|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again.
I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives.
Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. And I totally understand the whole asylum system is totally bogus at this point and abused to the point people are right to roll their eyes and be cynical. With that being said, I want to just directly ask you: Are you familiar with the details of these prisons in El Salvador? And if so, are you ok with sending people, whether from El Salvador or not, to rot there?
The asylum process is commonly abused but I feel like I need to shake you into remembering asylum is a valid thing and it should be a point of pride for our country to offer asylum to genuine cases where asylum is appropriate.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
But this guy sent to the El Salvador prison is either already dead or will die while performing slave labor. That's straight up holocaust stuff. That's why I am wanting to make sure we agree on the details as to what exactly this El Salvador prison *is*. If you think its just kinda a prison, I can understand not minding him going back. If you share my impression of what this prison is, I would be surprised if you were comfortable deporting him.
|
On April 14 2025 18:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2025 13:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2025 10:42 Sermokala wrote:On April 14 2025 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2025 09:14 Sermokala wrote:Those arn't demands, those are just the description of what the demands would be. + Show Spoiler +You would have to force states to give up political representation to align more with population representation. You would need state governments to surrender power to technocratic cabals of local organizations with taxing authority to guide and organize economic development in the Metropolitian statistical areas.
You would need to make goals for your violent revolution that justify the revolution in the first place. You can't ignore that going down the path of violent revolution in America would see millions of people dieing for various issues before things stabilize, even before going into the very real risk of following what has happened with most other worker-led revolutions through history of things just getting worse.
What you as a Californian would have to recognize is that the only way things get better in the country is if things get much worse for the richer parts of the country like California and yes Minnesota in order to turn the red states into something more than subsidized third world nations.
People are very simple creatures that in mass respond in very predictable ways. You're not going to address the rampant desire for cruelty and punishment with poor rural Americans by starting with "lets make the economy crash to great depression levels in the short term" as persuation. It would be a lot easier to help stop the rise of facism in the country if you would stop helping it go along to get to this fantasy of a workers revolution that just solves all the problems with solutions that everyone agrees with. Perhaps, but I'm not going to try to parse Kwark's potential demands any further for him. On April 14 2025 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 14 2025 08:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2025 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 14 2025 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2025 07:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote:
Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy Thanks! On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] First, happy cakeday! Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha. While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in. I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country. I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs. That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution. Thank you for the happy cake day! I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one. I appreciate your engagement with the summary. I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike. It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid. The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against. To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom. That's part of the point acro, myself, others like DanHH, and the Niemöller quote are trying to make. More than just a general strike is already warranted, and arguably necessary. Whether it's the slew of resignations in response to Musk's criminal invasion of various government agencies, the blatant disregard of the constitution on multiple fronts, the rapid and irreversible implosion of the US's credibility on the foreign stage, the erasure of trans people as people, the systemic (but also haphazard) elimination of historic contributions by "DEI" people, the crackdown on immigrants, and the list goes on and on, it's WAYYYYY past the time of a general strike being warranted. You may not be aware, but part of what is driving the push for the general strike you were ostensibly curious about the demands of, is specifically to unite people and form those ripples. Part of the way that is done, is by organizing some of the various other protests, marches, rallies, etc that you're more open to. Part of why I'm encouraging you and others to describe a general strike with demands you support is that's part of how you build the ripples. As I've said before, the jump from local and directly impactful to universal and several-stages-removed is one that I'm not currently comfortable making at all, let alone joining in the first wave of general strikes against the Trump administration. I respect your energy and your desire to recruit more people for what is undoubtedly a noble cause, but for me personally, I'm going to currently speak out in the other ways that I listed, because those are ways that I can handle (emotionally, financially, temporally, etc.). As in you're not prepared to engage with/accept the historic examples that contradict your skepticism or that you just don't want to be one of the people doing it? I respect you doing what you can, but I can assure you we'll all have to go well beyond what we're comfortable with doing to stop what Trump/project 2025 are doing. Everything anyone is considering now is a helluva lot better/easier than waiting until the only option is storming a beach full of machine guns though. While I'm obviously partial to a general strike, you could also describe the demands the marches, protests, etc, you have said you would support/join would include and we can go from there. + Show Spoiler +I would engage with them if they existed. The fact that you don't attempt to even give a throwaway tells a lot. The fact that you weren't willing to be uncomfortable enough to vote for kamala yet want to lecture others on how committed they are to making things better is even more telling. Are you willing to do the bare minimum and be civil to others to build support for the changes you want to see in the world? I'm not going to commit to means when the ends are have less development behind them than Trumps plans. My preferred form of revolution is to create an insurgent political party to operate within the national democratic party until it has the level of popular political support to win the kind of compromises and concessions that makes peoples lives materially better. + Show Spoiler +The nation has more than 330 million people. Even if you get ten million in a general strike how do you think any of the changes are going to happen? The day after the general strike you fantasize about so much you are still going to have to convince enough of the rest of the population that you have the solutions to make their lives materially better. How are you going to address all the people you need to strip of their political power and their ability to control their economic future?
