> The general population should be welcomed with open arms - retaliation on them achieves nothing. It's not their fault.

Last time I checked the US had elections, so yes, it pretty much is their fault.

No candidate since 2001 (or possible even before then) had a political platform which wanted to dismantle the practice of DHS. No politicians see the issue as a vote winner. Red or blue, the DHS funding and policy scope has been steadily increased by each administration.

The blame can not be placed on any recent administration or person. The problem is a systemic issue, deriving from the constantly increased demands of "increased security" from the population on both side of the political fence.

I will concede this is true, and I was going to say in the original post something along the lines of "not that she would have done anything to stymie this issue," but I felt that the comment was more on the fact that we don't have fairly drawn maps for our elected officials.

To be clear the general elections are very much rigged for the reasons you stated and many more. That said HRC lost because the popular vote is not what the candidates compete on. As an aside, I am still bitter about her attempted rigging of the election and successful interference in the DNC which left us in this current horrible predicament.

> That said HRC lost because the popular vote is not what the candidates compete on.

For sure, but the popular vote should be better represented by the district maps.

> I am still bitter about her ... successful interference in the DNC

I was a Bernie supporter, but I knew that the political machine wouldn't swing so far as to select him. He is too unorthodox, too progressive, too not-rich.

> I think they should only retaliate on US officials (elected and who work for DHS). Ask them to reveal passwords to national secrets when they enter the country, then detain them for hours when they refuse.

Unfortunately I don't think this will do what you expect - they'll probably happily hand over their password.