[joshuamorton]

> we don’t use the repeated inflammatory “kidnappings” of our concern is merely detainees treatment.

No, but we do use it for otherwise unlawful stops without probable cause that lead to people being put in detention facilities that don't have water or food.

> like any issue in democracy, that means the Democrats are the party that needs to change minds.

This is not the argument you just made. You were (and are) arguing for collaboration. That's not "changing minds". In my opinion, being loud and not collaborating with federal forces, to make them engage in violence themselves is very effective at changing minds, as we see with cratering public support for these kinds of things.

I admit I can't quite follow what your philosophy seems to be here, at best I could summarize what I've seen as "Republican immigration policy is bad and has grown more unconscionable but I actively support it because Democrats didn't fix it already", but that seems weird.

[scoofy]

> You were (and are) arguing for collaboration.

I wouldn’t put it in those terms, but I think I understand you point and yes, the general point is that I think we should enforce laws we don’t like unless they directly run up against what we see as a serious violation of human rights. I think that is generally a good idea, because it preserves a governmental structure we all generally agree with: something approximating one person one vote for representation, with a few caveats thrown in.

Democracy falls apart rapidly if your strategy is to only enforce laws you endorse. Democracies that fall apart are typically replaced with undemocratic systems. On top of that, civil conflict is horrible for human flourishing, so shit needs to get really, really bad before that discussion happens. I see this as a very strange sword for the American left to fall on.

[joshuamorton]

The counterargument to this is pretty straightforward: what is being done in Midway blitz isn't democratic and is bordering on autocratic. We have a responsibility not to normalize and acquiesce to a transition to an undemocratic system.

Keep in mind these laws weren't enforced in this way for the past 50 years. It's difficult to accept that this was just democratic party disinterest in enforcing them. It really seems like no one wanted to.

[scoofy]

>what is being done in Midway blitz isn't democratic and is bordering on autocratic

I mean, we're talking about a democratically elected government enforcing democratically decided laws. I understand your sentiment, and generally agree with you that it "feels" that way, but I think there is zero substance to that claim considering the entire process of how we got here is democratic. I don't like it, but here we are.

>Keep in mind these laws weren't enforced in this way for the past 50 years.

I mean this is demonstrably false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_from_the_United_St...

We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this. Illegal immigration is very obviously a major concern for a huge portion of the electorate, and because of the significant polarization on the subject, nullification here is going to lead to conflict as long as the federal electorate wants to enforce those laws. I obviously think this situation is unfortunate. I'm incredibly supportive of massively expanding American immigration, but it's difficult for me to get on board with nullification.

[joshuamorton]

> I mean this is demonstrably false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_from_the_United_St...

You're doing a motte and bailey again. I, at least, don't object to some level of immigration enforcement.

What people do seem to object to, and what is unprecedented, is the aggression of enforcement, with roving packs of CBP officials going on snatch-and-grabs in random cities and detaining anyone who is latino-looking, including some citizens. That isn't how immigration law has been enforced over the past 5 decades. It's new. It wasn't policy under Bush or Obama or Biden or even under Trump the first time. The laws were not enforced like this since WWII.

The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was during WWII. Its use this year was only lawful if you agree with the interpretation that certain Presidential determinations are wholly unreviewable by courts, an interpretation that so far, courts (including SCOTUS) have been unwilling to agree to.

There is significant controversy over whether much of this is even legal at all. And yet you seem to be of the opinion that state and local governments have some kind of responsibility to assist with actions they believe are illegal overreach. Because you're framing a lack of active participation as "nullification". You at least see why that's odd, right?

[scoofy]

I've said over and over that nullification is the right of states and municipalities. My entire point is that it's inherently an escalation. When the feds choose to enforce a law is areas that are actively trying to prevent that law from being enforced, almost by definition requires a heightened level of conflict in how that enforcement is done.

I agree with you that this is "novel" but the idea is that this isn't a pendulum that swings back an forth. It's a cascade where the dam is breaking, and when it does, creates a wildly different paradigm than existed previously.

I don't like what is happening. I can just see why it's happening, and understand and appreciated the justifications for it.

[joshuamorton]

Two this, first, I want to jump back to something you said earlier:

> Nullification of immigration laws is, in fact, a right that states can exercise, but it's overt nullification is absolutely an escalation that undermines public trust because it force the feds to send enforcement officers into a hostile area.

Do you see why this might actually be seen as increasing public trust in local LEOs who aren't participating in human rights abuses?

> We should fight to win the immigration debate with persuasion, in the legislature. We need to have the law on our side, and we need to have the populace on our side.

And can you see why not condoning those abuses gets the populace on "our" side?

Second, you have asserted something like

> When the feds choose to enforce a law is areas that are actively trying to prevent that law from being enforced

a few times now. And I'd like you to clarify: in January 2025, what actions was Chicago taking that were "actively preventing [immigration] law from being enforced"? And what actions do you see municipalities engaging in today that are "actively trying to prevent [immigration] law from being enforced"?

And if you were in charge, what would you do instead? Keep in mind, as a mayor or police captain or whatever, you cannot tell Greg Bovino what to do. You can assist him, but his use of force policies are different than yours, and you cannot make him or his officers follow your directives.

[dragonwriter]

> I mean, we're talking about a democratically elected government enforcing democratically decided laws.

No, we are talking about a government repeatedly, flagrantly, breaking the law, and then lying about it and repeatedly getting caught, by courts, by video, etc.

[scoofy]

That’s a very important concern that is not directly relevant to whether or not the laws being enforced are democratic or whether the person who is enforcing those laws is a democratically elected representative.

I’ve repeatedly noted my concerns and problems with many of the actual enforcement. That said, there is an ocean of difference between having unjust laws and unjust policing.

[dragonwriter]

> That’s a very important concern that is not directly relevant to whether or not the laws being enforced

Well, no, its relevant to whether what is happening is arbitrary and unlawful use of force or enforcement of the law, and if it is the former, then the whole question of "whether or not the laws being enforced are democratic" is misguided, because the shared premise assumed by both options presented is false.