How do you think you are doing to convince people you can build the support to address the levels of hate and cruelty tens of millions of your fellow citizens advocate for on a daily basis? You've already abandoned any path of reform that people are going to consent to willingly so explain what your plan is for when the majority of the nation that is willing to vote disagrees with you? You can't even bring yourself to support what AOC bernie and walz are doing with their rallies when it materially advances your position. What uncomfortable act are you willing to make when you won't vote and you won't support leftist political rallies? + Show Spoiler +As an aside it wasn't lost to me that BJ was able to slide in that he thinks the left tried to assassinate Trump. That kind of infosphere isn't just going to go away once you hold the nation hostage by shutting down the economy. BJ is going to live a long healthy life hopefully, and you are going to have to fight for his life and his childrens lives to be better as well. That's one reason why I'm asking you to provide ends that you would support being demanded (at this point I'd be happy with demands that exceed the status quo from you and DPB of Democrat politicians you'll support in 2026/2028 to stay on a constructive path). You're free to choose not to. It sounds like you're basically describing DSA + LibHorizons plan which has already spent over a month languishing waiting for anyone here to work on developing/improving/implementing it or providing something better. That was part of me doing something uncomfortable to potentially advance our shared interests by way of electoralism. As far as I can tell, despite my criticism, I've been as/more supportive of the Fighting Oligarchy tour and demanding that Democrats should be following his lead than most here. On April 14 2025 10:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 14 2025 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2025 09:14 Sermokala wrote:Those arn't demands, those are just the description of what the demands would be. + Show Spoiler +You would have to force states to give up political representation to align more with population representation. You would need state governments to surrender power to technocratic cabals of local organizations with taxing authority to guide and organize economic development in the Metropolitian statistical areas.
You would need to make goals for your violent revolution that justify the revolution in the first place. You can't ignore that going down the path of violent revolution in America would see millions of people dieing for various issues before things stabilize, even before going into the very real risk of following what has happened with most other worker-led revolutions through history of things just getting worse.
What you as a Californian would have to recognize is that the only way things get better in the country is if things get much worse for the richer parts of the country like California and yes Minnesota in order to turn the red states into something more than subsidized third world nations.
