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.
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.