4 ms·

I think this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this point. They are here illegally. They can exist elsewhere legally. Respect for law is critical, and

I think this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this point. They are here illegally. They can exist elsewhere legally. Respect for law is critical, and valorizing the breaking it undermines the very concept of society. If you want more immigration, work to increase legal quotas and update the law.

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
If respect for the law is critical, why is this administration and ICE ignoring and actively working to evade court orders?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  They shouldn't be, and we should work to hold everyone accountable to the laws.
tomrod 2y ago
I cannot fathom being so far removed from facts on the ground as this comment suggests its commentator is. 1. "respect for the law" requires both due process, for both citizens and people in the geographical jurisdiction of the US, and respect for the courts. Anyone who works around due process and court orders does not respect the law. This is a general statement regarding the treatment by the current regime, using ICE, towards immigrants and anyone they think is associated to it. Literally -- this article is about deporting of US citizens held incommunicado and without legal representation, and people are already protesting judges being arrested and legal residents being exiled without due process. 2. "this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this point" would more appropriately be attributed the othering of immigrants and groups MAGA doesn't agree with - how many Haitians ate dogs and cats in Ohio? Maybe more than 0, but certainly not the unmoored groundswell of false-flag horror that crested at the rightful mocking of Trump's debate performance.[0] Ref: the moral teachings on motes, beams, eyes, Golden Rule, etc. across time and religions of all stripes. I reject the notion that me expressing empathy for immigrants and the xenophobists is rhetoric driving the country apart. It's calling a spade a spade. 3. "If you want more immigration, work to increase legal quotas and update the law." This is sort of one of those feel-good statements that have no meat or content in them. We had a perfectly cromulent immigration reform ready to go until Trump threw a tantrum and got Republican legislators to vote against their own interests because it would hurt his presidential chances. We could go back to that, it had some good political will, instead of the authoritarian nonsense chaotically deployed. Of course, you wouldn't want me to be the authoritarian -- we'd come out of things with an open border and trade agreement across the Americas because that's more efficient and morally justifiable than military intervention at a mis-named "invasion" at the border (almost as poorly named as DOGE). So rather than enabling groups to work towards coherent immigration strategies, we have a tyranny of the majority assumed to be the will of the land.[1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbhpkJ69ts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbhpkJ69ts [1] "It is abundantly clear that many activist judges around the country have been acting politically in order to sabotage President Trump's agenda, and disenfranchise the 77 million Americans that voted for him." - Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.) (This is 100% political grandstanding, since polls show that most people now disagree with Trump's agenda, [1a]) [1a] https://archive.ph/T7yVp https://archive.ph/T7yVp, especially the immigration section is now underwater
int_19h 2y ago
Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to be earned. If you pass nonsensical, or worse yet, outright evil laws, not only will they not be respected, but one can reasonably argue that it is a moral duty to disrespect them and assist in their breaking. The Underground Railroad is a prominent historical example of this.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept? no matter where you land on this, it stands that division on the topic is a top point of conflict in the US. I dont think either side claiming to be above the law helps move society in a more productive direction >Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to be earned. If someone choses to disregard the the law, this puts them in conflict with those who do care about it, and they will often seek to force obedience. If I find you breaking in my house, I dont care about earning your respect, at least not in a way that you would enjoy.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    You posit a false dichotomy here. The law isn't just about what is prohibited, but also about what the consequences are, and how it is enforced. One doesn't need to believe that e.g. stealing should be legal to oppose on moral grounds a law that says thieves get the death penalty. Let me ask you directly: do you believe that people who smuggled away slaves into freedom, back when US had legalized slavery on large parts of its territory, were in the wrong and didn't "help move society in a more productive direction"?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Im not sure how to continue the conversation in a productive manner if you are withholding key information about your stance. You refuse to answer my questions, but I will answer yours. Of course not, I don't think smuggling slaves was wrong. I still hold that refusal to respect the law is incredibly divisive and leads to social conflict and destruction. In the case of the US, it led to the most deadly and destructive war in American history. When you give up on settling issues with the law, you move to settling them with brute force. I dont think this is a positive direction. I will ask one last time: Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept?