People are very simple creatures that in mass respond in very predictable ways. You're not going to address the rampant desire for cruelty and punishment with poor rural Americans by starting with "lets make the economy crash to great depression levels in the short term" as persuation. It would be a lot easier to help stop the rise of facism in the country if you would stop helping it go along to get to this fantasy of a workers revolution that just solves all the problems with solutions that everyone agrees with. Perhaps, but I'm not going to try to parse Kwark's potential demands any further for him. On April 14 2025 09:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 14 2025 08:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2025 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 14 2025 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 14 2025 07:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 14 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote:
Happy Day of Cake DPB! Enjoy Thanks! On April 14 2025 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] First, happy cakeday! Initially I thought "big yikes!" at the "I don't feel like it". But now I see you're making your opposition to general strikes/solidarity in actions (at distance) as concepts more clear, so it's just a regular yikes I guess haha. While I'm still hoping for contributions toward the general strike effort here from anyone that wants to stop Trump's worst offenses, I do see value in exploring what you took interest in. I could be misunderstanding, so feel free to clarify anything you'd like. You seem to be organizing your line very locally and specifically. Basically seeming to draw your line when it directly impacts you/your school/your students specifically. It sounds like it might extend as far as your district? As in you would probably join a protest/strike if trans students were banned from another one of the schools in your district. It gets less clear if you would join/support a protest/strike for them crossing your line somewhere else in the county, state, or country. I understand and appreciate your lack of recognition for how math teachers joining a general strike can contribute toward a collective and massive protest/effort of people refusing to "act normally" when such heinous crimes are being perpetrated by their elected government. I also understand your refusal to see how that massive collective effort/protest can change/stop those governments in ways scattered localized and specific protests can't. I believe it is in part a consequence of a deliberate bipartisan effort to deprive all of us of the domestic and global history that contradicts your current beliefs. That said, whether it's general strikes in Brazil, Euromaidan in Ukraine, or the George Floyd/BLM uprisings in the US, it's clearly not going to be easy to stop/redirect this train to fascism we're all on, and nobody has discovered a magic bullet solution. Thank you for the happy cake day! I think your summary of how my preference for a personal strike becomes less clear and less likely as we zoom out from local to state to national is pretty accurate. I think that drawing a line from teachers to their school is a lot simpler, clearer, and more likely to have an impact than if we were hoping that the Trump administration would decide to change (or even care) based on what one teacher or one school or even one district does. As the degrees of separation increase between the person striking and the space they want to change, I personally become more skeptical of a strike working, and therefore less likely to strike. I'm also personally pretty risk-averse, so at most levels I'm more likely to join a growing strike than to start one. I appreciate your engagement with the summary. I think it's important to understand that part of the point of a general strike is that it isn't just what "one teacher or one school or even one district" does. No one is talking about you going on a solo protest/strike. It's more like most schools in red states making school unsafe for undocumented students. Then teachers in those schools protest/strike. Then teachers in the area but not in the specific schools the kids are being kidnapped from join them in solidarity (this can be protesting, striking, providing supporting funds, etc). Then teachers in schools where their kids are safe (for now) join in protesting/striking with them. Except it brings together more than just teachers and students in a form of mutual aid. The alternative you're describing is essentially what the Niemöller quote is warning against. To stay within the context of the Niemöller quote about the erosion of rights, I think different people will "speak out" in different ways. If a strike is warranted, then I would love for a ripple effect to take place, starting with the teachers who are experiencing these injustices, and then extending outwards to include other teachers, but I don't think I'm in the first wave of that level of protest. In the meantime, I'd be happy to engage in other ways of "speaking out", from joining marches and rallies, to speaking with teachers and students and families across the country, to voting and informing other potential voters, to creating a safe and respectful space within my classroom. That's part of the point acro, myself, others like DanHH, and the Niemöller quote are trying to make. More than just a general strike is already warranted, and arguably necessary. Whether it's the slew of resignations in response to Musk's criminal invasion of various government agencies, the blatant disregard of the constitution on multiple fronts, the rapid and irreversible implosion of the US's credibility on the foreign stage, the erasure of trans people as people, the systemic (but also haphazard) elimination of historic contributions by "DEI" people, the crackdown on immigrants, and the list goes on and on, it's WAYYYYY past the