You are defending playground rules "why are you making me punch you" with people's lives.
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5440311/ice-raids-maske...
Think of it as a cousin to the "he's no angel" style defense of bad acts.
Legal is a moving target. Legal was used to justify interment camps.
Be careful justifying what should and could be done based on "it's technically legal"
They have privileges. Provisional privileges derived from the people (or at least that is what some very drunk men in wigs seemed to imply). I don't like it when my government uses dressed-up faux authority (DHS just issues itself administrative "warrants") as the basis for assaulting people. Seems pretty cut-and-dry wrong. And as responses go, really lopsided.
So here I am... making a fuss about it.
They only get to do this crap if they follow the rule of law, which they aren’t.
That'll surely make things work out great. right?
Yep. I'm not sure why we're even bothering with deportations. Just shoot 'em in the head and grind them up for fertilizer and pig/chicken feed.
And if a few hundred thousand citizens get caught up in that, it's no big deal. They wouldn't have been involved if they didn't look like illegals, right?
Besides, folks like me (with the map of Ireland all over my face) won't get caught up in that. So why should I care?
Yeah, why bother deporting them. Shooting them is quicker and cheaper. We could save even more money by converting warehouses to gas folks and then we can cremate them and/or use them as agricultural inputs.
Easy peasy. I mean, it's not like they're human or anything. My god! They're criminals, every last one of them! Rapists, killers, gang bangers. If they weren't subhuman, we wouldn't need to treat them like this.
But they're not like us decent, hard working people. They're evil, twisted murderers, just like the pedophile demonrats who murdered all the ICE folks during the Obama and Biden administrations.
Both Biden and Obama just sent the Marines in to ICE offices and killed them all dead!
So it's perfectly fine to do that to all the brown^W illegal people too, right? I certainly won't have to worry about it, nor will the other white^W real Americans.
USA! USA! USA!
Also in Argentina you can arrive, on day 1 file court case for citizenship, which bars deportation. Then stall case for 2 years until you meet criteria. I personally have seen court case documents that did this successfully for criminal who arrived with fake passport.
Would be nice if that were the reality. But we have a POTUS with 34 counts giving out a presidential medal of freedom to a crooked guy with melting hair goo and releasing all J6ers with a pardon.
Impartiality isn't real.
Meanwhile the so called people enforcing the "rule of law" are bagging people up all masked up, no visible credentials, shifting them around in jurisdictions faster than their lawyer can keep up, then sending them in 3rd world shithole prisons even if there is an active order barring that from happening.
If you want to show me rule of law, first of all show me a government that even vaguely follows the very constitution that authorized its existence in the first place. I would rather have anarchy than rule of law enforced by bandits.
This indicates to me that you have no idea how desperate people become in a failed state, in the absence of law and order.
In the failed state I joined a militia, and we actually were able to fight off the people trying to brutalize us. In the USA if you tried this they would just insta Waco you.
Just telling people "You should run away" because the country is run by people grossly violating the constitution isn't the flex you think it is, and in fact I think it is attitudes like the one you've just presented that help get us into these kinds of situations.
I'm sorry what was that? You want rules after all?
Even if we do suppose for the sake of argument, that anarchy is better than rule of law by bandits, and those are literally the only two options -- even then I don't see merely moving away and letting my children deal with it as a clear superior option. It's merely possibly more convenient for me.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
Personally I'm not sure I have a huge problem with this, yes it's a mess, but I'm not at all convinced we need more consolidation of power just because of that. I'm DEFINITELY not convinced that one side or the other has what it takes to permanently govern everything and always get their way.
The same general principles are at work when it comes to the legalization of weed, with lots of little details being different of course.
Are we talking about a different country than the USA? There's ~174 million potential voters in the US, 77 million voted republican vs 75 million voted democrat at the last presidential election (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cas...)
So there's an about even population split that is in theory in support of those policies, versus the same amount of people against. Surely it's not "one state against what the rest of the country voted for" like you're suggesting...
No. That's not it at all. While Federal law is the supreme law of the land, it is enforced by the Federal government.
The several states and any municipalities within them are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws, just as the Federal government is under no obligation to enforce state and local laws.
Which is why the Federal government often ties funding to legislation, using the carrot of funding (and the stick of pulling such funding if states do not) to compel states to cooperate with the Federal government.
What's more, the Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have repeatedly ruled that the states are not required to enforce Federal law for the Federal government.
And no one is "unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government." In fact, state and local law enforcement have repeatedly been used to back up Federal agents executing those immigration policies.
No Federal law requires a state to enforce Federal immigration policies. And not enforcing a law outside of a law enforcement agency's jurisdiction (again Federal law is the jurisdiction of Federal government not state/local governments) isn't "overriding" anything.
You appear to be confused about the law and how it works in the US and the several states. Here are a few links to help straighten you out:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/144/
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-the-u.s.-government...
Be careful with this argument. Cops also don't have any "obligation" to stop crime, so if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then it's fine (or at least, it's "not unilaterally overriding laws") for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched.
You're just figuring that out now? You're 50 years late[0] for Warren v. District of Columbia (rape, assault and burglary) and 20 years late[1] for Castle Rock v. Gonzales (triple murder).
Maybe you should start paying attention?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...
The responder chose not to give me the benefit of the doubt, and to interpret my statement literally so as to own me. Guess we know what he thinks about ICE. It was not really in the spirit of Hacker News which encourages people to respond in good faith. Haters gon' hate.
This is the thing that disappoints me: I was pointing out for the sake of information that this is a separation of powers thing, my comment was nonpartisan and intended simply to inform. It was directly relevant and intended to be helpful to the original guy who had a question, because he said he wasn't American, so he probably wouldn't have thought about this angle.
The dickhead guy had to go make this dirty though.