I don't see how what has been described here as "the system works as intended".
A free state should not be able to sniff after people for made up reasons.
A free state should not be able to sniff after people for made up reasons.
> if there is a valid warrant or subpoena
This is Gestapo all over again.
The fact that he is a white Irishman is legally irrelevant and enforcing immigration law in a race-neutral way is pretty un-Gestapo-like behavior.
Don't forget that the paperwork costs a lot, if one has children, can get close to $10k.
Look at Spain -- instead of deporting "illegals", they just made them "legals" (those without a criminal record). Easy, problem solved.
Levity aside, working on a tourist visa is a violation but generally isn't prosecuted as a felony.
Also the grandparent post said "They seized a white Irishman last October who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to his green card interview."
If he had a valid work permit I suppose this means that he was allowed to work and pay taxes on that work, in other words - no, he was not committing a felony.
Anyone not eligible for a SSN can get a TIN and pay taxes to the IRS.
* https://www.irs.gov/tin/itin/individual-taxpayer-identificat... * https://www.nilc.org/resources/itinfaq/
And all those payments has contributed trillions of dollars https://www.cato.org/blog/cato-study-immigrants-reduced-defi...
I just point out that to me "overstaying visa" is such a completely artificial concept, with arbitrary timelines, and is not explainable by any rational considerations of the state. Otherwise they'd neglect it.
Or, as I saw myself in another country, a border guy is like "Wow, you overstayed your visa by N years! Don't worry, let me correct that. I recommend getting a permanent residency, would be easier for you to pay taxes and use our government systems. Welcome!"
Not of course. If you know you're not willing to understand why people think the way they do then what's the point in drawing conclusions from your biases?
> I just point out that to me "overstaying visa" is such a completely artificial concept
So is the concept of a "country" or a "state". Everything is an artificial concept. The first duty of the state is to have border integrity, so the country means something, and that includes deciding who can come in and for how long. This is very, very basic stuff that's normal in every country in the world.
The US lets the most people in legally in the entire world, and by quite some measure[0]. If you think it's some xenophobic nightmare of a place then that seems an extremely narrow understanding of the world and the US's place in it.
[0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/top-statistics-globa...
The concept of a "state" and its borders is to determine where its laws apply to. Historically, there was rarely even resources to mark the boundary in any meaningful way. But the problem of two kinds claiming sovereignty over a territory got resolved pretty easily -- whoever has the ability to collect taxes (aka tribute). Immigration was not a major concern at all. If anything, a feudal was more concerned of their tax base moving OUT of their jurisdiction, not preventing movement IN.
As I said above, Spain just gave permanent residency to everyone "overstaying" the visa. Does the concept of Spain as a country stopped "meaning something"?
> The US lets the most people in legally in the entire world, and by quite some measure[0]. If you think it's some xenophobic nightmare of a place then that seems an extremely narrow understanding of the world and the US's place in it.
USA immigration process is very hostile, compared to almost any other country in the world (IMO only UK and Switzerland are comparable). I went through it, as well as in other countries, can compare. Why are you so sure I have the "extremely narrow understanding"? Even paying $700+ for just one form, without any guarantees or money back is already sus.
There's the "three" boxes of liberty that are meant to give a framework for how humans in a society are to introduce consequences to state actors who abuse rights: the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box.
So we need to start using at least those three to prevent human rights abuses with regard to search warrants.
This means that the Illegal Aliens have evidently harmed and killed at least 4 million Americans.
I'm not gonna sugar-coat it here, that is a lot of harming and killing alright.
Like, I realize I'm the rambling anarchist up in here, but show me ANY government ever that didn't Murder and Pillage, two things that we all hate when perpetrated by individuals. There's no amount of democracy that can be injected into a hierarchy responsible for controlling hundreds of millions of people that will inhibit authoritarianism, the best people can hope for (and what many white/middle class citizens thought they had for the last few decades) is not being the target of that authoritarianism.
Cat's out of the bag now and we're doing that thing we do every few decades where we weaponize the State against the citizens.
Reminds me of a certain ideology, can't quite put my finger on it.
I think it starts with F
There's no communism that doesn't lead to authoritarianism, for example. Which leaves the distinction about economics.
Unless you believe this because "there's no State that doesn't lead to authoritarianism (based, dope, great take)" saying "this thing is actually the exact same as a thing that is literally the opposite of it" is just whataboutism.
These takes are weak. Here's what I think fascism is (based on like, studying words and theory and philosophy and shit, and not just trying to stunt on my political opposites): It's a far-right, ultra-nationalist, violent, authoritarian world view that SEEKS centralized power and openly opposes liberal and communist parties where it is erected. By design and declaration it seeks to promote violence, masculinity, and a national rebirth to a bygone era lacking in modern decadence.
All this is to say, if you're an Anarchist (hi brother!) seeking to scold the commies for not being Left enough, save that for after the revolution. And if you just want everyone to equate commies with fascists because "then both bad" because you're Right of them, get better at rhetoric.
Also, please don't look at the wikipedia article that literally says "fascism is opposed by...communism".
But tech companies should be complying with subpoenas from governments in countries they would like to operate in. I don't like what is happening in the US either, but to me this feels like a problem with the electorate. Maybe it's possible for Google to provide some of these services without actually having access to the data under subpoena, but I don't know enough about what services they were using or how they work.
Right, exactly -- a free state should not do that, yet the system is working as intended, therefore we do not live in a free state. It's time to accept that.
ie. if you didn't accept it, then you wouldn't feel the need to change it.
If this wasn't the intention they would have changed it by now.
The only option is to not elect someone that doesn't respect rule of law. And since I know some enlightened "centrist" will play the both sides game: What's 1 thing any previous president has done equivalent to violating posse comitatus.
Writing a rule that says the government can't do this is just the government writing a rule it can simply remove it ignore when inconvenient.
Just like Roberts schizo-rambling about the federalist papers and inventing new terms like "Core constitutional powers" while not addressing any of the dissents. Roberts pens in that the president gets broad immunity for "core" (defined nowhere) powers and ignores the public's interest in not having a criminal president.
Originalists like senile Roberts must have forgot the framers were literally escaping a monarchy with no judicial accountability. Maybe him and Alito can figure out the mental gymnastics needed to ask his wife to take down the stop-the-steal flag outside his house.