5 ms·

This is not basic flamebait. if you have any serious conversation outside of your political bubble this is THE argument that people who get deported are never U

This is not basic flamebait. if you have any serious conversation outside of your political bubble this is THE argument that people who get deported are never US citizens. and it is a valid argument unless you can find examples of citizens deported. I can't there are so many shorts of right wing "influencers" cornering liberals who can't give a suitable reply to this question. so the argument about hearings is important. and killing this discussion took it away from public. this of course is very useful to the maga machine which is so friendly to big tech so I'm not surprised.

mindslight 10mo ago
> THE argument that people who get deported are never US citizens. and it is a valid argument unless you can find examples of citizens deported (I can't). It might be a valid argument in a dictatorship, but not in the US - rather it's hopeium that completely relies on preconceived assumptions. An assertion that everyone deported/disappeared must be a non-citizen (... because otherwise why would they have been deported?) is bog standard fallacy that the government/computer/bureaucracy] is always correct. The entire foundation of Constitutionally limited government responsible to the People is that it is the government's job to justify its actions. That's the goal of open legal process, professional representation, the incarcerated's communication with the outside world, etc. A strongman wannabe-dictator asserting "trust me" but hiding all of the details, and for what we do know about engaging in wanton criminality, is nowhere near any level of good-faith executing the laws of a Constitutionally-limited government. Personally I'd say people still thinking any of this is about "immigration reform" are being taken for a ride, just as they have been for the past thirty years.
- throwaway290 10mo ago
  Nope. It is a valid argument in US in the eyes of US citizens who make it. You don't get to just say "it's not a valid argument" and think that will convince people and actually you know it too. That's why you give the rest of the explanation. which will not be seen because the conversation was killed.
  - mindslight 10mo ago
    What I mean is that it's not a legitimate argument in the context of good-faith discussion getting to the truths of matters, which is the ethos of this site. I didn't address the social aspects you brought up, and I really should have. Yes, there are many people repeating these arguments, despite them being trivially debunked. That is a big part of The Problem, right? "Flood the zone with shit" to overwhelm people's attention and get them to succumb to repeated feel-good talking points that confirm their biases. But if people were more generally intellectually honest, then we wouldn't be staring down fascism to begin with. There are also many people arguing against this tripe, but using the lamest arguments themselves, because once again confirming their preconceived biases feels good. When I go to protests, the sheer number of signs preaching to the choir saddens me - propagating the fascists' paradigm wherein the main issue here is illegal immigration is not going to win anyone over! The way I see it, we should be able to disagree on policy and solutions, but yet still reject the fascism together. But back to the comment flagging - when the bulk of political discourse revolves around flamebait, then it's not terribly surprising the popular arguments get flagged on forums that are looking for something more than flame war. FWIW the whole conversation wasn't outright killed, rather it's hidden in a tree you can click to expand (it says [10 more] meaning 10 comments below it to expand). Personally, I usually click those, but I understand having to do so detracts from engagement.
    - throwaway290 10mo ago
      > What I mean is that it's not a legitimate argument in the context of good-faith discussion getting to the truths of matters, which is the ethos of this site. it's only not a legitimate argument if you are in a specific bubble. How do I know? Because I talk to people outside of it. Talk to some right-wing conservatives and you'll find out I promise you. > Yes, there are many people repeating these arguments, despite them being trivially debunked. No, they are not trivially debunked. Actually "no hearings" argumetn is trivially debunked by right wingers: "hearings take too long and we have too many immigrants committing crimes". However it's still a good argument to know. And killing this conversation makes sure people don't know it. > confirming their preconceived biases feels good Do you have enough introspection power to ask if you are doing that yourself right here? > when the bulk of political discourse revolves around flamebait This is not flamebait for the reasons I explained
amanaplanacanal 10mo ago
Whether or not someone is a citizen is a complete red herring. Plenty of non citizens are in the US legally. Why even bring that talking point up?
- throwaway290 10mo ago
  Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported. Which is basically normal in many countries except maybe EU. I for sure know of people who got deported after committing crimes or even just administrative wrongdoings while being on legal visas What you can say US should hold itself to higher standard and how trump does it is absolutely wrong... Then I agree Yoo can also say that right wingers move goalposts by first saying "only illegal migrants get deported" then saying "even legal migrants pending citizenship can get deported if they commit a crime" then "any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it" which happens but it's usually hard to get somebody for moving goalposts in a real life argument. But saying "whether someone is a citizen or not" is irrelevant is wrong because for US citizens is very relevant
  - estearum 10mo ago
    > Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported This has always been true in the US, and is increasingly not true now. The data is extremely clear on this. > any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it This is only true with an asterisk which makes it not applicable to the current situation. In the US, even non-citizens (even the subset of illegal non-citizens) have due process rights, which the Trump admin is systematically violating. "Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution.
    - throwaway290 10mo ago
      Show the data then. Seriously. I couldn't find examples of deports of US citizens OR non citizens who did not commit crime or administrative wrongdoing. > non-citizens have due process rights Yes, so now you said US should hold itself to higher standard. And I already said I agree with it. > "Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution. If true then this looks like another great point that is lost into the abyss because the whole thread was killed. which part of constitution?

