Your point does not engage with the question raised in the comment you're replying to. Would you like to live in a society where criminal justice is secondary to immigration enforcement? One where we deport people with acute conditions without treatment because they are not authorized to live in this country? Dealing with the "root cause" does not require inflicting unnecessary cruelty upon other human beings.
> it has now rendered the fate of all of those people subject to the whims of whomever is in power.
Who is in power? What does our Constitution say? The executive branch is not granted absolute authority over immigration policy and the treatment of humans—citizens or otherwise. That is a Constitutional crisis.
People in this country have rights, regardless of how they entered. You either believe in the constitution and it's application to all citizens and non-citizens or you're a fascist.
I'm not going to quibble on any other bits of misdirection or failure to read other people's posts. Pick your side.
I've heard that accusation so frequently from people who have zero concern about the constitution, let alone even know what it says, that I honestly struggle not to laugh.
I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.
No, you made up a hypothetical scenario that was highly sympathetic to your position. I am saying that we should not let edge cases (real or hypothetical) dictate general policy on how we handle immigration law enforcement, and that any outrage we feel at the tragedies that result from such enforcement should be directed toward the people that allowed these situations to develop in the first place.
km144|10 months ago
> it has now rendered the fate of all of those people subject to the whims of whomever is in power.
Who is in power? What does our Constitution say? The executive branch is not granted absolute authority over immigration policy and the treatment of humans—citizens or otherwise. That is a Constitutional crisis.
lliamander|10 months ago
[deleted]
fzeroracer|10 months ago
I'm not going to quibble on any other bits of misdirection or failure to read other people's posts. Pick your side.
lliamander|10 months ago
I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.
cactacea|10 months ago
lliamander|10 months ago