5 ms·

The other side of this is, if you don't obstruct, you will eventually have to be the guy saying "I was just following orders" [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/

The other side of this is, if you don't obstruct, you will eventually have to be the guy saying "I was just following orders" [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

somenameforme 8mo ago
The Nazis were engaging in systematic and large scale genocide. ICE is deporting people in the country illegally back to their home countries, free of charge. I'm not being snarky there either, immigration offenses are taken seriously worldwide and in many places you can end up in indefinite detention, required to pay for your own deportation + fines, and more. The 'penalty' being a free ticket home is a pretty sweet deal.
- saubeidl 8mo ago
  The Nazis started with a deportation plan [0] and building camps as well. It never starts with genocide, you slowly work up to it. The "final solution" happened once they realized the impracticablity of mass deportations. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
  - somenameforme 8mo ago
    The Madagascar plan was Germany scheming to to remove all Jews from Europe and their occupied territories. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a country removing illegal immigrants from its territory as happens every day, world round. The only thing that makes it notable was previous administrations intentionally enabling and encouraging illegal activity which turned a small problem into a big one.
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      What "illegal activity" were previous admins "intentionally" "enabling"? Be specific. Cite specific facts and cases. And give comparison of rates of "illegalities" against the current admin.
    - saubeidl 8mo ago
      It is the exact same thing, with a different outgroup.
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        No it obviously is not. You do not have a right to stay in a country illegally, anywhere in this world. If you want to migrate to a country, you need that country's permission. Without it you are an illegal alien and will, at the minimum, be removed from that country as soon as you are caught. In many places in this world you then may end up in detention - potentially indefinitely, imprisoned, fined, and so on. The US system, which is mostly just giving you a 'free' ride home, funded by US taxpayers, is incredibly lenient. There is no in group, out group, or whatever else. Go to Mexico or Canada illegally, as an American, and you're getting deported, same as everybody and everywhere else. Vice versa if a Canadian, Brit, or whoever else comes into the US illegally, they're also getting deported.
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        Yes but first prove illegality. And if you believe killing any person on the streets without any suspicion or charge is legal, cite the laws for it.
        mothballed 8mo ago
        Not to make it out to be some paradise, but illegal immigration isn't a crime in Argentina or Brazil. Argentina doesn't enforce it, and in fact I have read court cases of people criminals arriving illegally with fake passport and granted citizenship. If you are illegal, you can literally show up fresh off of jet and on day one in .ar, file a court case for citizenship, have a lawyer run down the clock for a few years (by constitution in argentina illegal residence and subsistence for a few years = citizenship), and all the meanwhile they are legally barred from deporting you.
        somenameforme 8mo ago
        It is still a crime even in Brazil and Argentina. Whether or not it's enforced and/or the degree of exceptions allowed, are another issue. For instance obviously illegal immigration was treated radically different during the previous administration, but the laws remain overwhelmingly the same. For instance the most controversial issue in contemporary times is deportation without trial. That's called expedited removal [1], and was passed under Bill Clinton's administration, 30 years ago. One thing that I really don't like about the way the Democrat party is handling illegal immigration is that they know it's overwhelmingly unpopular, so they say one thing and do another. For instance part of the DNC 2024 platform was "Securing the Border" [2] which they tried to argue Biden had done, and that the only reason he hadn't doing more was because of Congress. Obviously that's overt gaslighting. If they want to run on a platform of defacto open borders, more power to them - laws can be changed, but they need to actually run on that platform instead of lying and gaslighting. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal [2] - https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE...
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      Instinct says if this current admin had any at all even remote evidence of some wrongdoing by the previous government, they'd already have been screaming their lungs out about it. I mean they always are screaming and blithering about incoherently, but they'd be screaming along with suing at least.
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      This doesn't justify it by any means, but the parallel between the Madagascar Plan and the issue with illegals in the US is actually quite similar in reasoning for how the perpetrators end up opening concentration camps. There are several countries that refuse involuntary repatriation of their citizens. With the Jews in germany, same issue, hardly anywhere was willing to take them. And that's when you ended up with the perpetrator buffering them in these camps until they just gave up because there was no place to send them other than back into the broad population. Of course it is the fault of the USA if these people are abused in these camps, but these peoples' home country are not doing any favors to the people stuck there by refusing to take them back. People in i.e. France are dealing with similar issue where much of their criminals are Algerian because Algeria is refusing much of the repatriation of illegal immigrants in France. France has chosen to just release them back into population rather than build camps, with end result Algerian gangs terrorize the populace knowing they can't be sent back, which obviously plays into the hands of pushing voters towards the right-wing.
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        The German plan for deportation was never executed. There were programs against the Jews, they were persecuted and encouraged to leave, but the Nazis never formally banned them. They ended up going the other direction as genocide approached and made it impossible for Jews to leave. But the situations are again nothing alike because in that case you're speaking of Germany trying to dump Germans on other countries. In this case you're speaking of the US returning e.g. Salvadorans to El Salvador, which the latter country generally having obligations under international law to accept their citizens. The handful of exceptions, like with Venezuela, have all generally been resolved.

