Rubio affirmatively suggested the op-ed is not why she got deported. Nothing happened to her co-authors.

My partner would initially find it difficult to learn that I, who she has known forever as a cisgender heterosexual male, am in fact a lesbian...

2008 was a long time ago, and it was notable at the time because it was already contrary to the overall trend of partisan polarization, which had been consistently escalating since the end of the long period of overlapping realignments that started in the 1930s and settled out in the 1990s. (Political polarization had been high in much of that realignment period, but because the major parties weren't coherently aligned around the high-salience issues that divided the public, that polarization was not strongly partisan.)

I tend to think that, unfortunately, it's the other way around. What we need to teach the next generation is that good faith, while still to be treasured, cannot be relied on, and we must be prepared to unflinchingly root out bad actors and forcibly prevent them from making things worse for people.

not to be harsh but let me tell you, this is bullshit, there's only rule of law if most people accept it. its all ink in paper, the moment someone tries to subvert or pretend it doesn't exist and there are no consequences the "law" is irrelevant.

the laws only exist to the extent that the people that "control" it are willing to exert it. for instance, at any other point in time, everyone involved in the signal-gate scandal would have been fired (and i bet if you were an actual army officer you would still be fired) but the people that enforce the rules can just pretend this isn't a problem and move on.

there is no crime if no one is interested in sending you to jail.

>what is really needed is a change in education. we need to teach the next generation that operating in good faith is absolutely essential for the future of mankind.

How can mankind have any future at all, when education is one of the tools used to indoctrinate children into not wanting children of their own someday? The first priority of any society/civilization must always be that of making the next generation of people... or else that society/civilization will soon cease to exist. And we no longer hold that as a priority. Whatever the solution might be, I do not think that it can use the education system, in whole or in part, without serious reform of the sort that would frighten those who most want to use it.

Furthermore, it may be the case that our particular nation is composed of two distinct groups who no longer have enough common values that we can effectively remain a singular nation. At least not without one coming to dominate the other decisively. Which is unfortunate given that there are many foreign powers that would take advantage of any possible divorce, amicable or hostile.

Well if the adults don't put up a toddler gate, who's fault is it when the toddler falls down the stairs?

I mean, I think most people who say this do think the Republicans are more to blame. It's just that they also think the Republicans are beyond hope so there's no point attempting to make them feel guilty.

Also we as humans tend to assign a different flavor of blame to people who do bad things than to people who claim to be preventing them while not actually doing so. If a criminal is holding a victim at gunpoint and then they drop their gun and a bystander picks it up and hands it back to the thug, we tend to view that as wrong act even though it's dependent on the criminal's earlier wrong act.

Likewise when Republicans do bad things over and over and then Democrats argue that they'll do better but they just hand the same system back over to the Republicans, people are going to be dissatisfied with that. Added to this is the perception that Democratic politicians do this to protect their own political position and preserve what power they individually have, which makes Democratic inaction even more irritating.

There isn't a system in the universe that can be resilient against a compromised executive, legislature, and judiciary. Of the three, the judiciary is the least compromised, and it is currently the only one pushing back, but it can only do so much.

At the end of the day, you have to not keep voting in criminals.

[dead]

I absolutely would not blame Democrats for gaming the system (as long as they did it in the service of the right goals). At this point it's really just a choice between gaming the system or destroying it.

Yeah it does change thing things whether your rhetoric involves "eliminating white race" fear and threat of Jewish.

Person you responded to found out his relatives are full on nazi. That is what it means. And that means violence, intentional cruelty and loss of freedom for those around.

>If the goal is not to eliminate the white race (which some left figures actually promoted as I see it from the outside, so why you even wonder?) then what does that change? Unnatural/unassimilated immigrantion is a real concern for those who value their cultural climate. What's wrong with having these concerns or values?

About 5 or 6 months ago, here on HN, there was a headline from a major/reputable news source that said the Canadian government wanted a population of 100 million (when they currently have 30ish million, and fertility rates that will see their population shrink instead of grow). Whether there are any racist designs on the white race or not, it's clear that governments consider all of us completely substitutable/expendable, and they will replace us (almost certainly regardless of our skin color, come to that). No one's trying to hide this, it isn't a secret. Very few are so dumb as to not realize that something's up. So whenever anyone tries to debunk the various conspiracy theories about X replacement it can only sound like lies.

