't really care if you're a citizen. All it's tracking is who pays into it and who receives the benefits from the payments.
Oh? What about people who are permanent residents and are arbitrarily deemed "threat to national security" because of their opposition to Israel? What about the recent denaturalization DOJ unit that was just set up? Are those people "illegally" here too and that is constitutionally valid?
The tunnel vision here is astounding. Do you really not realize that this administration isn't stopping at "just the illegals?" They have deported US citizens, children at that.
What about sending people who are here legally to a foreign torture camp (not "deporting", by the way) without due process? Is that in line with the Constitution?
No. No it is not.
Stop playing stupid.
https://www.onthewing.org/user/Bonhoeffer%20-%20Theory%20of%...