4 ms·
Your argument is ultimately that it’s ok to ignore the constitution, civil rights, and human decency because it’s time to do things “the hard way”.
by elsonrodriguez 8mo ago
Your argument is ultimately that it’s ok to ignore the constitution, civil rights, and human decency because it’s time to do things “the hard way”.
- frumplestlatz 8mo agoThat’s not what was argued. “The hard way” refers to institutional difficulty, not illegality — specifically, enforcing federal law in the face of state non-compliance and sanctuary policies. Difficulty does not equal unconstitutionality. If you think the measures required violate specific constitutional provisions or civil-rights protections, name them and explain how. Otherwise, this is an empty moral reframe that clumsily sidesteps concrete claims about enforcement feasibility and changed conditions.