3 ms·

Because the government was elected with a strong mandate to deport illegal migrants?

tldrthelaw 1y ago
How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
vkou 1y ago
48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.
- almosthere 1y ago
  So 52% is enough to import 15 million new people that don't speak the language and take a crap-ton of jobs and houses making a lot of people homeless. (and that's forgetting immigration became an 80/20 issue when we found out the number)
  - drdaeman 1y ago
    Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up. It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion. Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
    - almosthere 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - jonway 1y ago
        This totally incoherent my dude. People shipping contraband don’t normally hang around at the destination, they go back when they’re done. And if someone did, like, overstay a visa used to traffic narcotics or something and “must go”, you’re just cutting their expenses for the next trip.
        almosthere 1y ago
        Tons of gangs have established long term distribution systems. Just because CNN didn't tell you that, doesn't mean it's not true.
        jonway 1y ago
        So you’re asking us to let criminals free? Just stop and think for a sec.
      - drdaeman 1y ago
        I get to think and say whatever I want as long as my First Amendment rights still exist. You get the right to disagree and think and say whatever you want. I sincerely hope it's how things will remain, and so will all our other Constitutional rights. Because I witnessed first-hand what could happens when the Constitution becomes a piece of paper, and I hope that no one would ever have to experience that. But more than this, I'm curious what logical connection have made you bring fentanyl into the discussion about purported government surveillance of illegal migrants and possible side effects of this on US citizens and legal permanent residents. Seriously, why have you even thought of it?
      - queenkjuul 1y ago
        Some of that fentanyl came from the US, you know that right?
  - vkou 1y ago
    The immigration policy of the last ~13 years was not reached by a singular, 1-time 52% consensus. They were the product of decades of often bipartisan legislature, and both-parties-taking-turns partisan executive policy, much of it set decades ago, with plenty of opportunity in the intervening years for steering and review. You're acting like some prior President cracked his knuckles one day, and signed an EO to import 15 million people in, and justifying the unconstitutional insanity of the past 8 months based on that falsehood. You're drawing a false equivalence fallacy, and covering blatantly illegal and unconstitutional actions. A 52% consensus isn't enough to achieve those, either. You need 66% consensus in Congress, and 3/4s of States. If the issue is as existential as you think it is, it's on you to build the consensus necessary to achieve that. If you can't, tough luck.
    - almosthere 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - mindslight 1y ago
        [flagged]
        almosthere 1y ago
        [flagged]
        vkou 1y ago
        > call everyone a nazi The parent poster didn't call you anything, but one does raise eyebrows at people who look at the crazy authoritarian shit that is being done, and say 'this is legal, and good, and desirable and it makes me happy :)'. They are certainly a prominent and loud and very defensive group of people, they are definitely not 'everyone'.
        almosthere 1y ago
        What's authoritarian about it? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Tus6VzGtuXY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Tus6VzGtuXY Defending your country is not authoritarian. It's what ALL countries do.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    "imported" as though someone rang em up on Aliexpress? 15M people over the course of decades, and you can't possibly prove they contribute meaningfully to homelessness (besides, possibly, many of them being homeless themselves).

How would you substantiate this statement? He won with among the smallest popular vote % margins in history [0]. In fact he won by less than HRC beat him by in 2016. There is no strong mandate for this administration, regardless of how you slice it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

vkou 1y ago

48% is not a strong enough mandate to break federal appropriations and spending laws, to use the military as a weapon against civilian protesters, or, in this case, to shred the 4th amendment.

almosthere 1y ago
So 52% is enough to import 15 million new people that don't speak the language and take a crap-ton of jobs and houses making a lot of people homeless. (and that's forgetting immigration became an 80/20 issue when we found out the number)
- drdaeman 1y ago
  Immigration issues of any scale do not justify violating citizen's rights, though. Side effects matter and the risks are tremendous. 52% enough or not - that's what already happened in the past and no one can change the past. There's only the present, that needs to be carefully driven towards a desirable future, with conscious and significant effort to avoid undesirable ones. History is full of stories about how easy it is to fuck up. It possibly would be very different if federal administration would openly recognize the potential issues and put at least a sliver of effort in showing how it deals with those. I can understand their statement that the scale of the problem requires action of comparable scale - that is logical. However, careless actions become incredibly dangerous at scale, and I have yet to see a sliver of understanding of this, for all I'm seeing so far is arrogant stubborn self-confidence that is very hard to distinguish from malicious intent. And I'm putting a lot of effort here with my suspension of disbelief for the sake of civilized discussion. Those hotheads are supposed to be a conservative government. They don't act like one at all.
  - almosthere 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jonway 1y ago
      This totally incoherent my dude. People shipping contraband don’t normally hang around at the destination, they go back when they’re done. And if someone did, like, overstay a visa used to traffic narcotics or something and “must go”, you’re just cutting their expenses for the next trip.
      - almosthere 1y ago
        Tons of gangs have established long term distribution systems. Just because CNN didn't tell you that, doesn't mean it's not true.
        jonway 1y ago
        So you’re asking us to let criminals free? Just stop and think for a sec.
    - drdaeman 1y ago
      I get to think and say whatever I want as long as my First Amendment rights still exist. You get the right to disagree and think and say whatever you want. I sincerely hope it's how things will remain, and so will all our other Constitutional rights. Because I witnessed first-hand what could happens when the Constitution becomes a piece of paper, and I hope that no one would ever have to experience that. But more than this, I'm curious what logical connection have made you bring fentanyl into the discussion about purported government surveillance of illegal migrants and possible side effects of this on US citizens and legal permanent residents. Seriously, why have you even thought of it?
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      Some of that fentanyl came from the US, you know that right?
- vkou 1y ago
  The immigration policy of the last ~13 years was not reached by a singular, 1-time 52% consensus. They were the product of decades of often bipartisan legislature, and both-parties-taking-turns partisan executive policy, much of it set decades ago, with plenty of opportunity in the intervening years for steering and review. You're acting like some prior President cracked his knuckles one day, and signed an EO to import 15 million people in, and justifying the unconstitutional insanity of the past 8 months based on that falsehood. You're drawing a false equivalence fallacy, and covering blatantly illegal and unconstitutional actions. A 52% consensus isn't enough to achieve those, either. You need 66% consensus in Congress, and 3/4s of States. If the issue is as existential as you think it is, it's on you to build the consensus necessary to achieve that. If you can't, tough luck.
  - almosthere 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - almosthere 1y ago
        [flagged]
        vkou 1y ago
        > call everyone a nazi The parent poster didn't call you anything, but one does raise eyebrows at people who look at the crazy authoritarian shit that is being done, and say 'this is legal, and good, and desirable and it makes me happy :)'. They are certainly a prominent and loud and very defensive group of people, they are definitely not 'everyone'.
        almosthere 1y ago
        What's authoritarian about it? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Tus6VzGtuXY https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Tus6VzGtuXY Defending your country is not authoritarian. It's what ALL countries do.
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  "imported" as though someone rang em up on Aliexpress? 15M people over the course of decades, and you can't possibly prove they contribute meaningfully to homelessness (besides, possibly, many of them being homeless themselves).