President Donald Trump

Somebody tell this coward that if he is gonna put me on ignore then ignore me.

The people who riot do it any chance they get because that's what they love to do. They love to break things and set things on fire. They tried to storm the ICE facility. They doxed ICE officers and threatened their families.

Why would you defend this?

There will be no "Summer of Love" this time.

^^^^ what it looks like the first time you jerk off

What ever happened to the claim that States Rights was the goal? Let the States handle it? lol, messaging.

I suppose a decent number of people personally know at least one illegal they would like not to be deported .

And a huge amount of people on the left basically never had any moral instinct of applying the law as inherently moral.

They only want to apply laws they agree with, they give 0 moral value to the rule of law, they are ok with judges inventing laws or destroying those they disagree each and so on.

States rights are the goal for the huge list of topics not explicitly given to the federal government by the constitution, as per 10a.

Immigration specifically is one of the rare cases of being something that it is *exclusively* the domain of the federal government, and states that try to have their own immigration policy are eversive and in violation of the deepest element of the federal constitution agreement, like states that seceded were in the past.

You literally can't wrap your head around the mere economics of the situation, let alone have any modicum of anchor to hold you to the reality.

Quite frankly you are ignorant on this subject. Its one of the subjects you speak on the most while being wrong about literally everything when you open your mouth about it.

Its to the point that I want to ban you from talking about immigration because you are just ******ed about it

Its a benefit to every facset of our society. Literally every single way other than "brown-people-I-have-to-see-per-capita"

Try to read again the post you answered to.

It doesn't matter what is the effect, you are supposed to want the law to be enforced regardless of the effect if you want to have a country with the rule of law.

Which you evidently don't care about, which is what I wrote: most leftists don't care about that.

If you believe a law has effects you consider bad, you think it's good and proper to disregard it.

Well your fellow citizens disagree with you on that and if you want a democracy you have to accept that if you are in the minority, the state will be used by the majority to achieve goals you disagree with.

And you don't get the right to riot if you disagree a lot.

Yeah brother, there are legitimately ******ed laws all over the place. You can't legally walk across the street in many places. The speed limit broadly isn't enforced anywhere in the country anymore within 5-10 mph. These are conservative officers generally picking and choosing what they enforce

Its one of the foundations of "small government" to ignore or eliminate pointless wasteful laws, not send 8 unmarked and masked men into courthouses to abduct a hardworking taxpayer currently in the legal path to citizenship.

That poll is specifically predicated on "Trump is targeting 'dangerous criminals'" which we know is bullshit. Approval drops "dramatically" (according to the pollsters) when you remove this qualifier.

Once again, you are wrong and ******ed

For the most part that stuff can and was being handled by civilian law enforcement. I saw videos from last night of the police moving people out of the way. Deploying the National Guard and Armed Forces is a completely unnecessary escalation of force.

It wasn’t riots and looting, it was some selected protestors engaging in graffiti and tossing eggs. They should be arrested but nothing civilian law enforcement can’t handle.

Don’t confuse me with a “riots are the language of the oppressed” person. There simply were no riots happening, just people rightfully concerned that there were mass deportations with little oversight.

Oh I do agree a lot of laws are disastrous and I disagree with many of them.

Still I don't riot if the fiscal authorities send armed guys to take the property of a tax evader no matter how much I disagree with the current level of taxation.

See how that works?

Small gvmnt is about eliminating a ton of laws and regulations, yes!

But until you do...

If I have a law against murder, can I arrest random people for murder without probably cause and then ignore court orders to release them? If I do, have I lost the moral highground on “law and order”?

Keep in mind cordie is against the mass deportation of illegals and that's what I was answering about there.

Cordie does not want current, existing immigration laws to be applied as written, for immigration, because he thinks the effect of doing that is bad according to his preferences.

That attitude is simply not compatible with civilization

Well being against the mass deportations of illegals is not the same as being against deporting certain illegal immigrants that have been shown to be dangerous or criminals. Inherent in the mass deportations seems to be a trampling of people’s rights. Personally I don’t think giving up rights for security is a fair trade, unless the security is so far and above the consideration of the rights, which since these are mostly people that are just here illegally with no additional considerations I don’t think it is a fair trade.

Apparently in the US if you criticize the president as a journalist, the White House will reach out to your outlet to try to get them to punish you. Remember not to insult dear leader too much or he’ll ban you from the press corps and try to get you fired.

I thought the States' Rights side lost the Civil War. Which admittedly a lot of people are still sore about, as they seldom miss an opportunity to say.

wait til you hear what happens to people who dare to criticize a certain genocidal apartheid state.

I have been against that. You know who else has been against that and is the only major political party speaking out against it? I’ll give you a hint, their name starts with a D.

Anyway it’s pretty stupid to set the two issues over and against each other. They are very much related.

No right to be in the USA exists for non citizens to begin with so j do not understand why you want to frame it as rights v security tradeoff.

And no matter your preferences illegals have to be deported according to the law.

It’s pretty wild Victor has made this his entire identity when, as far as I know, the Biden administration has never jailed anyone or revoked visas or taken federal funding away from colleges or threatened accreditation for protesting Israel

No right to be in the US exists for noncitizens is true (ignoring the treaties that give refugees rights to have a hearing and the interpretation of those rights by the courts broadly). It doesn’t logically follow from this that anything done to deport them comports with the rights of citizens more broadly.

Murderers have no rights to exist out of prison. That doesn’t mean that anything done to put murderers in prison is justified by the law.

Furthermore the execution of procedural rights doesn’t guarantee that citizens should accept the execution of those rights, in fact we might expect something over and above those procedural rights that the state executes. The state has a procedural right to eminent domain, qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, policing powers over obscene speech, etc. However a broad execution of these rights would predictably lead to civil unrest, so when the government is executing these rights they should take that consideration in mind.

So two different issues there being implicated by the Trump administration’s handling of these mass deportations. The first is a matter of not having the right to deport people in the way that they are doing, haphazardly infringing on the rights of citizens.

The second is a matter of not executing their privileges judiciously and causing civil unrest with their sloppy handling of this situation, which was completely predictable and at this point seems to be part of the goal of these actions.

Then of course we also have to consider that localities have broad policing powers and the federal government should be much more deferential to those powers than they have been, and intervening by deploying the National Guard and Armed Forces is a procedural overstep.