time of a general strike being warranted. You may not be aware, but part of what is driving the push for the general strike you were ostensibly curious about the demands of, is specifically to unite people and form those ripples. Part of the way that is done, is by organizing some of the various other protests, marches, rallies, etc that you're more open to. Part of why I'm encouraging you and others to describe a general strike with demands you support is that's part of how you build the ripples. As I've said before, the jump from local and directly impactful to universal and several-stages-removed is one that I'm not currently comfortable making at all, let alone joining in the first wave of general strikes against the Trump administration. I respect your energy and your desire to recruit more people for what is undoubtedly a noble cause, but for me personally, I'm going to currently speak out in the other ways that I listed, because those are ways that I can handle (emotionally, financially, temporally, etc.). As in you're not prepared to engage with/accept the historic examples that contradict your skepticism or that you just don't want to be one of the people doing it? I respect you doing what you can, but I can assure you we'll all have to go well beyond what we're comfortable with doing to stop what Trump/project 2025 are doing. Everything anyone is considering now is a helluva lot better/easier than waiting until the only option is storming a beach full of machine guns though. While I'm obviously partial to a general strike, you could also describe the demands the marches, protests, etc, you have said you would support/join would include and we can go from there. I'm not sure if I have much to add there, given that we've already talked about some hypothetical local issues that I'd be okay with protesting. + Show Spoiler +Here's an example though, to give you an idea of my mindset for something like this:
Let's suppose that my school was told (by whoever... principal, superintendent, state DoE, governor, federal DoE, Congress, Trump, Musk, etc.) that starting May 1st, teachers must call all students by whatever name and pronouns their parents prefer - which wouldn't be a problem for most students (as most students use names, nicknames, and pronouns that their parents are probably okay with), but would clearly disproportionately affect trans students (especially if the students aren't out yet to their parents, or if their parents are extremely conservative and want to perpetuate deadnames and sex assigned at birth, etc.).
For the two weeks leading up to May 1st, I'd absolutely be voicing my disdain for that new rule, and I'd be talking to other teachers / affected parties about how best to reverse that call ahead of time, and also how best to resist that rule if it ends up being enforced. My colleagues and I would be attending board meetings and calling up whoever we could (local level, state level, etc.), we'd be reaching out to families, and we'd be having conversations with students. We'd be preemptively working to do everything we could before May 1st. On/After May 1st, assuming the new rule is still implemented and expected to be followed by teachers, I would strike in protest and I think a lot of my colleagues would too. Our single, hypothetical demand would be very specific and clear: We'll go back to teaching as long as we can use the preferred names and pronouns of all our students, the way it used to be, as that's one of many ways to build a respectful and constructive rapport with students - which is extremely important for effective teaching and learning. I guess I was trying more to ask if you could articulate any demands a protest/rally/etc you would participate in that weren't specifically local.Like I assume you'd join a protest/action of some sort demanding Trump stop imprisoning and killing political opponents (not that he's doing this currently) even if none of the people were your students or even in your state. Or are you saying that you don't see currently or historically how doing that can/has changed/stopped governments from doing things like that? I feel that I've made my positions on strikes/protests pretty clear, as well as my disinterest in engaging further on this particular topic. Maybe other people can articulate their demands or feelings if they want, but I'm going to move on to other discussions. When I (or others) post about something new that happens in the news, sometimes we just want to have a conversation about that subject. Not every post is made to gawk or mock, and not everyone perceives everything as an opportunity for revolution. Sometimes we want to talk and learn. As far as what I'd like to see in 2026 and 2028, I don't know right now. I'm not sure why you specifically named me, as it's a question that anyone could answer at their own pace, when they start thinking about the midterms and the next presidential election. I'm not there yet. What would you like to see?
When people post news about the latest stupid/dangerous/etc thing Trump is doing/did it's almost always followed by mocking and/or gawking. If it isn't, it probably wasn't responded to at all. The other major pastime is bickering with bad faith right wingers over asinine tangents.
As for 2026 and 2028, you're already behind/late. I don't know when you think people need to have developed demands and be starting to apply pressure on their politicians for their demands to be met, but it's already that time.
That's part of why I mention you by name. You're one of limited posters that has ostensibly expressed interest in developing an electoral plan.
LibHorizon's plan was essentially just taking your rhetoric on what you wanted to do electorally and turning it into the start of an actual plan to accomplish your rhetoric. In part to demonstrate, as I have, that you're (this applies generally to libs/Dems/ilk) not actually following through on your empty rhetoric.
