4 ms·

> On one hand I find the current administration's approach to deportations too heavy-handed, but on the other hand it seems almost necessary because of the leve

> On one hand I find the current administration's approach to deportations too heavy-handed, but on the other hand it seems almost necessary because of the level of obstruction at the judicial level compared to the Obama era This is just "ends justifies the means" via hand waving. If you claim to have principles at least stand by them.

bananalychee 2y ago
Not really. I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society. If this can't happen due to systematic obstruction, then it's not a violation of my principles to be less critical of toeing a line I'd otherwise not like to see breached. If we all had hard lines drawn in the sand that never moved around, this wouldn't even be a conversation, because 15 years ago mass deportations were uncontroversial.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society. Did you vote for Trump in 2024?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > systematic obstruction It would help to discuss this using the same terms. This is not different from the "due process" that others talk about. I would presume you don't think that due process is needlessly obstructive but you also seem to think this obstruction is needless. If I'm wrong, what am I wrong about? If I'm not wrong, why do you think this obstruction is needless?
  - gitfan86 2y ago
    The idea is that the justice system should work in a reasonable way so that victims and potential victim rights are protected. For example, someone who allegedly beat their wife, has a right to a trial. But if activist judges make decisions that cause the trial to not take place for 10 years that is obstructive and the alleged victim doesn't get justice or protection from future assaults. So if that person is deported before the trial you could complain about lack of "due process" but you would be ignoring the rights of the victim.
  - bananalychee 2y ago
    In my understanding, the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration and did bypass standards of "due process" being raised today to block deportations. If it's practically impossible to expel the illegal immigrants allowed in via open border policies over the previous term, that's dysfunctional and the standards should be relaxed. This case is particularly egregious, as the judge personally helped a violent illegal immigrant evade law enforcement outside of her jurisdiction, which explains the arrest; but "systematic obstruction" refers to the injunctions being issued constantly to block executive actions, suggesting that the Trump administration's attempts to reverse open border policies are subjected to a much higher standard than Democrats were under Obama just 15 years prior when they correctly viewed illegal immigration as a problem.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > In my understanding the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was about two decades before Barack Obama was born. > If it's practically impossible to reverse open border policies that let in a flood of illegal immigrants for almost 4 years The US hasn't had anything like open borders policies for more than a century (more precisely, since the original national origin quota system was adopted in 1921.) It's probably easier to discuss policy in this area if the premises are something resembling facts rather than partisan propaganda fictions.
      - bananalychee 2y ago
        [flagged]
        tomhow 1y ago
        Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bananalychee 2y ago

Not really. I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society. If this can't happen due to systematic obstruction, then it's not a violation of my principles to be less critical of toeing a line I'd otherwise not like to see breached. If we all had hard lines drawn in the sand that never moved around, this wouldn't even be a conversation, because 15 years ago mass deportations were uncontroversial.

CamperBob2 2y ago
I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society. Did you vote for Trump in 2024?
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> systematic obstruction It would help to discuss this using the same terms. This is not different from the "due process" that others talk about. I would presume you don't think that due process is needlessly obstructive but you also seem to think this obstruction is needless. If I'm wrong, what am I wrong about? If I'm not wrong, why do you think this obstruction is needless?
- gitfan86 2y ago
  The idea is that the justice system should work in a reasonable way so that victims and potential victim rights are protected. For example, someone who allegedly beat their wife, has a right to a trial. But if activist judges make decisions that cause the trial to not take place for 10 years that is obstructive and the alleged victim doesn't get justice or protection from future assaults. So if that person is deported before the trial you could complain about lack of "due process" but you would be ignoring the rights of the victim.
- bananalychee 2y ago
  In my understanding, the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration and did bypass standards of "due process" being raised today to block deportations. If it's practically impossible to expel the illegal immigrants allowed in via open border policies over the previous term, that's dysfunctional and the standards should be relaxed. This case is particularly egregious, as the judge personally helped a violent illegal immigrant evade law enforcement outside of her jurisdiction, which explains the arrest; but "systematic obstruction" refers to the injunctions being issued constantly to block executive actions, suggesting that the Trump administration's attempts to reverse open border policies are subjected to a much higher standard than Democrats were under Obama just 15 years prior when they correctly viewed illegal immigration as a problem.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > In my understanding the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was about two decades before Barack Obama was born. > If it's practically impossible to reverse open border policies that let in a flood of illegal immigrants for almost 4 years The US hasn't had anything like open borders policies for more than a century (more precisely, since the original national origin quota system was adopted in 1921.) It's probably easier to discuss policy in this area if the premises are something resembling facts rather than partisan propaganda fictions.
    - bananalychee 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - tomhow 1y ago
        Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html