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

If respect for the law is critical, why is this administration and ICE ignoring and actively working to evade court orders?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
They shouldn't be, and we should work to hold everyone accountable to the laws.

tomrod 2y ago

I cannot fathom being so far removed from facts on the ground as this comment suggests its commentator is. 1. "respect for the law" requires both due process, for both citizens and people in the geographical jurisdiction of the US, and respect for the courts. Anyone who works around due process and court orders does not respect the law. This is a general statement regarding the treatment by the current regime, using ICE, towards immigrants and anyone they think is associated to it. Literally -- this article is about deporting of US citizens held incommunicado and without legal representation, and people are already protesting judges being arrested and legal residents being exiled without due process. 2. "this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this point" would more appropriately be attributed the othering of immigrants and groups MAGA doesn't agree with - how many Haitians ate dogs and cats in Ohio? Maybe more than 0, but certainly not the unmoored groundswell of false-flag horror that crested at the rightful mocking of Trump's debate performance.[0] Ref: the moral teachings on motes, beams, eyes, Golden Rule, etc. across time and religions of all stripes. I reject the notion that me expressing empathy for immigrants and the xenophobists is rhetoric driving the country apart. It's calling a spade a spade. 3. "If you want more immigration, work to increase legal quotas and update the law." This is sort of one of those feel-good statements that have no meat or content in them. We had a perfectly cromulent immigration reform ready to go until Trump threw a tantrum and got Republican legislators to vote against their own interests because it would hurt his presidential chances. We could go back to that, it had some good political will, instead of the authoritarian nonsense chaotically deployed. Of course, you wouldn't want me to be the authoritarian -- we'd come out of things with an open border and trade agreement across the Americas because that's more efficient and morally justifiable than military intervention at a mis-named "invasion" at the border (almost as poorly named as DOGE). So rather than enabling groups to work towards coherent immigration strategies, we have a tyranny of the majority assumed to be the will of the land.[1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbhpkJ69ts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNbhpkJ69ts [1] "It is abundantly clear that many activist judges around the country have been acting politically in order to sabotage President Trump's agenda, and disenfranchise the 77 million Americans that voted for him." - Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.) (This is 100% political grandstanding, since polls show that most people now disagree with Trump's agenda, [1a]) [1a] https://archive.ph/T7yVp https://archive.ph/T7yVp, especially the immigration section is now underwater

int_19h 2y ago

Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to be earned. If you pass nonsensical, or worse yet, outright evil laws, not only will they not be respected, but one can reasonably argue that it is a moral duty to disrespect them and assist in their breaking. The Underground Railroad is a prominent historical example of this.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept? no matter where you land on this, it stands that division on the topic is a top point of conflict in the US. I dont think either side claiming to be above the law helps move society in a more productive direction >Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to be earned. If someone choses to disregard the the law, this puts them in conflict with those who do care about it, and they will often seek to force obedience. If I find you breaking in my house, I dont care about earning your respect, at least not in a way that you would enjoy.
- int_19h 2y ago
  You posit a false dichotomy here. The law isn't just about what is prohibited, but also about what the consequences are, and how it is enforced. One doesn't need to believe that e.g. stealing should be legal to oppose on moral grounds a law that says thieves get the death penalty. Let me ask you directly: do you believe that people who smuggled away slaves into freedom, back when US had legalized slavery on large parts of its territory, were in the wrong and didn't "help move society in a more productive direction"?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Im not sure how to continue the conversation in a productive manner if you are withholding key information about your stance. You refuse to answer my questions, but I will answer yours. Of course not, I don't think smuggling slaves was wrong. I still hold that refusal to respect the law is incredibly divisive and leads to social conflict and destruction. In the case of the US, it led to the most deadly and destructive war in American history. When you give up on settling issues with the law, you move to settling them with brute force. I dont think this is a positive direction. I will ask one last time: Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept?