by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | 2025-10-06 12:53:11+00:00
<< 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.