So you admit you're ok with cheating in elections to get your desired outcome?

At least you're being honest.

In other words, I was saying that the reason for it not coming to fruition could be either legitimate or illegitimate. You assigned your own presumptions to what I said.

Ironically the Democrats deserve much more benefit of the doubt when it comes to election fraud and interference given the glut of evidence of such on the other side of the aisle.

The comment above is frankly disingenuous and disguises blatant strawman fallacy with an air of moral superiority

It's easy enough to even take both sides, stir up shit, then be a hero with a clear mandate when whatever side wins. Of course what actually winds up being done with the mandate isn't usually in the interest of the hotheads.

They're being proven right

Grab human beings from their homes and detain them thousands of miles away with no due process.

Send human beings to detention camps in another country NOT the one they are from

Please, people, have some decency and maintain the nuance. We're not barbarians here! Sheesh.

The point here is that the people currently in charge hold 100% of the power, and they're misusing it. You don't have any power, nor do I, nor do the poor American citizens who may or may not be executed.

They, the people in power, do not require your good will or help. They're already maxed out. They are already 100% legitimate and in control. While it might be nuanced to argue ICE as an institution is one which should exist, it's also just doing more harm.

ICE at one time was legitimate - their previous purpose had legitimacy... past tense.

ICE will not exist at some point in the hopefully sooner future than later.

No amount of nuance will change fundamental failure to success.

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that ICE has a clear and ethical mandate while also believing that they are going about fulfilling that mandate via bad methods that need to change.

> ICE has a clear and ethical mandate

It doesn't, given the current administration. It's somewhat questionable in general, given that being in the country illegally isn't a felony (or criminal) in itself. We have local law enforcement that can handle cases of illegal actions, regardless of immigration status, and actual crimes can and do lead to deportation.

The vast majority of people being targeted, via mandate, are not criminals. The mandate of the current administration also includes protestors, regardless of citizenship status.

So, no, that person didn't cover the points, and your neutrality here is also written in a way that backs up that person, so that's also somewhat questionable.

... "We" (a lot of people, not everyone who posts here) don't believe that. Lots of people disagree with immigration control as a concept period.

The existence of that app is an abomination; the fact tax payer money is being allocated to it is tragicomic. Not spending it and just giving it as tax returns to the population would be so much better than kidnapping people over being born in the wrong place.

I mean sure but you have to acknowledge that is an extremely fringe belief that basically no one in the USA supports. The debate is on "how" it's being done not that we shouldn't have immigration control.

The immigrants are just an excuse for the fascist goons in the street.

Trump won the election mostly on a strong anti-immigration policy this is the popular will of the people.

Clearly is it not a belief that no one in the USA supports, as seem in the discourse against ICE and immigration contrl.

> The debate is on "how" it's being done not that we shouldn't have immigration control.

Not necessarily, no. "The debate" is too vague to elaborate in favor or against what you're saying.

But yes, there are people against immigration control period, and period in favor of reforms to make immigration easier for workers, not harder. But propaganda will keep putting workers against each other, instead of companies lobbying against workers.

Cleaning up a mess is 1000x messier than making it .

No one will ever care or remember your sophisticated opinion.

That’s why it may be possible to have nuance but it’s just a peacocks feather

by definition, groupthink will get more upvotes than mishmashthink.

Even smart people are capable of hate.

Honestly, There is no queue for poor people, this is their only way, most of these people aren't even eligible for farm worker temp visa. US has created bureaucracy over the years in such a way that these people can never become legal. They are not skipping the line and taking some tech worker's spot or anything.

Or how are people fleeing from prosecution, looking for a better life, or just feeling like living somewhere else exactly hurting you? It's really a human right to move to another place, without reason required.

If you're thinking about jobs, skilled workers immigrating will compete with you much more than less-privileged people. And "we cannot pay for them" is BS made up the system as well. It is possible to pay for social security for everyone, but not if all profits go to shareholders of course.

People forgot this once Maduro was noped

>It's really a human right to move to another place, without reason required

Bhutan, Barcelona

Not to think to highly of ourselves, I for one am a genuine idiot, but the crowed here likely has more influence than a lot of other online forums. Making it a worthwhile target, especially on the AI front. Plus the site is an easy to integrate into a bots with the minimal website and all.

Yes, that it is a set of things that it is possible one could believe.

That is not an argument for it being a set of things that one ought to believe, as opposed to that ICE has a legal mandate that it isn't actually pursuing, and the mandate which it is pursuing is both intentionally murky, unethical to the extent that evidence suggests what it is, and also pursued by methods that are illegal and inhumane even irrespective of the bad ends that they are directed at.

> It’s possible to simultaneously believe that people shouldn’t be marked as intrinsically “illegal” while also believing that an immigration queue should exist and skipping it is immoral and should be illegal.

Again, that it is certainly a set of things it is possible to believe, but it seems pretty silly to believe. A queue is at best an undesirable consequences of particular choices about how to manage concerns about quantitative levels of immigration and particular impacts those levels might have, not an ideal to be pursued.

> Nuance is possible.

“X is possible” is not an argument is that X is, factually or morally as appropriate to the shape of the proposition at issue, justified. And an extended argument that sets of beliefs are possible is something people only engage in when they recognize that they are unable to make the case that they are justified, but nevertheless want to suggest that people are bad for failing to adopt them.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Both of them are right: unless there's a civil war or moderate president (which probably needs ranked choice voting) the most probable scenario is that one of the 2 extremes succeeds.

I also miss the old HN btw and wish that there wouldn't be any right/left politics, just the old classic libertarian property/privacy/opennes right debates, but it looks like those days are gone.

It would probably help if Trump didn't fantasize about this publicly all the time

> the right thinks that if they don't keep their power now, the left will take it and keep it using immigrants

The left will "take it" by being elected, if they are in fact elected. That's the extremist threat the right is worried about?

What does "keep it using immigrants" mean?

I don't know of any other country that would allow it, but I know other countries where people in power used other ,,tricks'' to increase the chance of being reelected

As an example in in late 2024 in California Governor Newsom signed SB 1174, which explicitly prohibits local governments (like cities or counties) from passing their own laws to require voter ID.

What world do you live in where you would expect equally extreme behavior from a democrat president?

It's all or nothing.