It is the exact same thing, with a different outgroup.
There is no in group, out group, or whatever else. Go to Mexico or Canada illegally, as an American, and you're getting deported, same as everybody and everywhere else. Vice versa if a Canadian, Brit, or whoever else comes into the US illegally, they're also getting deported.
If you are illegal, you can literally show up fresh off of jet and on day one in .ar, file a court case for citizenship, have a lawyer run down the clock for a few years (by constitution in argentina illegal residence and subsistence for a few years = citizenship), and all the meanwhile they are legally barred from deporting you.
One thing that I really don't like about the way the Democrat party is handling illegal immigration is that they know it's overwhelmingly unpopular, so they say one thing and do another. For instance part of the DNC 2024 platform was "Securing the Border" [2] which they tried to argue Biden had done, and that the only reason he hadn't doing more was because of Congress. Obviously that's overt gaslighting. If they want to run on a platform of defacto open borders, more power to them - laws can be changed, but they need to actually run on that platform instead of lying and gaslighting.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal
[2] - https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE...
* They followed the law. Crackdowns like the one Trump is taking are only possible if you treat law as a fluid concept and ignore judges consistently. A democrat is never going to get around that, and yes, laws can be changed, but notice how Trump isn't even bothering to do that also (he just ignores them), the best he got from a Republican congress was extra funding for ICE (and remember, Bush was worse than Obama on illegal immigration).
* They just treated them with some dignity (which Trump sees as soft, dignity isn't really in his vocab).
So for an example from the previous administration, they wanted race based admissions for colleges. That is obviously illegal and unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court predictably ruled against them, they worked to circumvent their ruling in various ways including in a 'Dear Colleagues' letter [1] offering guidance on ways universities could achieve a racial quota while remaining within the bounds of the law, effectively laying out a proposed blueprint for intentional Disparate Impact [2], which is *drum roll* also illegal.
The main difference you're seeing in contemporary times is the way the media is spinning everything, intentionally looking to foment conflict and radicalism. We live in amoral times and so working around the judges and legal systems is framed primarily in terms of who's doing it.
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20241127174625/https://www.ed.go...
Yes, that poor justice lawyer who broke down when the judge berated her that they were just ignoring his rulings, the lawyer replied that being sent to jail for contempt would at least let her get some sleep!
So you shifted from immigration to DEI stuff? Yes, white people no longer get preferential admission like they once did and it’s somehow now racist, do you even realize how bad you guys sound? Anyways, yes, Obama looked for places in the law where he could do things, which I guess you will just claim is just as bad as ignoring laws and rulings straight up?
The main difference is that we literally elected a fascist with dementia as President. And you guys would claim media bias if the press simply played videos of Trump talking.
But from a logical point of view, it also fails, even in a parallel reality where you were right. Countries are generally deemed to have the right to kill their citizens for major violations of the law, in the pursuit of justice. But that does not mean a country has the right to just start killing their citizens on a whim. And similarly, every single country has the right to expel people who enter their country illegally or remain beyond the terms of a granted temporary stay. This does not mean a country has the right the randomly start expelling their own citizens, en masse, for no normal reason.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications...
Those who do not read their links are doomed to misrepresent them.
Except they were not and your whole point was wrong.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
A close mirror of what is happening in this thread, if you will.
> They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’
> "And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic.
[...]
> But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
~ They Thought They Were Free - The Germans, 1933-45; Milton Mayer
And this argument about the Nazis being subtle and just slowly indoctrinating society toward a grand scheme is complete disinformation. Hitler was bonkers and as far back as 1919 he was ranting and raving about removing the Jews from all of Europe. And his speeches certainly didn't moderate that even the slightest. Even in Mein Kampf, again well before he was in major politics, he wrote about how if Germany had gassed some Jews during WW1, they could have saved millions of German lives. You didn't have to spin his words, or argue that innocuous acts might lead to the most egregious - he made his intent unabashedly and unambiguously clear.
So for instance if you listen to the rhetoric of Jewish leaders regarding Palestinians, you can see the same thing. You don't seem to appreciate that people with genocidal intent do not see themselves as evil. They see themselves as the saviors of society, trying to save everybody from some greater evil, and taking on the burden of 'what must be done' upon themselves. The most vile of villains see themselves as the great protagonist of their story.
Just like you're talking about removing the "illegals".
The ugly details of what said removal entails are slow-rolled in a spiral of normalization.
Again, initial talk was of deportation in the case of the Jews as well. The "final solution" was only introduced in '42, after consensus on removal had already been manufactured.