4 ms·

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...
    - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
      Obama and to a lesser extent Biden weren't soft on illegal immigration, but they did two things that differ from the current administration: * They followed the law. Crackdowns like the one Trump is taking are only possible if you treat law as a fluid concept and ignore judges consistently. A democrat is never going to get around that, and yes, laws can be changed, but notice how Trump isn't even bothering to do that also (he just ignores them), the best he got from a Republican congress was extra funding for ICE (and remember, Bush was worse than Obama on illegal immigration). * They just treated them with some dignity (which Trump sees as soft, dignity isn't really in his vocab).
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        Judges aren't powerless. If an administration genuinely ignores a judge's lawful ruling, they can charged with contempt, with penalties up to imprisonment. But there's a lot of judicial activism leading to 'creative' rulings. Like the Supreme Court, Federal judges are appointed with life terms. And they can be even more impactful on a day-to-day basis, especially when they intentionally step outside the bounds of their authority. One of the more extremist judges did try to charge this administration with contempt - it was tossed. So the admin tried to charge the judge with misconduct, which was also tossed. It's just a lot of back and forth nonsense with checks and balances generally still working okayish. So for an example from the previous administration, they wanted race based admissions for colleges. That is obviously illegal and unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court predictably ruled against them, they worked to circumvent their ruling in various ways including in a 'Dear Colleagues' letter [1] offering guidance on ways universities could achieve a racial quota while remaining within the bounds of the law, effectively laying out a proposed blueprint for intentional Disparate Impact [2], which is *drum roll* also illegal. The main difference you're seeing in contemporary times is the way the media is spinning everything, intentionally looking to foment conflict and radicalism. We live in amoral times and so working around the judges and legal systems is framed primarily in terms of who's doing it. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20241127174625/https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20230814.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20241127174625/https://www.ed.go... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
- saubeidl 8mo ago
  You did not have a right to stay in Germany as a Jew either. My point exactly.
  - somenameforme 8mo ago
    This is both technically and logically incorrect. From a technical point of view - it's just wrong. Jews were persecuted and encouraged to leave, yet never formally expelled from Germany. And as the Nazis moved towards genocide, they moved in the other direction and made it impossible for Jews to leave the country. But from a logical point of view, it also fails, even in a parallel reality where you were right. Countries are generally deemed to have the right to kill their citizens for major violations of the law, in the pursuit of justice. But that does not mean a country has the right to just start killing their citizens on a whim. And similarly, every single country has the right to expel people who enter their country illegally or remain beyond the terms of a granted temporary stay. This does not mean a country has the right the randomly start expelling their own citizens, en masse, for no normal reason.
    - saubeidl 8mo ago
      Your core assumptions are incorrect. Jews were not considered German Reich citizens. [0] Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications_under_the_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications...
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        Your link does not conflict with anything I said. Jews were never formally expelled from Germany. You might note the page you link even lays out various rights for Jews living within Germany. In any case, this would not change the issue even had they been expelled, for reasons already mentioned. Those who do not read their links are doomed to misrepresent them.
        saubeidl 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...
  - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
    Obama and to a lesser extent Biden weren't soft on illegal immigration, but they did two things that differ from the current administration: * They followed the law. Crackdowns like the one Trump is taking are only possible if you treat law as a fluid concept and ignore judges consistently. A democrat is never going to get around that, and yes, laws can be changed, but notice how Trump isn't even bothering to do that also (he just ignores them), the best he got from a Republican congress was extra funding for ICE (and remember, Bush was worse than Obama on illegal immigration). * They just treated them with some dignity (which Trump sees as soft, dignity isn't really in his vocab).
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      Judges aren't powerless. If an administration genuinely ignores a judge's lawful ruling, they can charged with contempt, with penalties up to imprisonment. But there's a lot of judicial activism leading to 'creative' rulings. Like the Supreme Court, Federal judges are appointed with life terms. And they can be even more impactful on a day-to-day basis, especially when they intentionally step outside the bounds of their authority. One of the more extremist judges did try to charge this administration with contempt - it was tossed. So the admin tried to charge the judge with misconduct, which was also tossed. It's just a lot of back and forth nonsense with checks and balances generally still working okayish. So for an example from the previous administration, they wanted race based admissions for colleges. That is obviously illegal and unconstitutional. After the Supreme Court predictably ruled against them, they worked to circumvent their ruling in various ways including in a 'Dear Colleagues' letter [1] offering guidance on ways universities could achieve a racial quota while remaining within the bounds of the law, effectively laying out a proposed blueprint for intentional Disparate Impact [2], which is *drum roll* also illegal. The main difference you're seeing in contemporary times is the way the media is spinning everything, intentionally looking to foment conflict and radicalism. We live in amoral times and so working around the judges and legal systems is framed primarily in terms of who's doing it. [1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20241127174625/https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20230814.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20241127174625/https://www.ed.go... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
saubeidl 8mo ago
You did not have a right to stay in Germany as a Jew either. My point exactly.
- somenameforme 8mo ago
  This is both technically and logically incorrect. From a technical point of view - it's just wrong. Jews were persecuted and encouraged to leave, yet never formally expelled from Germany. And as the Nazis moved towards genocide, they moved in the other direction and made it impossible for Jews to leave the country. But from a logical point of view, it also fails, even in a parallel reality where you were right. Countries are generally deemed to have the right to kill their citizens for major violations of the law, in the pursuit of justice. But that does not mean a country has the right to just start killing their citizens on a whim. And similarly, every single country has the right to expel people who enter their country illegally or remain beyond the terms of a granted temporary stay. This does not mean a country has the right the randomly start expelling their own citizens, en masse, for no normal reason.
  - saubeidl 8mo ago
    Your core assumptions are incorrect. Jews were not considered German Reich citizens. [0] Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications_under_the_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Classifications...
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      Your link does not conflict with anything I said. Jews were never formally expelled from Germany. You might note the page you link even lays out various rights for Jews living within Germany. In any case, this would not change the issue even had they been expelled, for reasons already mentioned. Those who do not read their links are doomed to misrepresent them.
      - saubeidl 8mo ago