@amlove21
Can you point out where I defended “the largest mass migration in history”?
Being against one small point of enforcement because I think that it is illegal, and has been proven so time and again, and goes against the fabric of our nation does not mean that I am pro “mass migration”.
What I have said, and will say again, is that if I was in one of these shitholes, I’d do everything I could to come to America.
I don’t for a second believe that even a vast majority of the immigrants in our country are nefarious. I do agree they are here illegally and we should discourage them coming here.
You are painting everyone with any view counter at all to yours with wide brush strokes.
I'll hit you with the BLUF (I was gonna say TLDR version but that was a bit cheeky).
BLUF- Your contention here is that any detention of a legal citizen is a constitutional abomination, for which you will not stand. You've further stated that anything akin to "asking for your papers" is an egregious act, one that leads to the Hegelian dialectic and the removal of another's rights for security, under any situation, absolutely can't be tolerated.
You appear to be against the enforcement agency conducting enforcement of codified US law, set forth by the Executive branch, who the people of the United States elected; you brought up a long history of what you deem to be unconstitutional behavior, and your opinion is that illegals have the same 4th Amendment rights and due process as citizens.
Using that framework, illegals are entitled to those rights the same as you are, including ICE *not being able to ask them to prove citizenship*, which would then logically follow that they don't get arrested or detained. The closest you came to an actual position during this talk was "I don't agree with the idiots in LA" and that the "protestors should be dispersed, violently if necessary." "Discouraging people from coming here" is already happening; border crossings and apprehension are down 99%... that doesn't fix the problem
now, the barbarians aren't at the gate anymore, they're in the house.
None of your other points support the deportation of illegals, implicitly or explicitly. Because you haven't said anything to the contrary, and reading your arguments, it's very clear that you support the people who came here in the largest mass migration in human history, affording them the rights and due process of actual American citizens even after you agreed they broke the law getting here. You vehemently resist the administration and the enforcement arm of the administration to deport them. That's why I said the arguments you're making support the issue- because there's no way to square the circle in a way that they don't.
The longer version-
You've been very clear about your opinion of ICE and their unconstitutional behavior, and provided no other information on what exactly ICE is supposed to do to conduct the mass deportations necessary to stop this national security threat.
So, when you defend the rights of illegal immigrants against what you deem to be an agency that acts in unconstitutional ways against those illegal immigrants, and provide no solutions for ICE to investigate, detain, arrest, and deport these folks, I am of the opinion that you are supporting the underlying issue.
This has been my issue with your line of reasoning today.
By your own words (paraphrase) -
"ICE has a long history of unconstitutional behavior. It's not about the "protestors", ICE shouldn't be allowed to ask ANYONE about their citizenship status, lest they detain a single American citizen in the process of trying to find illegals. The vast majority of these people aren't malicious"
Suppose I disassociate the actual arguments you're making from the bumper stickers about constitutional rights. In that case, you're saying that ICE can't inspect, detain, or ask for identification of individuals who may be here illegally. So again-
what are they supposed to do? What standard for investigation and detention would meet your standard for exactly how ICE is supposed to enforce immigration law?
To your bolded- "nefarious" literally means "
(typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal." So we disagree there. If you violate 8 US Code Section 1325, you are nefarious. I assume you mean "a bad person" or "malicious in nature". Even if that was true and we based the number of truly terrible people out of 10M people here illegally (I'm being gracious with 10M), what do you think that number would be? If we used the percentage of total Americans currently serving sentences in supermax prisons (0.39%) x 10M- 39,000. 39k violent criminals, already here illegally, and your contention is ICE bad, you're not allowed to ask anyone for their papers, AND you don't know how I characterize that as "in support of the mass migration?"