mindslight 10mo ago

> THE argument that people who get deported are never US citizens. and it is a valid argument unless you can find examples of citizens deported (I can't). It might be a valid argument in a dictatorship, but not in the US - rather it's hopeium that completely relies on preconceived assumptions. An assertion that everyone deported/disappeared must be a non-citizen (... because otherwise why would they have been deported?) is bog standard fallacy that the government/computer/bureaucracy] is always correct. The entire foundation of Constitutionally limited government responsible to the People is that it is the government's job to justify its actions. That's the goal of open legal process, professional representation, the incarcerated's communication with the outside world, etc. A strongman wannabe-dictator asserting "trust me" but hiding all of the details, and for what we do know about engaging in wanton criminality, is nowhere near any level of good-faith executing the laws of a Constitutionally-limited government. Personally I'd say people still thinking any of this is about "immigration reform" are being taken for a ride, just as they have been for the past thirty years.

throwaway290 10mo ago
Nope. It is a valid argument in US in the eyes of US citizens who make it. You don't get to just say "it's not a valid argument" and think that will convince people and actually you know it too. That's why you give the rest of the explanation. which will not be seen because the conversation was killed.
- mindslight 10mo ago
  What I mean is that it's not a legitimate argument in the context of good-faith discussion getting to the truths of matters, which is the ethos of this site. I didn't address the social aspects you brought up, and I really should have. Yes, there are many people repeating these arguments, despite them being trivially debunked. That is a big part of The Problem, right? "Flood the zone with shit" to overwhelm people's attention and get them to succumb to repeated feel-good talking points that confirm their biases. But if people were more generally intellectually honest, then we wouldn't be staring down fascism to begin with. There are also many people arguing against this tripe, but using the lamest arguments themselves, because once again confirming their preconceived biases feels good. When I go to protests, the sheer number of signs preaching to the choir saddens me - propagating the fascists' paradigm wherein the main issue here is illegal immigration is not going to win anyone over! The way I see it, we should be able to disagree on policy and solutions, but yet still reject the fascism together. But back to the comment flagging - when the bulk of political discourse revolves around flamebait, then it's not terribly surprising the popular arguments get flagged on forums that are looking for something more than flame war. FWIW the whole conversation wasn't outright killed, rather it's hidden in a tree you can click to expand (it says [10 more] meaning 10 comments below it to expand). Personally, I usually click those, but I understand having to do so detracts from engagement.
  - throwaway290 10mo ago
    > What I mean is that it's not a legitimate argument in the context of good-faith discussion getting to the truths of matters, which is the ethos of this site. it's only not a legitimate argument if you are in a specific bubble. How do I know? Because I talk to people outside of it. Talk to some right-wing conservatives and you'll find out I promise you. > Yes, there are many people repeating these arguments, despite them being trivially debunked. No, they are not trivially debunked. Actually "no hearings" argumetn is trivially debunked by right wingers: "hearings take too long and we have too many immigrants committing crimes". However it's still a good argument to know. And killing this conversation makes sure people don't know it. > confirming their preconceived biases feels good Do you have enough introspection power to ask if you are doing that yourself right here? > when the bulk of political discourse revolves around flamebait This is not flamebait for the reasons I explained

amanaplanacanal 10mo ago

Whether or not someone is a citizen is a complete red herring. Plenty of non citizens are in the US legally. Why even bring that talking point up?

throwaway290 10mo ago
Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported. Which is basically normal in many countries except maybe EU. I for sure know of people who got deported after committing crimes or even just administrative wrongdoings while being on legal visas What you can say US should hold itself to higher standard and how trump does it is absolutely wrong... Then I agree Yoo can also say that right wingers move goalposts by first saying "only illegal migrants get deported" then saying "even legal migrants pending citizenship can get deported if they commit a crime" then "any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it" which happens but it's usually hard to get somebody for moving goalposts in a real life argument. But saying "whether someone is a citizen or not" is irrelevant is wrong because for US citizens is very relevant
- estearum 10mo ago
  > Their argument is that only non citizens who committed some crime get deported This has always been true in the US, and is increasingly not true now. The data is extremely clear on this. > any non citizen can get deported because nothing in constitution prevents it This is only true with an asterisk which makes it not applicable to the current situation. In the US, even non-citizens (even the subset of illegal non-citizens) have due process rights, which the Trump admin is systematically violating. "Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution.
  - throwaway290 10mo ago
    Show the data then. Seriously. I couldn't find examples of deports of US citizens OR non citizens who did not commit crime or administrative wrongdoing. > non-citizens have due process rights Yes, so now you said US should hold itself to higher standard. And I already said I agree with it. > "Whether someone is a citizen or not" is actually completely irrelevant for the question of whether they have due process rights under our Constitution. If true then this looks like another great point that is lost into the abyss because the whole thread was killed. which part of constitution?