I'd like to see Dems/libs/ilk like yourself follow up on their rhetoric about replacing Democrats that aren't sufficiently resisting Trump's agenda with ones that will for starters. That needed to be happening months ago, but the next best time is today. I'd also like to know what we're going to do to get Kilmar Garcia back if not a general strike.
|
On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally.
There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
|
On April 15 2025 01:45 WombaT wrote:
What is it that particularly piques your interest as regards to Tesla cars being vandalised, but not an organisation like the Proud Boys by your own admission?
The latter didnt made as much noise I think and seem rather irrelevant overall. They are sort of "some proud boys were there" kind of thing. When it comes to Tesla protests you couldnt open chrome on your phone without getting bunch of news about tesla protests.
On April 15 2025 03:37 Vivax wrote:
Terrorist used to be a word applied more sparingly before 9/11. Bush really did a terrific job at projecting the threat from it to a wider spectrum when applied to commercial flights. At the height of the fear wave, just wearing a turban would have made a lot of people around you uncomfortable.
One of the most prominent cases until then was McVaugh for example. In Austria we had Franz Fuchs who sent bombs per mail (lol typo). Norway had Breivik who literally caused a massacre on his own. They were mostly of the right wing extremist spectrum.
Germany had the RAF from the left spectrum which mostly targeted people from the financial sector and politicians.
What they had in common were clear targets, an agenda or a manifest, political motivation and premeditation.
If a a government fucks up colossally and people go out and protest it and start vandalizing things that are associated with said governments, it isn‘t as clear cut whether they were belonging to a terrorist organization when they did it.
Unless the fuck-up was just Trump losing the election, but breaking into the capitol was just a bit of silly mild tomfoolery, clearly. /s
Yes, this is sarcasm.
Weren‘t government officials injured though ?
I think Falling has a more accurate view of events here. So, insurrectionism it is. And the chief leader of the movement is currently in power.
Bolded - I think Breivik was way past 9/11, as I was already living in UK when this happened. I think most prominent before then (as I even now remember them from the news) was Beirut, Tokyo sarin and some flight with bomb exploding somewhere in UK.
italic - dude you making my point here:
clear targets - Musk and Tesla
an agenda or a manifest, political motivation - get Musk out of politics/WH
premeditation - you dont draw swastika on someone's car by accident, similarly like you just dont wake up with molotov cocktail in the sea of teslas, or shooting at tesla dealership.
Bolded 2 - I specifically said that Tesla protesters arent terrorist organisation? Would you prefer Trump to do what democratic non authoritarian government does and freeze all protesters bank accounts, rather than charge the ones who commit violence/destruction with terrorism?
On April 15 2025 04:16 Falling wrote:
I'm not sure if that last line is sarcastic, but if not: a plot to overthrow the will of the American voters because a paranoid moron refuses to recognize to this day that he lost because he gets all his information from his own feelings and not facts and also from dishonestly edited social media clips, well that's a touch more than 'silly mild tomfoolery." But also not terrorism. Not unless there was some organized violent resistance that manifested from the failed seizure of power.
And it is precisely the post-9/11 over-broadening of what constitutes terrorism that makes me more than a little cautious labelling violent protests as acts of terrorism.
edit.
Ok, good it was sarcasm.
When the defences run out on the electoral plot have been so absurd and using the most inconsistent standards to downplay what happened it's hard to spot sarcasm anymore.
Bolded - pre 9/11 definition suggested by Vivax also fits. (see above)
Edit:
On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own. Show nested quote +
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. Show nested quote + He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Glad you read it. I also find your attachment to "founding principles of America" admirable. What exactly you have against Native Americans?
" inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
|
On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own. Show nested quote +
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. Show nested quote + He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
I can’t imagine a world where the founding of the country means anything at all to me. In the moment ethics are relevant but I’d sooner eat my own dick than glorify tradition for the sake of it.
|
On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. And I totally understand the whole asylum system is totally bogus at this point and abused to the point people are right to roll their eyes and be cynical. With that being said, I want to just directly ask you: Are you familiar with the details of these prisons in El Salvador? And if so, are you ok with sending people, whether from El Salvador or not, to rot there?The asylum process is commonly abused but I feel like I need to shake you into remembering asylum is a valid thing and it should be a point of pride for our country to offer asylum to genuine cases where asylum is appropriate. Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no. But this guy sent to the El Salvador prison is either already dead or will die while performing slave labor. That's straight up holocaust stuff. That's why I am wanting to make sure we agree on the details as to what exactly this El Salvador prison *is*. If you think its just kinda a prison, I can understand not minding him going back. If you share my impression of what this prison is, I would be surprised if you were comfortable deporting him.
I've heard some bad things but I'm not as sympathetic to gang members. I am, however, against sending people who aren't violent criminals to prisons for violent criminals. Now, this guy disputes that he is in MS-13, and I find his statement for the need of asylum to be equally shaky, considering that's what everyone crossing the border was instructed to say. Asylum is valid, and part of the tragedy of letting it be abused for four years is that now most asylum claims, at least from our southern neighbors, are suspect. As you say, poverty is not a valid status for an asylum claim.
Part of what I'm saying though, is this is all very selective. The porous border we had enabled the worst kind of human traffickers and abusers make money and enable their abuse by transporting people to be dumped along the border for an overwhelmed border patrol to pick up and care for the best we can. Meanwhile, the criminal activity and criminals let in also had a terrible effect on American citizens. Where was the outrage over the greater human suffering the debacle at the border enabled? Call it whataboutism if you want, but I'm telling you why sympathy over ONE person is not going to help, at best it seems opportunistic. So no, they should bring him back and probably deport him somewhere else (in El Salvador, if possible) when possible. And most of the people who support sending him to the prison probably do believe he was part of MS-13 (again, I am agnostic on that question).
|
On April 15 2025 10:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. I can’t imagine a world where the founding of the country means anything at all to me. In the moment ethics are relevant but I’d sooner eat my own dick than glorify tradition for the sake of it.
Do you think it's ethical to violate the inalieanable rights guaranteed by the constitution to all persons in America?
|
On April 15 2025 12:35 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 10:32 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. I can’t imagine a world where the founding of the country means anything at all to me. In the moment ethics are relevant but I’d sooner eat my own dick than glorify tradition for the sake of it. Do you think it's ethical to violate the inalieanable rights guaranteed by the constitution to all persons in America?
Yes of course? The constitution is not special. Just a bunch of humans gathered around and came up with ideas and then tacked on some new ones every so often. We’ve also improved on other human ideas like women no longer being property. We make submarines that use nuclear energy rather than diesel. All sorts of times we improve upon ideas. Many components of the constitution meet modern ethical rigor but it’s a big swing and a miss in many ways because it’s old and shitty. Imagine if the only moral framework the US society operated with was the constitution. Think about what kind of abhorrent behavior just isn’t even mentioned.
I’m just rambling at this point so I’ll end it here and assume I’ve covered the gist of it
|
On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own. Show nested quote +
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. Show nested quote + He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Can you provide a source for your claim that being here illegally is not grounds for deportation?
|
On April 15 2025 13:07 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. Can you provide a source for your claim that being here illegally is not grounds for deportation?
To clarify - it is grounds to go immigration court and determine whether you can stay or not, but it is not grounds to be thrown on a plane or sent to prison let alone one in a foreign country without due process
Is the fact of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws a crime?
No. The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that
may be related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence alone is not a violation of federal criminal law. Thus, many believe that the term “illegal alien,” which may suggest a criminal violation, is inaccurate or misleading.
Per the ACLU
|
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally
|
On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally
This is very droll, but a little common sense tells you that using the phrase illegal immigrant is a way of describing a human being as illegal, which descriptively in terms of how they got to the country makes sense but is also not a great usage of language because of the extra connotations.
