You are making a legalistic argument to justify absolutely monstrous behavior and you should probably spend some time examining why you are doing that. If the law justifies an atrocity, you should not defend the law.
I'm not someone who thinks all laws should be followed blindly. When human rights are on the line, yes, we have an obligation to resist. Some people think enforcing immigration law is a violation of human rights.
I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases. Where we are breaking up families with young children is where I would draw my line, and that is certainly happening, but again my concern here is with the escalation that is nullification.
I simply think that if I were to go to, say, the UK and decided to not board a flight home and make a life for myself that I could be forcibly deported... and the Labour Gov't in the UK does forcible deportations:
I think the ideal solution is to create a system where overstaying a visa is practically impossible. This way people could not find them in a situation where they've established a life that would make leaving especially painful. However, since it has proven to be too practically difficult to negotiate comprehensive immigration reform for various reasons, the American left -- a left that I consider myself a part of -- has gone in the complete opposite direction for most of my lifetime. We have established an overt nullification policy that effectively facilitates folks ignoring immigration law. Now we have to deal with immigration enforcement we don't like, and it will be very difficult for us to protect young children losing a parent because we've decided that we want to effectively facilitate all folks here illegally, not just those who have found themselves with young families.
> I do not think it is a reasonable position to consider deportaion of folks overstaying visas as "a violation of human rights" in the vast majority of cases.
This is a motte/bailey. Deporting people is not inherently a violation of human rights. However, when judges have to clarify that "detainees" must be provided water and toilets[0], I think it's pretty clear that their human rights are being violated. The significant objection is to that, not to any semblance of immigration enforcement.
> I think the ideal solution is to create a system where overstaying a visa is practically impossible.
I can assure you that you do not want this, it is predicated on a level of government invasiveness that would be unpalatable to both citizens and legal immigrants. Some abuse is the cost of many well functioning systems.
> However, since it has proven to be too practically difficult to negotiate comprehensive immigration reform for various reasons, the American left -- a left that I consider myself a part of -- has gone in the complete opposite direction for most of my lifetime. We have established an overt nullification policy that effectively facilitates folks ignoring immigration law.
It is somewhere between deeply misinformed and rhetorical malpractice to say this, pretending that the American right bears no responsibility for preventing progress on immigration reform and that there haven't been multiple attempts by the left to improve things here that were blocked by the right (including multiple iterations of DREAM and various attempts at asylum reform).
I mean, I disagree with you on all counts. I think it’s always fair to care about treatment of detainees… we don’t use the repeated inflammatory “kidnappings” of our concern is merely detainees treatment.
Other states, such as the UK, make it obscenely difficult to exist without documentation. They certainly do not tacitly endorse it. To suggest “I wouldn’t like” policies that plenty of western countries engage in seems naive.
Finally, the Republicans temperament on legal immigration is horrific, but they are in the position to ignore attempts to change the law because the law is on their side… like any issue in democracy, that means the Democrats are the party that needs to change minds.
> 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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
