The larger problem is that they are at the border of or past crimes that either will get prosecuted eventually or we are at the end of democratic controls (starting at term limits) so that these people never get prosecuted.

> It is completely valid to say something is illegal and unenforced.

It seems somewhat vacuous to say it when it applies to every second administrative act.

Enabling act? Executive order? Administrative regulation? The Administrative Procedure Act?

What is an administrative act in this context?

"action by the new US administration"?

But for purposes of debating what someone should do illegal and unenforced generates the same outcomes as legal and if we're only concerned about outcomes it's rational to treat them as equivalent.

>what someone should do illegal and unenforced generates the same outcomes as legal

Illegal + unenforced can generate the same outcome as legal. Or someone can get arrested later when the enforcement begins.

There's a big difference.

> There's a big difference.

There's no difference in the short term. Something being illegal, doesn't mean it will stop anytime soon in this political situation. Remaking the same obvious point is tedious and smacks of word games to try a to make a backdoor political statement. Yes, some act is odious and against a law. Not relevant to whether or not it will have the desired consequence, regardless of who is ever held accountable.

>try a to make a backdoor political statement.

Yikes. Not trying to make any statement other than legality and enforcement are two distinct concepts. I think it's important to consider all 4 combinations.

What political statement do you think I'm trying to make? I can't even identify what side of the aisle the statement you think I'm trying to make would fall on.

Sometimes a comment is just a comment, not a secretly coded political message.

There is a simple dictionary difference between "legal" and "illegal." Using the actual meaning of a word is kinda the opposite of playing word games.

From the first instance:

> That sounds illegal

> There is a simple dictionary difference between "legal" and "illegal.

This is kind of response is a repeat of exactly what I have described.

Again, "illegal" was used in context to mean something else. ie The damage will be remedied...which it cannot fully be, nor is it likely to be. Sampling conversations going forward from that, is where the thread has been allowed to be unraveled.

Elevating the original statement to be more than what it meant in context, is irrelevant. Posters are continually choosing new (eg dictionary!) interpretations of the sentiment at every turn.

Yes, I see, the dictionary definition is brand new. It just dropped right out of the sky. Very good point.

That's amusing but irrelevant. Sometimes we may not only be concerned about what you call "outcomes." To cover those occasions, we use a variety of different words.

For the government, it largely does because the individuals are immune from lawsuits and the government fining itself is a pointless ouroboros. Many things can't be retroactively unwound reasonably.

Once the impact has been made, it's pretty sticky. Once these workers are gone and have been replaced, we're unlikely to unwind it. Once people are deported we're unlikely to un-deport them (I'm not even sure what that would mean).

Completely correct for individuals, though. Unwinding is simple there, you can just send them to jail at a later date.

How can something be illegal before any judge ruled on it?

What role do you think the legislative branch of government plays? The judicial branch can rule on the constitutionality of the laws that have been passed and resolve other issues, but it isn't a requirement for the law to come into effect.

> How can something be illegal before any judge ruled on it?

If someone steals from you and there's been no conviction, was a crime committed or not? You're still out whatever was taken, but by your logic no theft has occurred until after someone has been convicted of committing the crime.

Exactly, until the judiciary system decides on the illegality of the act, the rest of society is oblivious to the nature of what happened. I'm sure that if something like that happened to you personally you'd know many of the facts at play, but if you cannot prove thorough the courts that something illegal occurred, it didn't

Looking at the Madoff saga and how some people got clawbacked decades after the fact, the wise position is to not take the offer. Today Trump is in power. Tomorrow, that might not be the case.