I think (2) is understandable logic, but is incomplete. “People who don’t have permission to be there shouldn’t be there” equates law == what’s right. I think past administrations have recognized that while they are there illegally, they also have economic value. Some past government actions may have even gone so far as to recognize humanitarian reasons, beyond their economic value.
However, the greater evil isn’t that ICE is enforcing the law. It’s that they’re doing it in a reckless way that reeks of violating any sort of due process.
I think details also matter here. Should ICE be allowed to come to a Home Depot, a Walmart, elementary schools, and "randomly" interrogate people? Who are they picking? How is it possible to do this without discriminating people based on ethnicity etc while also avoiding the ridiculous cost of interrogating everyone every day or the futility of pure randomness?
The real fear in my mind is not what this circus of an administration does for the next three - four years but that the next administrations will continue these practices just by sheer inertia (same with tariffs).
>>that while they are there illegally, they also have economic value
that while they are there illegally, they can also vote illegally for one particular party (the same party that doesn't like voter ID laws).
Fixed it for you.
>>It’s that they’re doing it in a reckless way that reeks of violating any sort of due process.
Due to the massive volume of uncontrolled immigration under Biden, "due process" as envisaged by activists would take 10's of years to complete which is obviously not practical.
The first is weak because it is driven by fear, not facts. Does that actually happen in any meaningful volume at all, or would any answer just be a link in a "it's a big conspiracy chain!"
The second is weak because it exposes an ignorance, to one's own peril, of a system fundamentally designed to protect them. It's embarrassingly un-American to believe that due process is optional when it's too inconvenient. It begs the question, who gets to judge when that is? The Executive branch? That betrays one's lack of basic understanding of their own governmental system. But I think that's why this kind of thinking appears to be so sticky. It's not something one can be reasoned out of because it's not founded in rational thought. If someone possessed the capacity to be disabused of this idea, without having to first experience the leopards eating their face, they would have been by now.
I'm alleging that the amount of fraud is non-zero, and is deliberately made hard to investigate by the actions of the party that most stands to benefit.
If there is 2 million people all doing the same crime, then maybe? What would you solution be? Jail people for multiple years until their case is decided?
I don't know what the solution should be, but it's going to be this:
- Private militia getting paid per head taken off streets (check, already)
- Said militia will start taking protection money
- Everyone will realize ANYONE, citizen or not, can be taken repeatedly
These "joyrides" in jail for citizens will start as a couple of days of confinement as a harassment tactic. It will end in one of two ways - either Russia/Iraq/Syria style exile and torture camps. Or in Mexico cartel style, fully privatized and decentralized operations. The latter if the Federal Government keeps a light touch approach. (Which is very useful in itself, it can be used to foster a Wagner like extrajudicial force.)
However, the greater evil isn’t that ICE is enforcing the law. It’s that they’re doing it in a reckless way that reeks of violating any sort of due process.