Authorities say more than 100 immigrants suspected of being in the United States illegally were taken into custody during a raid at an illegal after-hours nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
I think you should re-read. I didn’t say due process was “extreme and radical”. You’re reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.
Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there’s no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won’t believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I’m on your side. Cheers.
Did you mean something else by “this type of lawlessness”? I went back and reread several times and I cannot see another interpretation.
“Immigrating illegally -> deport without due process” is the extremist angle. That’s lawlessness that no one should in good conscience support.
I don’t see anyone saying that breaking the law should go unpunished, just that deportation is not an appropriate penalty especially when there are existing more appropriate penalties. That does not seem extreme to me.
Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:
I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either.
Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.
What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.
Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.
Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.
I apologize for misunderstanding/misquoting. However, I’m not sure why you were even disagreeing with the original comment.
What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished? The only thing they said was that people should not be deported, and I would even read that to mean “without due process” or perhaps “as punishment”.
I think you should re-read. I didn’t say due process was “extreme and radical”. You’re reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.
Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there’s no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won’t believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I’m on your side. Cheers.
Did you mean something else by “this type of lawlessness”? I went back and reread several times and I cannot see another interpretation.
“Immigrating illegally -> deport without due process” is the extremist angle. That’s lawlessness that no one should in good conscience support.
I don’t see anyone saying that breaking the law should go unpunished, just that deportation is not an appropriate penalty especially when there are existing more appropriate penalties. That does not seem extreme to me.
Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:
Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.
What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.
Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.
Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.
I apologize for misunderstanding/misquoting. However, I’m not sure why you were even disagreeing with the original comment.
What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished? The only thing they said was that people should not be deported, and I would even read that to mean “without due process” or perhaps “as punishment”.