4 ms·
Answering for myself, I don't see a movement that is strictly for due process, law, and order. Each side is so encumbered with baggage that I don't want to sup
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
Answering for myself, I don't see a movement that is strictly for due process, law, and order.
Each side is so encumbered with baggage that I don't want to support them.
One is breaking law and processes in egregious ways. The other thinks that law should not apply to illegal immigrants and even legal deportations are a due process violation.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whoknowsidont 2y ago>The other thinks that law should not apply to illegal immigrants and even legal deportations are a due process violation. Where? Who? You're just making this up.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoIm entirely honest. There are many in this thread suggesting amnesty or non-enforcement. If I dont want to take part in an open boarder or anti-enforcement protest, where do I go? What do you think? Should all illegal immigrants be deported?
- whoknowsidont 2y ago[flagged]
- tomrod 2y agoIt's spelled "border", and you'll note I spelled these out in this alleged suggestion as potential outcomes and associated as attributes. As Reagan was good for Amnesty, the right can find it in their ideals go support it.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoRegan got stabbed in the back , and I think that burnt a lot of good will and hope for such a solution. It worked for Regan because there was bipartisan support to enforce the law moving forward. I don't see that today so we get a yoyo effect
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tomrod 2y agoIt's spelled "Reagan." And there was a bipartisanship solution under Biden that got nixed when Trump, then an unelected citizen, cried to congressional leadership about it hurting his chances for reelection. Like so many other things this weak autocrat cries about, he made things worse.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mschoch 2y ago[dead]