Kavanaugh was put there to put an end to abortions. So, he made his promises not to end them and then he did.

My friend was married to a USC (bona fide legit marriage) and they almost fucked them over during Biden administration casting doubt on their marriage. In San Francisco, not some red state. Many examples of that nature regardless of the administration.

Almost always if your case is legit, you'll be fine in the end and nothing to worry about, just as your lawyer says, but it does not mean there won't be a bumpy ride. I genuinely doubt Trump administration is any worse or better unless you affirmatively have anti-Western ideas or from Travel Ban countries. In fact, the anecdotes I have heard so far on the consular processing of Immigrant Visas is better than Biden era.

Here in Argentina, legal immigrants' visas cannot be revoked, and illegal immigrants generally can only be deported if they are accused of a crime. (Being present illegally is not itself a crime.) They have several weeks to challenge the deportation in court.

Nearly all other countries behave differently. The kind of "immigration law enforcement" we're seeing today in the US is far outside the norms of liberal democracy.

Debating morality rather than legality, any policy that gives thugs free rein to grab people who are not harming others off the street, and imprison them, is immoral, and should be stopped. Even if it were the policy of every country in the world, it should still be stopped.

In Finland (and I guess in some other European countries) deportation in itself is not a sufficient reason for arrest. Once you have been informed of the decision, you get some time to leave voluntarily, or to challenge the decision in the administrative court system. But you won't be arrested until the decision is final and you have failed to leave voluntarily, unless there are specific reasons to the contrary. And those specific reasons are typically ones that would justify arresting a citizen as well.

You started with "Stir the pot in the media", and brought emotions into it.

But the point still stands. Legal does not mean moral. And there is a legal obligation to represent the will of all the people of the country, not just those that elected you.

Clearly, the law needs to spell out exactly what legally needs to be done in the case of an expideient deportation, so it codifies some sense of common morality.

But to your point of resilience: The resilience breaks down when people lose their faith in it. Why trust a system that can act aribtrairily like this? Do we really want our guests to fear that speaking in solidarity with nearly half the country is grounds to be treated like a criminal, and be subject immediate and expedient deportation? That's not the way a "great" country behaves.

You would normally at least be entitled to due process. My understanding is that Trump is citing a law that allows the President to deport nationals of a country we are at war with without due process, except we aren’t at war with Turkey.

I stand corrected. US nationals refers to something else, but is sometimes used to include permanent residents alongside citizens. I am not familiar with the terminology, but my point stands. A legal permanent resident is very different from the situation you are citing, and I think if you believe they are not entitled to free speech (in particular, for offending a foreign country), we have a much bigger problem here.

> That the administration thinks they just just drag people into vans and ship them off to a foreign prison?

Can you point to a specific instance where this has occurred, and what laws you believe were broken? I'm not qualified to say if the El Salvador detention facilities are legal or not, but my understanding is that ICE has always had the authority to arrest illegal immigrants, and that a potential penalty for illegal entry is imprisonment.

See: 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

> (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

> Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.

Read the site guidelines. You are breaking several of them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Maybe that is true in reality, but I think a lot of people overseas have a different viewpoint. If they think it's false, they won't apply.

That should not be the case, and your saying this is an indication of how far America has fallen. You can just look at the Afghanistan withdrawal. That was executed by the 2020-2024 administration to complete an agreement signed by the 2016-2020 administration. It was unpopular and a bad outcome, but the 2020-2024 administration realized a country had to keep its word, even with the Taliban.

If the word of America is not honored that is exactly the disgrace I'm talking about. A nation's word - the treaties they sign, the contracts or agreements they make with people of other countries - has to be honored. Like the conditions of visas.

An administration can change future agreements or renegotiate within the frameworks it agreed to, but it should honor existing agreements. That is one of the many ways a government is not like a corporation.

Or if you have a criminal conviction of any kind that is many years old and was known on the application that got you the visa, like the German and Filipina residents. So the rules have changed - they are now saying that visas valid at the time of approval should never have been approved based on the circumstances at the time.