I could argue that someone who vaped under the age of 21 should be called an illegal child. After all, they broke the law by doing something a child is not legally allowed to do.
|
On April 15 2025 13:35 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 13:07 BlackJack wrote:On April 15 2025 09:58 decafchicken wrote:On April 15 2025 09:08 Mohdoo wrote:On April 15 2025 08:09 Introvert wrote:On April 15 2025 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm always very interested in reading how conservatives are reacting to certain situations because it helps me contextualize differences in how we think and helps me understand their worldview more. The recent situation with the guy being sent to El Salvador was something I expected conservatives to agree with me on. But I was of course wrong.
After reading through lots of discussions, I think I've made a key discovery in how conservatives view immigration as a whole. Its not just that they get a huge boner from the whole "law and order" shpeal. Its that they view the act of illegally immigrating as non-zero violence. Its not just someone trying to get something they aren't owed. Its that they view the whole idea of crossing into their country as similar to breaking into a house. Many of the discussions seem to have the same general conclusion of: "It sucks that he is in a death camp, and I feel bad for his family, but he chose to illegally immigrate and was never supposed to be here to begin with and everything that comes after that is on him". Its all very similar to someone getting shot while breaking into someone else's house. In their eyes, this guy essentially consented to might makes right when he tried to infiltrate the US.
I think its way too binary and doesn't account for the fact that we simply shouldn't be shipping anyone to this death camp. We ought to have a better way to address this and our current method isn't much different from just killing the guy. If some guy with a gun broke into my house and I was worried for my family's safety, I would 100% just unload a clip on the guy and give zero shits what happened to him. I'd feel bad for his family and whatnot but I would view the situation as him choosing to withdraw from the social contract of human decency. I'd view whatever happened to him as an unfortunate but unavoidable situation since I would never risk my family's safety for this guy.
It feels like conservatives largely view these 2 situations as comparable. If someone genuinely believes the person being deported to a death camp is a danger to society, I can understand that. I would want anyone who is a danger to my community to get yoinked out of my community ASAP. The issue I see with this situation is conservatives don't seem to view this guy as a threat, just an illegal immigrant. Illegally crossing the border should not immediately terminate all forms of human sympathy. Its simply not enough of crime to justify that kind of disconnection. Are you just reading MAGA grifter types? The conservative supreme court hasn't endorsed evey aspect of what Trump is doing, and I don't think you are going to find universal support for deporting someone with a right to stay (which it should be noted, he did not have). As usual Trump is often directionally right but procedurally wrong. But the problem is if people are going to have to pick between mass "asylum" claims at the border and deporting some guy, who is from El Salvador, back to El Salvador accidentally then the latter will be chosen evey time. The "sympathy" play is rapidly losing power because it's clearly pretextual and selective. The border is willingly left open in defiance of the law, and that's just something we have to live with, but deport someone back to their home country and you're a bad person. And Trump's current dgaf attitude is at least partially the result of electorally defeating a system, including the political, legal, and bureaucratic aspects, that has been after him since he was president the first time. I used this analogy a few weeks ago I think, but what happens when a coup fails? The returning monarch removes eveyone involved, including those close to but not directly responsible for, what happened. He probably also reforms the system and picks people in such a way to make sure it can't happen again. Without endorsing all Trump does, if these institutions weren't prepared to be in the cross hairs they should have upheld their part of the social contract. Universities should seek knowledge, not activism, the courts should be firm but fair and circumspect, and the bureaucracy should seek to carry out the policies of the President within the boundaries of the law. All three of these things have been neglected by their respective institutions in the age of Trump, often in direct opposition to him. Did they think Donald Trump was going to act like previous Republicans and roll over? And finally I can't help but point out once again that if Dems were really so worried, and forsaw all of this, they would have opened the doors of the tent instead of adopting their own maximalist positions and daring the electorate to risk Donald Trump as president again. I peer into a few conservative communities because its just good to understand people whether I like what they think or not. My obsession with drilling into details with people often feels dehumanizing but in reality its because I am totally hopelessly obsessed with understanding all human perspectives. Also, I want to be clear, I am 100% on board with just tossing people back to whatever country they came here from, generally speaking, so long as they hopped over here illegally. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Being here in violation of immigration law is a civil offense and not grounds for deportation on its own.
