[CrulesAll]

[flagged]

[cursuve]

Can two things not be true at once? There are indeed "illegal immigrants", AND the current methods of enforcement are some straight up gestapo-BS in which themselves also illegal and warrant non-compliance. Why is this an either-or?

The America I grew up in is fervently against kings, as a defining principle, and put the lawmaking powers purposefully in the hands of not the president, but in the representatives of the people. Unless you straight-up buy Nixon's view that "[...] when the president does it… that means that it is not illegal.", and maybe you do, this view doesn't pass any kind of scrutiny what-so-ever...

[thisislife2]

This and and the previous comment really highlights the true political divide between the Americans. I wonder if it is a flaw of such 2-party system (both that lean to the right-, and thus are inflexible to other political views) where others can't find space for less-extreme political views and ideas, and thus exacerbating the situation as people are forced to bracket themselves to only these two parties?

[cursuve]

I certainly feel the two party system has really hampered us and largely contributed to where we are today. I never feel actually represented, yet nearly every candidate has to align themselves officially with one party or the other and tow that party line. Sure there is individual variance between representatives, but it's still mostly within a set of boundaries the party is more or less okay with. It sucks, and is often why the "just go vote" ethos feels about as inept as any other action or non-action I can take...

[CrulesAll]

Both parties had this view even up to a decade ago. It was actually right-wing libertarian fanatics that advocated mass unchecked immigration with a view to cheap labor. The Koch brothers(now singular) and the vast amount of billionaires wanted a complete amnesty. Ronald Reagan did give a complete amnesty to Californians. Even Bernie Sanders warned about this years ago.

[the__alchemist]

I encourage you to read the oath I'm referring to: It's notable compared to other historic officer oaths in that it deliberately does not mention the President. The word constitution is the key distinction.