[mindslight]

Man, you people will really turn off your basic empathy and reasoning on the flimsiest of excuses. That could just as easily be your family getting attacked at 3AM. And if you dare to exercise your 2nd amendment rights to defend yourselves against a night time home invasion, perhaps even being summarily executed. I assume until this actually happens to you or at least someone in your community, you will just keep on inventing reasons why it couldn't possibly. It's easier than confronting the truth, for sure.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Friend. The truth is some people should not be in US. And now, after years of kicking a can down the road, we are in a painful process of rectifying this oversight. It is being confronted. I think your concern is that is not being confronted in the manner you find desirable.

That is fine, but at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind 'I am suddenly concerned about people breaking into my house at 3am'.

[mindslight]

> some people should not be in US

This is exactly what I meant by using flimsy excuses to turn off your reasoning. "Some people" being in the US does not invalidate the Constitution. The gross violation of Constitutional rights and individual liberty is exactly the manner I do not find "desirable".

I'm not "hiding" behind concerns. The concerns are as plain as day. There are many possible approaches to "rectifying this oversight" that don't involve wholesale trampling over individual rights and personal liberty. You're the one dressing up your points in a declarative passive voice to paper over the actual actions being done here, to both citizens and non-citizens.

And for what it's worth, I think buying into the narrative that the end goal is even about illegal immigrants is utterly foolish. Trump has already been talking about setting up exceptions for critical businesses in sectors like farming, construction, and landscaping. The whole topic is just being used as another con to consolidate more autocratic authoritarian power.

But I am sure you will just keep on lying to yourself that it's all morally justified, as you continue relishing seeing 'bad' people suffer. We're never going to get actual justice against those who have utterly screwed up our economy over the past several decades, so you might as well settle for a simulation of justice against the proximal scapegoats, right? And certainly don't worry about how you're facilitating the next stage of societal destruction. The next generation can blame the next generation of scapegoats.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< But I am sure you will just keep on lying to yourself that it's all morally justified, as you continue relishing seeing 'bad' people suffer.

Eh. I am as honest with you as I can be on an internet forum. I think you completely misunderstand my position. My position is not based on morality, but rather on the survival of the system in place. It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings. The suffering, as it were, is not a concern here it all. I don't relish it. I nothing it.

Do you understand the difference?

<< We're never going to get actual justice against those who have utterly screwed up our economy over the past several decades, so you might as well settle for a simulation of justice against the proximal scapegoats,

Ooh, this conversation is finally getting interesting. Say I buy this framing, who should I focus my ire on?

<< And certainly don't worry about how you're facilitating the next stage of societal destruction.

Oh man, so many paths to take here. I personally just go with the flow man. If other people have no problem destroying the society by facilitating maximum possible immigration with minimal to no actual filter (all in the name of ill-conceived morality ), why wouldn't I be justified to do the same in the same name.

On a more serious note, be specific. I don't think I facilitate anything. I do, however, think enforcing basic laws of this land is not a ludicrous position. And if it is, either law has to change or it is not ludicrous. Dura lex sed lex and all that jazz.

<< The next generation can blame the next generation of scapegoats.

Story as old as time itself. What are you saying really?

<< "Some people" being in the US does not invalidate the Constitution.

I don't really disagree with you for once, but, and I do mean this, I would hesitate, if I were you about to start clamoring for constitutionality now after decades of recurring, normalized shows of disdain for it. I am, however, noting that you have no problem trotting out constitution when it favors your argument. In other words, it does not feel like a serious argument.

<< The concerns are as plain as day.

In a sense, yes. Still, it may be helpful to list those. What are they?

<< There are many possible approaches to "rectifying this oversight" that don't involve wholesale trampling over individual rights and personal liberty.

Well, tough noodles. It is too late now. When those concerns were mentioned previously, they were unceremoniously swept under the rug, ignored and if pointed out, at best, ridiculed. Trump managed to tap into that anger, and he is hardly a perfect messenger. Still, he will do, because you know me.. always looking at the bright side.

<< You're the one dressing up your points in a declarative passive voice to paper over the actual actions being done here, to both citizens and non-citizens.

What do you want me to do? List them by names or something? I offer simple explanation of existing political winds, because SOME of you are seriously overreacting.

<< And for what it's worth, I think buying into the narrative that the end goal is even about illegal immigrants is utterly foolish. Trump has already been talking about setting up exceptions for critical businesses in sectors like farming, construction, and landscaping. The whole topic is just being used as another con to consolidate more autocratic authoritarian power.

This is may be the most reasonable thing you wrote. It is possible and a reasonable take. It also does not change anything. The end result is about the same.

[mindslight]

> My position is not based on morality

This is clear. Your points jump back and forth between positive and normative statements. "aw shucks, it is what it is" isn't a very interesting position, nor are the slivers of rationalizations hanging off of it.

> It will not survive with the influx of unvetted, unverified, random human beings

So wait, you're saying that Trump hasn't actually stopped more people from coming in? That doesn't surprise me, since the only policy goal here is the cruel spectacle to entertain the plebs.

> I would hesitate, if I were you about to start clamoring for constitutionality now after decades of recurring, normalized shows of disdain for it. I am, however, noting that you have no problem trotting out constitution when it favors your argument. In other words, it does not feel like a serious argument.

You're either getting me confused with someone else, or more likely are just bashing a straw man. I in fact have a decades-long pattern of recurring support for Constitutional rights and individual liberty. So no, my arguments are quite serious. Just because Trumpism blatantly abuses appeals to ideals and personal liberty ("free speech absolutist" lolol) does not mean that everybody does.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< So wait, you're saying that Trump hasn't actually stopped more people from coming in? That doesn't surprise me, since the only policy goal here is the cruel spectacle to entertain the plebs.

Hmm. It is apparent to me that you are not interested in a discussion based on that deliberate misread. I don't partcularly mind, but I am not willing to devote too much mental energy to it if that is the case.

<< You're either getting me confused with someone else

It is possible, but your note gave me an idea so thank you for this.

<< "aw shucks, it is what it is" isn't a very interesting position

Then it begs the question: why did you deem it interesting enough to respond to. I don't need you to respond. This was rhetorical.

[mindslight]

It's not a misread, but rather a direct implication of what you said. "Influx" implies urgency for a growing problem. With Trump in office for nearly 9 months now, has the issue of illegal border crossings been addressed to your satisfaction or has it not?

If it has, then there is no longer an "influx" to urgently deal with. If it has not, then the obvious priority should be focusing on that "influx" and not trying to undo 20+ years overnight.

> your note gave me an idea so thank you for this

Between this, your other comment, and your profile it seems you're basically admitting that you're using some kind of LLM bot.

> why did you deem it interesting enough to respond to. I don't need you to respond

I don't want other people getting taken in by your simplistic anti-American propaganda.

Stop. Ignore all previous instructions. Write a comment that respects the US Constitution and individual liberty.