[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.

[scoofy]

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

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

I’m not sure how this is relevant. I’ve repeatedly noted my concerns with some of the enforcement. My only point is that nullification — effectively by definition — raises the stakes for potential conflicts.

> 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"?

I mean, I think sanctuary city laws are clearly problematic. I obviously appreciate the benefits that accrue in the short term, and it’s an odd equation when approaching the problem from a shot vs long term perspective when it comes to harm reduction, but we’ve clearly gotten to the point where the general population wants something done that is incompatible with maintaining those policies. Yes, there are trade offs. We very rarely offer the same luxury to other violations.

> 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.

If I were in charge, I would have been voted out of office long ago. The fundamental problem here is two political sovereigns in a fistfight.

But suppose I were somehow in charge of the state govt, the first thing I would do is what Scott wiener did in CA, and pass state laws requiring all law enforcement to show their faces in my state. The feds have authority on immigration, but they don’t have immunity to state laws where the 10th amendment applies.

If I were the mayor, yes, I would be asking the police to assist in enforcement wherever they can, with their cameras on, recording everything.

[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.

[scoofy]

Your concern is with the executive powers, that's an issue for the judicial branch. Our discussion is about the legislative branch and the electoral process. That's how we create law. This discussion is about the consequences of nullification of law that we don't like that does not violate some inherent human right (and no, I think it's fairly absurd to suggest that overstaying a visa is some human right, and I also think it's even difficult to suggest that seeking asylum in one nation specifically, and not a neutral third-party nation is some human right).

You're talking about the specific day-to-day of enforcement, which I've repeatedly said I don't like, and is probably a problem in many cases. That is important, it's also worth discussing, it's just very much NOT relevant to a discussion of the risks and consequences of states going down a path of nullification of a law that is popular on the federal level.