We're going to have to wait until Boomers age out to get any form of common sense government. They've absolutely been the most damaging generation and will leave a wake of destruction for future generations to recover (or not) from.
Very clearly, there's zero reason to do what Trump's ICE is doing, house-to-house searches, violating first amendment rights, not following laws, shooting bystanders. Minnesota is not what Trump depicts. The reason is probably because Tim Walz ran against Trump in 2024.
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 problem I've found is coordinating. The idea that we need a sizable chunk of the country to all work together in leaderless organization, is noble but lofty. Every attempt I've ever seen is something extremely easy for the feds to disrupt like a Facebook, Reddit, or Discord group, where everyone collectively bikesheds and no decisions get made.
I always see "general strike" mentioned as if it's some powerful solution to work towards. But even ignoring the practicalities of organizing such a thing, I don't understand how the effects would be helpful. It's not like the brownshirts would go on strike, Trump is happy to print trillions of dollars in new debt, it would impoverish many of the very people working against this, and the type of society-wrecking chaos would appear to be exactly what Trump (ie his foreign handlers) want.
Yes, sure. But this appears to be one of Trump's goals as well. Every single policy is designed to irredeemably wreck our country - riffing off of longstanding frustrations by Republicans and ostensibly aimed at fixing them so they cheer in support, but implemented so terribly wrong that it's hard to keep assuming mere incompetence rather than an active hybrid warfare attack.
Honestly, this conflict has been brewing for decades. The federal government controls immigration law, not cities. So when a city declares itself a 'sanctuary city' they are flouting the law. I feel like Trump is going to end up arresting the mayors of these sanctuary cities if it keeps going like this.
I also think it's entirely hypocritical for democrats to just bring in tens of millions of illegal immigrants then cry when the next president goes in the opposite direction.
Also, when Obama deported 3M+ illegals, the sanctuary cities helped and the media didn't cover it like it was Nazi Germany. What changed? Why can't we just go back to having a rule of law? Why can every other country in the world have borders except ours?
I think Obama administration waasn't perfect, but I think it was the right move to focus on the citzenship status for deportations rather than racial background. I think if Obama had the Tea party protestors declared "illegals" and authorized lethal force against anyone who disagreed, it'd negatively affect his media coverage.
The article doesn’t talk about whether immigration enforcement is good, instead focusing on the side effects of the current federal deployment in Minnesota.
Sure, and I'm pointing out what's changed from Obama to Trump is the way that 'sanctuary cities' are complying with federal immigration laws. Under Obama, the sanctuary cities provided lists of students whose parents weren't citizens etc and the media didn't cover the arrests etc. It's selective enforcement of the law. When democrats are in power, they enforce it and media ignores it. When republicans are in power, they defy it and media covers it like it's Nazi Germany. It's absurd and anyone paying attention should reject this framing.
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.
> when Obama deported 3M+ illegals, the sanctuary cities helped and the media didn't cover it like it was Nazi Germany
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.
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 political speech that we expect to have in an open society. You fascist boosters always dress up Constitutionally-protected activity in emotionally charged language - "flouting", "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.
>...they are saying that because immigarion law is federal (as you point out) they will not assist in its enforcement.
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.
I don't know what gets through to the average voter. Maybe Jesse Ventura: https://youtube.com/watch?v=udSUbBhA8I0
We're going to have to wait until Boomers age out to get any form of common sense government. They've absolutely been the most damaging generation and will leave a wake of destruction for future generations to recover (or not) from.
Believe it or not, gen-x is the only age group with a favorable opinion of ICE.
Waiting doesn't work; ask me how I know :-) (I voted with my feet instead: it only takes ~2 years to learn a language)
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?
Very clearly, there's zero reason to do what Trump's ICE is doing, house-to-house searches, violating first amendment rights, not following laws, shooting bystanders. Minnesota is not what Trump depicts. The reason is probably because Tim Walz ran against Trump in 2024.
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?
General Strike. Shut down the economy until ICE is out. Put the Trump administration under economic siege. It is peaceful, and it will work.
The problem I've found is coordinating. The idea that we need a sizable chunk of the country to all work together in leaderless organization, is noble but lofty. Every attempt I've ever seen is something extremely easy for the feds to disrupt like a Facebook, Reddit, or Discord group, where everyone collectively bikesheds and no decisions get made.
Completely agree; it's a classic game theory problem. One could start with every union that could be gotten on board, perhaps?
I always see "general strike" mentioned as if it's some powerful solution to work towards. But even ignoring the practicalities of organizing such a thing, I don't understand how the effects would be helpful. It's not like the brownshirts would go on strike, Trump is happy to print trillions of dollars in new debt, it would impoverish many of the very people working against this, and the type of society-wrecking chaos would appear to be exactly what Trump (ie his foreign handlers) want.
It will very definitely crash the economy, eventually, regardless of the known issues you point out.
Yes, sure. But this appears to be one of Trump's goals as well. Every single policy is designed to irredeemably wreck our country - riffing off of longstanding frustrations by Republicans and ostensibly aimed at fixing them so they cheer in support, but implemented so terribly wrong that it's hard to keep assuming mere incompetence rather than an active hybrid warfare attack.
Honestly, this conflict has been brewing for decades. The federal government controls immigration law, not cities. So when a city declares itself a 'sanctuary city' they are flouting the law. I feel like Trump is going to end up arresting the mayors of these sanctuary cities if it keeps going like this.
I also think it's entirely hypocritical for democrats to just bring in tens of millions of illegal immigrants then cry when the next president goes in the opposite direction.
Also, when Obama deported 3M+ illegals, the sanctuary cities helped and the media didn't cover it like it was Nazi Germany. What changed? Why can't we just go back to having a rule of law? Why can every other country in the world have borders except ours?
I think Obama administration waasn't perfect, but I think it was the right move to focus on the citzenship status for deportations rather than racial background. I think if Obama had the Tea party protestors declared "illegals" and authorized lethal force against anyone who disagreed, it'd negatively affect his media coverage.
(Pedantry) I doubt the real Diogenes would have cared about jurisdictions, laws, countries or borders:
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
The article doesn’t talk about whether immigration enforcement is good, instead focusing on the side effects of the current federal deployment in Minnesota.
Sure, and I'm pointing out what's changed from Obama to Trump is the way that 'sanctuary cities' are complying with federal immigration laws. Under Obama, the sanctuary cities provided lists of students whose parents weren't citizens etc and the media didn't cover the arrests etc. It's selective enforcement of the law. When democrats are in power, they enforce it and media ignores it. When republicans are in power, they defy it and media covers it like it's Nazi Germany. It's absurd and anyone paying attention should reject this framing.
Why are you complaining so much about the past?
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.
> when Obama deported 3M+ illegals, the sanctuary cities helped and the media didn't cover it like it was Nazi Germany
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.
>Perhaps it has to do with the method used?
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.
> flouting
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 political speech that we expect to have in an open society. You fascist boosters always dress up Constitutionally-protected activity in emotionally charged language - "flouting", "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.
>So when a city declares itself a 'sanctuary city'
...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.
>...they are saying that because immigarion law is federal (as you point out) they will not assist in its enforcement.
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.