So, is this what we are doing? Downvoting and non sequiturs that amount to deflection and whataboutism?
Not caring about democratic results — when human rights are not at issue — is a very dangerous precedent. I absolutely hate the current administration. They are not responsible you the laws on the books. They were successful last election, in some part, exactly because this is a very relevant political issue.
> I don’t downvote people that have a different opinion so it ain’t me
Totally fair. I’ve had a tough time with my good-faith, heterodox views on this issue lately.
>>they are not responsible for the laws on the books
>so in 26/28 when Blue people take over they are free to disregard all laws because they are not “responsible for it”?
No, my only point is that some seem to try to argue that “Trump is different because he is acting in bad faith,” and I generally agree.
The problem with that argument is that our immigration laws are decades old, and blue states nullification is also decades old. We’ve found ourselves dealing with federal enforcement of federal laws because of state nullification, we don’t like that enforcement — I don’t like that enforcement — but we could pretty much end all this escalation between blue states and the feds by just agreeing to enforce the laws on the books. No more flirting with literal civil war. Just dealing with the consequences of a losing position as humanely as possible, given the fact that it’s going to suck.
Then we can fight to change those laws democratically.
> we could pretty much end all this escalation between blue states and the feds by just agreeing to enforce the laws on the books
This is incredibly naive. You've got an academic point in the context of rewinding the clock back twenty years, sure. But as to the current situation?
Federal law-breaking forces are attacking citizens for simply exercising their first amendment rights to protest. Federal law-breaking forces are abducting people based on skin color and the declaration of a shoddy facial-recognition "app". Federal law-breaking forces are terrorizing entire apartment buildings by ransacking them in the middle of the night. Federal law-breaking forces are aggressively attacking people to seize control of situations that would otherwise be closer to even-party civil disputes (eg the woman who was violently kidnapped out of her own car because the jackboots crashed into her). Federal law-breaking forces are hiding their faces to avoid having their crimes documented and possibly facing justice.
This is all a much stronger form of wanton illegality - anti-Constitutional, organized, criminal, and aggressively violent transgressions - than people being here illegally. This is not terribly surprising, because all signs point to the immigration issue being nothing more than a pretext for unleashing fascist paramilitary gangs on American civil society - specifically fundamentalist red state militias hopped up on social media delusions and pathetic revenge fantasies, ultimately serving nothing beyond naked autocratic power.
So if you are earnestly concerned about the rule of law (and I agree we should be!), you should be focusing your current ire on those federal law-breaking forces. And no amount of "perhaps we did something to deserve this" navel gazing changes this.
> So if you are earnestly concerned about the rule of law (and I agree we should be!), you should be focusing your current ire on those federal law-breaking forces.
This is an easy way out... if you want to have a honest discussion you should read and address the opposing views. you are trying to oversimplify things like "states are nullifying federal laws" etc... you need to dig deeper that to see WHY that is - you think some State folk woke up one morning and went "shit, why don't we see which Federal Laws that are on the books we want to break today?" or you think perhaps there are other reason why we have sanctuary cities, what prompted that to begin with...? if you think someone just woke up and said "hell, why don't we just make this up for the heck of it...?" then maybe but none of this is all that simple...
So that implies you agree with the bulk of my comment, directly related to the point you made, and only had a problem with my rhetorical sum up?
Also it's not exactly "whatboutism" to make a point directly adjacent to the subject. The world isn't automatically-executing self-consistent boolean logic (eg you yourself said several comments back you sympathize with lawlessness for marijuana laws, because many more people do not support their existence). When appealing to a general concept like "the rule of law", it's important to look at the larger picture for what specifically is being motivated by such appeals and what isn't. Otherwise you're just allowing your own lofty ideals to be abused by those who would appeal to them to get you to acquiesce, while themselves operating from a much different place of not actually sharing those ideals at all. And that open hypocrisy is a strong theme of trumpism.
> And that open hypocrisy is a strong theme of trumpism.
trump would open the borders fully today if it meant he'd cling to power few days longer. also we saw what he was doing previously especially 2016-2020...
the 'red' doesn't care of about the law nor does it want to ever solve the immigration issue (or any other issue), only to make sure there's something to try and run elections scaring people with shit like 'migrant crime' and whatnot :) too funny...
Not caring about democratic results — when human rights are not at issue — is a very dangerous precedent. I absolutely hate the current administration. They are not responsible you the laws on the books. They were successful last election, in some part, exactly because this is a very relevant political issue.