Teenage girl on her way to being sold into marriage from some bumfuck country? Asylum is great
Political dissident who is definitely going straight to a death camp as soon as they land on native soil? Asylum is great
People who are poor and wish to be less poor so they seek asylum in the US? As much as I mourn for their situation, no.
Then you are against the founding principles of America. You should read the declaration of independence sometime. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. Can you provide a source for your claim that being here illegally is not grounds for deportation? To clarify - it is grounds to go immigration court and determine whether you can stay or not, but it is not grounds to be thrown on a plane or sent to prison let alone one in a foreign country without due process Show nested quote +
Is the fact of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws a crime?
No. The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that
may be related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence alone is not a violation of federal criminal law. Thus, many believe that the term “illegal alien,” which may suggest a criminal violation, is inaccurate or misleading. Per the ACLU
You and the ACLU are mincing words because the word isn't criminal alien or criminal immigrant. When people say criminal alien they do tend to mean someone who committed a crime other than related to illegal immigration. The word illegal immigrant suggests they have immigrated illegally, meaning against the law, meaning violated the law, whether civil or criminal or misdemeanor or felony. You don't have to have violated "federal criminal law" to do something illegal. ACLU is gaslighting. "Just because you break a law doesn't mean it's illegal because it might not necessarily be a criminal violation." Okay.
Illegal border crossers (this doesn't mean crossers of an illegal border, or human beings that are illegal and crossed a border, but people who crossed a border illegally, for obvious reasons) can be, and are, summarily deported, no court.
|
On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally
Undocumented is the term. The majority come here legally but overstay visas etc.
Similar to how trump was found "civilly liable" for raping a woman instead of being sent to jail for being criminally guilty of raping her.
|
On April 15 2025 14:59 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally Undocumented is the term. The majority come here legally but overstay visas etc.
Is it legal to overstay a visa?
If the majority came legally (source), how did the rest come?
|
Norway28585 Posts
I don't mind deporting people whose right to stay has expired. I mean some degree of humanity is always called for, like you don't deport the single mom of a 12 year old who has never lived outside the US, and you don't send anyone to concentration camps, and if you 'accidentally' deport someone who had the right to stay then you bring them the fuck back asap.
But it seems entirely reasonable to me that the punishment for overstaying you visa is being sent out of the country, as you were supposed to leave before your visa expired in the first place.
|
On April 15 2025 14:59 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2025 13:50 BlackJack wrote:
Hopefully we can come up with a less misleading term than “illegal immigrant” to use for people that have immigrated illegally Undocumented is the term. The majority come here legally but overstay visas etc. Similar to how trump was found "civilly liable" for raping a woman instead of being sent to jail for being criminally guilty of raping her.
Undocumented? That doesn't sound so hot. A lot of them have documents from their native countries. Do they not count for anything?
|
U.S. egg prices increased again last month to reach a new record-high of $6.23 per dozen despite President Donald Trump’s predictions, a drop in wholesale prices, and no egg farms having bird flu outbreaks. https://www.abcactionnews.com/politics/economy/us-egg-prices-increase-to-record-high-dashing-hopes-of-cheap-eggs-by-easter
It doesn't look like the price of eggs is going to become more affordable any time soon. To compound that issue, it seems that imported eggs could be hit with tariffs as well ( https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-egg-imports-meant-drive-prices-down-could-be-hit-by-tariffs-2025-04-03/ ).
Besides just eggs, "Shoppers can expect to see prices rise on seafood, coffee, fruit, cheese, nuts, candy bars and other imported foods, according to experts. Items that contain ingredients and packaging like plastic and aluminum from other countries will also be hit. Perishable food prices will rise first, followed by shelf-stable goods. Customers may also see smaller-sized products, known as shrinkflation, and find that certain versions of items have been eliminated as companies try to offset their cost hikes from tariffs." https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/business/grocery-prices-tariffs/index.html
|
|
|
So Trump has officially said he will be seeking a third term, and that he's not joking.
I wonder whether all the people who said that would never happen will now start telling us its actually a good thing now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