somenameforme 8mo ago

The Nazis were engaging in systematic and large scale genocide. ICE is deporting people in the country illegally back to their home countries, free of charge. I'm not being snarky there either, immigration offenses are taken seriously worldwide and in many places you can end up in indefinite detention, required to pay for your own deportation + fines, and more. The 'penalty' being a free ticket home is a pretty sweet deal.

saubeidl 8mo ago
The Nazis started with a deportation plan [0] and building camps as well. It never starts with genocide, you slowly work up to it. The "final solution" happened once they realized the impracticablity of mass deportations. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
- somenameforme 8mo ago
  The Madagascar plan was Germany scheming to to remove all Jews from Europe and their occupied territories. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a country removing illegal immigrants from its territory as happens every day, world round. The only thing that makes it notable was previous administrations intentionally enabling and encouraging illegal activity which turned a small problem into a big one.
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    What "illegal activity" were previous admins "intentionally" "enabling"? Be specific. Cite specific facts and cases. And give comparison of rates of "illegalities" against the current admin.
  - saubeidl 8mo ago
    It is the exact same thing, with a different outgroup.
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      No it obviously is not. You do not have a right to stay in a country illegally, anywhere in this world. If you want to migrate to a country, you need that country's permission. Without it you are an illegal alien and will, at the minimum, be removed from that country as soon as you are caught. In many places in this world you then may end up in detention - potentially indefinitely, imprisoned, fined, and so on. The US system, which is mostly just giving you a 'free' ride home, funded by US taxpayers, is incredibly lenient. There is no in group, out group, or whatever else. Go to Mexico or Canada illegally, as an American, and you're getting deported, same as everybody and everywhere else. Vice versa if a Canadian, Brit, or whoever else comes into the US illegally, they're also getting deported.
      - donkeybeer 8mo ago
        Yes but first prove illegality. And if you believe killing any person on the streets without any suspicion or charge is legal, cite the laws for it.
      - mothballed 8mo ago
        Not to make it out to be some paradise, but illegal immigration isn't a crime in Argentina or Brazil. Argentina doesn't enforce it, and in fact I have read court cases of people criminals arriving illegally with fake passport and granted citizenship. If you are illegal, you can literally show up fresh off of jet and on day one in .ar, file a court case for citizenship, have a lawyer run down the clock for a few years (by constitution in argentina illegal residence and subsistence for a few years = citizenship), and all the meanwhile they are legally barred from deporting you.
        somenameforme 8mo ago
        It is still a crime even in Brazil and Argentina. Whether or not it's enforced and/or the degree of exceptions allowed, are another issue. For instance obviously illegal immigration was treated radically different during the previous administration, but the laws remain overwhelmingly the same. For instance the most controversial issue in contemporary times is deportation without trial. That's called expedited removal [1], and was passed under Bill Clinton's administration, 30 years ago. One thing that I really don't like about the way the Democrat party is handling illegal immigration is that they know it's overwhelmingly unpopular, so they say one thing and do another. For instance part of the DNC 2024 platform was "Securing the Border" [2] which they tried to argue Biden had done, and that the only reason he hadn't doing more was because of Congress. Obviously that's overt gaslighting. If they want to run on a platform of defacto open borders, more power to them - laws can be changed, but they need to actually run on that platform instead of lying and gaslighting. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal [2] - https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE...
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    Instinct says if this current admin had any at all even remote evidence of some wrongdoing by the previous government, they'd already have been screaming their lungs out about it. I mean they always are screaming and blithering about incoherently, but they'd be screaming along with suing at least.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    This doesn't justify it by any means, but the parallel between the Madagascar Plan and the issue with illegals in the US is actually quite similar in reasoning for how the perpetrators end up opening concentration camps. There are several countries that refuse involuntary repatriation of their citizens. With the Jews in germany, same issue, hardly anywhere was willing to take them. And that's when you ended up with the perpetrator buffering them in these camps until they just gave up because there was no place to send them other than back into the broad population. Of course it is the fault of the USA if these people are abused in these camps, but these peoples' home country are not doing any favors to the people stuck there by refusing to take them back. People in i.e. France are dealing with similar issue where much of their criminals are Algerian because Algeria is refusing much of the repatriation of illegal immigrants in France. France has chosen to just release them back into population rather than build camps, with end result Algerian gangs terrorize the populace knowing they can't be sent back, which obviously plays into the hands of pushing voters towards the right-wing.
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      The German plan for deportation was never executed. There were programs against the Jews, they were persecuted and encouraged to leave, but the Nazis never formally banned them. They ended up going the other direction as genocide approached and made it impossible for Jews to leave. But the situations are again nothing alike because in that case you're speaking of Germany trying to dump Germans on other countries. In this case you're speaking of the US returning e.g. Salvadorans to El Salvador, which the latter country generally having obligations under international law to accept their citizens. The handful of exceptions, like with Venezuela, have all generally been resolved.