← Back to context

Comment by cucumber3732842

9 hours ago

>What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.

I disagree. If the feds, or any law enforcement, wants to enforce law that is so unpopular that people feel compelled to make it hard in this way then, IDK, sucks for them. Go beg for more budget.

And I feel this way about a whole ton of categories of law, not just The Current Thing (TM).

A huge reason that law and government in this country is so f-ed up is that people, states, municipalities and big corporations in particular, just roll over and take it because that keeps the $$ flowing. A solid majority of the stuff the feds force upon the nation in the form of "do X, get a big enough tax break you can't compete without it" or "enforce Y if you want your government to qualify for fed $$" would not be support and could not be enforced if it had to be done so overtly, with enforcers paid to enforce it, rather than backhandedly by quasi deputizing other entities in exchange for $$.

The law being alluded to here is not "so unpopular".

Immigration enforcement is overwhelmingly favored by Americans, including immigrants.

The implementation has been awful, for lots of reasons everyone already knows. However, the situation has also been significantly escalated by often-violent obstructionists.

Obstructing enforcement of the law when it's something Americans voted for is not patriotism. It's undermining democracy.

Our law is explicit: immigration is the domain of the Federal government exclusively. State and local governments should "take it" as you say, because that's the law, and we should respect the law. If you don't like it, protest. But most are fine with enforcement in a reasonable way.

Trump and his cronies shoulder a lot of blame for how things have gone in Minneapolis. But so do democrats for stoking the flames.

Vote independent.

  • > However, the situation has also been significantly escalated by often-violent obstructionists

    Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)

    If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?

    Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.

  • Factually incorrect.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-immigration-approval...

    > Just 39% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing on immigration, down from 41% earlier this month, while 53% disapprove, the poll found.

    • We are talking about two different things.

      I am talking about American support for a working legal immigration process, and enforcing that process. Not everyone agrees about exactly what it should look like.

      I'm not talking specifically about the actions Trump is taking or the job ICE is doing currently. The current sentiment around ICE is very negative.

      1 reply →