4 ms·

They literally tell you. Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-city-plans-will-violate-civil-liberties https://www.aclu.org/n

by dwaxe 10y ago

They literally tell you. Border wall: https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-city-plans-will-violate-civil-liberties https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-trumps-border-and-sanctuary-c... One of dozens of articles on the refugee EO: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unconstitutional-program-anti-muslim-discrimination https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/trump-begins-his-unco...

User23 10y ago
These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations. I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means we can expect them to double down on the strategy. It's no secret that a significant portion of political activism and fund-raising is just skinning suckers. The right ran the same scam on its constituents during the Obama years.
- uabstraction 10y ago
  "it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations." I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is. Starting a trade war with Mexico so we can say they paid for it though creative accounting will hurt our economy and cost the working class much more than a simple crackdown on employers exploiting illegal immigrants.
  - wernercd 10y ago
    Considering you can find Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama and various other Democrats calling for secure borders and barriers of various sorts throughout the years... It wasn't racism and xenophobic when it was called for then... Bill got a standing ovation from both sides when he made his speech... What's changed about wanting those things?
    - camel_Snake 10y ago
      100% my opinion here, but based on what I've read and heard so far a physical wall is a terrible way to actually prevent illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants arrive legally but just remain illegally. But you know what a big wall is? A symbol. It's my opinion that the purpose of the wall is not to actually 'secure our borders' but to act as a symbol that those to the south are not as welcome as before.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Leaving the $15 BILLION aside for now, are you able to see any reason for having a wall at all?
lol214365 10y ago
Both articles just say "unconstitutional" and say "racist" a bunch of times without citing statute or case law. Sorry if I don't find such arguments compelling.
TheOsiris 10y ago
that justification is very weak re the border wall. we can argue that it is a dumb way to do things. but if that was the case then everything the gov does needs an ACLU lawsuit. the constitution does not guarantee open-borders and the entire immigration system is there to act as a virtual wall in the first place. So I fail to understand the ACLU's position on the wall. It definitely has nothing to do with constitutional issues
egopulsus 10y ago
wow... aclu is a joke. unconstitutional? sorry but illegal immigrants are not protected by the constitution. why do the democrats fail to understand this?

by dwaxe 10y ago

User23 10y ago

These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations. I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means we can expect them to double down on the strategy. It's no secret that a significant portion of political activism and fund-raising is just skinning suckers. The right ran the same scam on its constituents during the Obama years.

uabstraction 10y ago
"it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations." I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is. Starting a trade war with Mexico so we can say they paid for it though creative accounting will hurt our economy and cost the working class much more than a simple crackdown on employers exploiting illegal immigrants.
- wernercd 10y ago
  Considering you can find Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama and various other Democrats calling for secure borders and barriers of various sorts throughout the years... It wasn't racism and xenophobic when it was called for then... Bill got a standing ovation from both sides when he made his speech... What's changed about wanting those things?
  - camel_Snake 10y ago
    100% my opinion here, but based on what I've read and heard so far a physical wall is a terrible way to actually prevent illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants arrive legally but just remain illegally. But you know what a big wall is? A symbol. It's my opinion that the purpose of the wall is not to actually 'secure our borders' but to act as a symbol that those to the south are not as welcome as before.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Leaving the $15 BILLION aside for now, are you able to see any reason for having a wall at all?

lol214365 10y ago

Both articles just say "unconstitutional" and say "racist" a bunch of times without citing statute or case law. Sorry if I don't find such arguments compelling.

TheOsiris 10y ago

that justification is very weak re the border wall. we can argue that it is a dumb way to do things. but if that was the case then everything the gov does needs an ACLU lawsuit. the constitution does not guarantee open-borders and the entire immigration system is there to act as a virtual wall in the first place. So I fail to understand the ACLU's position on the wall. It definitely has nothing to do with constitutional issues

egopulsus 10y ago

wow... aclu is a joke. unconstitutional? sorry but illegal immigrants are not protected by the constitution. why do the democrats fail to understand this?