[ceejayoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in...

> The U.S. Border Patrol has stated: "Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions 'Are you a U.S. citizen, and where are you headed?' they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S."

I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026.

[ryandrake]

> I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026.

In fact, we're finding out very quickly that "what the government can do" is in practice, only limited by the rest of the government's willingness to push back. The set of things grows every time the government tries something new and receives no push back from the other two branches of government that are captured by the same political party.

[mrguyorama]

In a somewhat democratic country, it's limited by what the people vote for.

Unfortunately, right now the people voted for obscene corruption and dismantling of institutions and selling pardons and a destruction of law and order.

Republican politicians support this and do not stop Trump because stopping Trump will get them voted out.

[ceejayoz]

> because stopping Trump will get them voted out

Hey, you misspelled "murdered".

[TimorousBestie]

> I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026.

Exactly. Everyone reading extremely fine distinctions into the relevant laws should at least do the work of also showing that those laws are currently applied in the manner they imply. To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application.

[superkuh]

> To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application.

It's not speculation. It's lived experience. And while I understand most probably don't have it, it doesn't invalidate it.

[TimorousBestie]

> It's lived experience.

Then it should be easy to cite recent case law backing up their claims, hmm?

[superkuh]

Hard to cite case law when the federal government in the form of the DHS refuse to even officially name their employees who commit cold blooded murder that is video recorded by the public from several angles. We all have seen it. They won't name them, let alone indict them or give them a fair trial.

But I get it. Until it starts happening where you live you won't be able to believe the USA federal government is lawless. I didn't. It's just how humans work. I can assure you, the border is very nebulous now and the actions of the feds don't follow the law but instead obviously illegal loophole interpretations who's only basis are internal memos.

[TimorousBestie]

The speculation I referred to above is the argument “the law says X; therefore, no X is occurring.” For example, “the law says a border agent must be proximate to the border; therefore, no searches not proximate to the border happen.” That’s obviously false. As you say, we’ve seen the evidence.

The reasoning fails precisely because several government agencies are now operating as scofflaws. If the armchair lawyers above want to repair their arguments, they also need to show that the law is still being upheld in practice, even by these scofflaw agencies. (They can’t do that, because it isn’t.)