I asked a straightforward question, à la the Socratic method, in order to allow the one making the claim to justify their position, à la Russell's Teapot. If you were not willing to answer the question from the beginning then you shouldn't be responding to me and wailing about "moving goalposts". My "goalposts" have been consistent since my first question - answer that question, please.

If you wish to make your points without addressing my question then you can simply comment directly on the article or respond to someone else, hopefully with more relevance to their comment than your slightly unhinged responses have had to mine.

>The current administration have proven they do not care about any of these things. Even natural born citizens are now under threat.

This is my original comment. You are moving goalposts where you want them to be. My comment is specifically about how this administration is threatening natural born citizens by trying to remove protections they've always had, and here you are seeming to say they aren't because no natural born citizens have been deported yet. You're simply just being an internet troll.

Using the Socratic method, especially on HN is not “just being an internet troll”.

If you can’t handle simple questions that undermine your claims then make better claims. Also, with your attitude I’m not sure this site is for you. Please refrain from the personal insults, it definitely lowers the overall tone of the board.

Your question did not "undermine my claims" at all. I never claimed that a natural born citizen had been deported - I only claimed that this administration seeks to remove that barrier, and as we've already seen, they have been extremely authoritarian and don't care much for laws or rules. If you can't see where this is heading, then you're blind with your head in the sand. Your comment is absolutely a "moving goalposts" troll, and I'm not the only one calling you out on that.

You aren't required to keep feeding the trolls.

Argumentum ad populum, especially on contentious political matters, isn't persuasive. Nor on people who seek to avoid answering simple questions - you could've written "I cannot", or "I never claimed that a natural born citizen had been deported - I only claimed that this administration seeks to remove that barrier" and saved yourself the gnashing of teeth and personal insults.

HN needs to add a green ink font.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

My reading comprehension is enough to see an argument destitute of substance.

For there to be a threat there should be evidence of a threat. Your aspersions, which you are so keen on casting against anyone who doesn't share your views, are not evidence of anything but hyperbole and irrational panic.

If you cannot name a single person who is a natural born citizen that has been deported or has been threatened with deportation - or even anyone in power who has mused for a second upon deporting natural born citizens, via this legal change - then you have nothing.

If someone can show that the legal change you're warning about does not have the consequences you claim, e.g. all of Europe, then you have nothing.

You should get used to answering questions, it'll help you sharpen up your argument, that's why I ask simple questions[1]. Now, *please desist from your blatant and explicit rudeness*.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Socratic-method