Comment by potato3732842
5 hours ago
I'd like to say that the people who championed them realized that if fedcops can basically arrest their landscaper over what amounts to a civil infraction then it has implications for them. Unfortunately I don't think the people who championed the cameras in the first place have that kind of self awareness and what we're seeing is instead the typically silent majority saying "no, I akshually agree with the privacy people those are bad".
[flagged]
Fine then, people accused of nonviolent crimes. Where you split the legal hair doesn't really matter much because the facts of the situation are unchanged IMO. Failing to get government permission for something that's mostly fine isn't all that serious of a crime IMO.
I'm sympathetic to the realities of immigration enforcement but I'm not sympathetic to the "oh, they're bad people so it's fine to violate their rights a little" line of reasoning that most attempts to categorize this or that demographic as criminal, criminal adjacent or likely criminal tend to move in the direction of generally (i.e. not specific to the current immigration debate or enforcement thereof, we could be discussing the DEA in 2002 and the same thing would come up)
"iN sUM cOunTries"
And in this country border agents pepper spray citizens and black bag elementary school teachers terrorizing your own children. What is this the shitty authoritarian olympics? I thought this was the land of the free and all I see is bootlickers.
[flagged]
Let me know when you go after the people employing the illegal immigrants instead of the immigrants themselves. Until then, the stance here is clearly not aimed at minimizing immigration. You're wasting at best while the hive continues to thrive with honey, protecting its queen.