Actual substantive comment:
My personal theory (looking from this side of the Atlantic) is that ICE got weaponised in this format precisely because the US Military wanted no part of thuggery, eg this 2020 memo: https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/CJCS%20Memo%20to%20...
Is this a reasonable theory?
The way out of this is with vigorous antifascism today. Not waiting.
But I'm sure this strongly worded editorial will get Trump to reconsider.
What's the desired end point here? Just to prove that nobody can run against Trump? Trump will use his personally loyal security force to make any opponent's city a smoking crater? What does that get Trump, or his successor Republican? Why would anyone in any state where Trump cuts off already allocated federal spending vote for him ever again, much less why would Minnesota?
The tragedies unfolding today could have been prevented, with a little human dignity. Speaking of "illegal immigrants" to justify destroying lifes that in some cases had been spent entirely in the US is just that, a cheap blanket to cover inhumane and racist motives. The strawmen you create with "why is no other country allowed to have a border" are as disgusting as your silence to the most pressing current issues. Trump had many options to tighten the grip on immigrants, but i guess this is beyond you aswell.
Please answer me this one. Why is the crime of comming here illegally enough for your kind and nothing else matters? Please argue on a moral basis. I expect the same silence.
Obamas ICE didnt sweep from door to door.
> this isn't fascism
Except a cleansed bureaucracy, a paralized legislative, and an "totally immune" unleashed executive. Did you get, trump talking about maybe canceling mid terms and invoking the insurection act?
You didnt answer my question about moral, as expected.
DUH because the cities were collaborating and not actively flouting ICE. They didn't need to go door to door. Go back to the same way it was under Obama and this wouldn't be happening.
I also ticked all the boxes of fascism (adimttedly, i left out the ignored judicative branch), to which you didnt respond too.
I dont get how your reading can be that selective. Well, i would strugle too if i had to defend trumps admin.
Aristippus: if you'd learn to flatter the king, you wouldn't have to eat lentils
Diogenes: if you'd learn to eat lentils, you wouldn't have to flatter the king
Perhaps it has to do with the method used?
I don't think most people are in favor of illegal immigration. That would be an extremist view. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle and I don't think that band is too wide.
It was different because the sanctuary cities turned over lists of the students whose parents weren't citizens. It made it a lot easier. Also no media coverage. You won't know if the tactics were any different because democrat cities actually complied with the law. Again, it goes to democrats being hypocrites and selectively caring/enforcing issues when they think people are paying attention.
>I don't think most people are in favor of illegal immigration. That would be an extremist view. Most people are probably somewhere in the middle and I don't think that band is too wide.
Yep, I live in California and we require immigration for a lot of jobs and industries. I'm not against immigration... in a past life I worked in immigration law. I am against this selective enforcement of the law depending on who is the President. You can't run a country like this.
You seem so fixated on communities not helping ICE to your satisfaction that you're blinded by ICE's atrocities. I guess your admission that you are an ICE employee or adjacent is enough explanation for that though.
I worked for immigrants (and the companies sponsoring immigrants).
That said I am nuanced individual and believe in legal immigration and I think Biden letting in tens of millions illegally and all these sanctuary cities was eventually going to create some kind of legal conflict. It's obvious that municipal law cannot supersede federal law.
As for Obama's deportations. First, there were a lot of leftist communities who were vocally outraged by Obama's expansion of federal law enforcement. Second, Obama's deportations tended to focus on people with criminal histories and didn't involve things like agents executing what they believe are general warrants, detaining people while they attend their legally required hearings, deporting people to foreign concentration camps, etc.
Trump has absolutely no interest in the rule of law. He is interested in establishing a racial caste system.
Any chance you have a source for that? Based on everything I'm seeing there were at most a 5M increase in illegal immigrants under Biden. Which is way too many, but doesn't justify the extreme measures this administration is taking, harassing, shooting, obstructing the lives and livelihood of the entire city of Minneapolis. You mentioned the lack of fanfare around Obama's deportations...how many US citizens were killed as part of that operation? Were they going door-to-door asking for people's papers, were they abducting US citizen teenagers from their jobs, then dumping them willy-nilly? It is ABSURD to claim that this administrations actions are justified.
I deeply hope that you are able to develop some empathy and reduce the anger you clearly harbor.
I'm not angry and I'm not the one hurling insults. I simply see this as the logical reaction of the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction. The same forces that allowed this under Biden are what directly led to Trump.
...they are saying that because immigarion law is federal (as you point out) they will not assist in its enforcement.
>democrats to just bring in tens of millions of illegal immigrants
No one, except the immigrants themselves, brought the immigrants here. That's what makes one an immigrant....they immigrate.
>Why can't we just go back to having a rule of law?
This is a very apt question being asked daily of the Trump administration.
Not true, they previously reported non-citizens to ICE under Obama and Obama deported more than 3 million... You don't even have your baseline understanding of what's going on correct. Immigration laws shouldn't be selectively enforced depending on who is in the White House.
It was never cities' job to enforce immigration law either, so legally cities were doing nothing wrong. Rather cities have been working to their own incentives about what best encourages local-law-abiding residents to work with police and get local crimes solved.
Therefore, any so-called "flouting" is pure speech (either pragmatic or political) that we expect to have in an open society. You fascist boosters always dress up Constitutionally-protected activity in emotionally charged language - "flouting", "defiance", "belligerence", "disrespect", and so on - as if we're some dictatorship where obedience is value #1. But this is the exact opposite of the actual United States.
It is however the job of the federal government to conform to the limits outlined in the US Constitution. So if we're talking about the legal situation here, it is the federal government that is in flagrant default, causing chaos and mayhem in American cities. In fact given the willfulness, it's almost like the federal government is being controlled by our adversaries.
It's funny when people resort to name calling because you know they have no argument. I never even voted for Trump but I can call a ball or a strike on this without being blinded by political party preferences.
Also, the definition of flout is neutral it means to openly disregard something so I used it accurately. They call them sanctuary cities... they are openly communicating them as a place where federal laws will not be applied.
>At this point, smart money is on viewing Trump as a hybrid warfare attack by foreign powers on the US.
No, this is what old Boomers who watch too much brain rot like Rachel Maddow think. If there as a shred of evidence of this, they would have released it by now instead of whispering and alluding to it for a decade or more. It's nothing more than sour grapes from Hillary.
It's not name calling. It's a basic stylistic choice to avoid saying "Republicans" over and over, similar to how "conservative" was used back before that label came to more appropriately describe Democrats. If you don't like the label "fascist", then start using one of your own. Moldbug proposed "reactionary", but it didn't seem to stick.
Federal laws are applied by federal law enforcement. "Sanctuary city" has zilch to do with this. What was being communicated was encouragement for residents of these cities to make themselves legible to city government for the purposes of city governance, regardless of their federal status. For instance, to prevent US citizen children from being kept out of school based on their parents' fear that enrollment lists would be turned over to federal law enforcement, disrupting all of their lives. But facts never got in the way of a good soundbite.
I'm a libertarian. Fuck Hillary. But if you look at Trump's policies and don't see that they're overwhelmingly destructive for America, both domestically and internationally, then you need to seriously escape your filter bubble - either with some independent analysis, or at the very least read some opposition media with an open mind.
Of course this doesn't establish that Trump's agenda is a definitively a hybrid warfare attack deliberately orchestrated by a foreign power - it could simply be his own dementia and our business elites having lost the plot as well - but the model is a good stand-in for whatever attacker it might be, because it directly cuts through the "Trump is tough on China" kayfabe.