> obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure
Which sounds awfully novel to me. You really want to tear down the structure of democracy over this kind of nitpicking on "procedure"?
I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.
> I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.
The GP (or GGP, I forget) was discussing very specific legal technical details surrounding the judge's actions, the nature of the warrant and permissible locations for serving the warrant. I was pretty interested in that discussion - even though I probably generally agree with your macro views on immigration policy. You chose to focus on something completely different, the overall aggregate outcomes of national political policies and jumped immediately to rhetoric like "tear down the structure of democracy".
IMHO, an important part of "the structure of democracy" is the rule of law. Ideally, that means equal, impartial, consistent enforcement of the laws as written. If the circumstances were changed to this being 1962 Alabama and the defendant being the Grand Wizard of the local KKK and the judge snuck him out the back door because RFK had sent FBI agents from Washington to serve a warrant arresting the KKK Grand Wizard - would you think those discussing whether that judge might have technically obstructed justice were equally "tearing down the structure of democracy?"
Rule of law and its "equal, impartial, consistent enforcement" is totally a discretionary thing and very much by democratic support. The federal government has stopped enforcing low-level marijuana possession pretty much whole-sale, unless of course you show up at the wrong protests (see Timothy Teagan). Most people seem to think this is just dandy.
I would say you would actually destroy "democracy" if you enforced the rule of law.
Call me hopelessly naive but I think it's generally a good thing to rescind laws we don't want to enforce (or choose to only occasionally enforce), fix laws that aren't working as intended, and actually enforce the remaining laws we keep.
>totally a discretionary thing
The example I posted about the KKK Grand Wizard being the judicially smuggled person was intended to demonstrate the grave danger of having enforcement of a law (in this case obstruction of justice) be "totally a discretionary thing." The same people who'd (hopefully) be "horrified" by a judge smuggling a KKK member away from law enforcement (pointy white hat and all), want to selectively give a hall pass to this judge for doing the same thing. Paraphrasing Monty Python and the Holy Grail, that's no basis to form a system of government.
> very much by democratic support.
If you're referring to elections, those are, at most, once every two years. I'm not sure how well cops are going to do their jobs with a two-year latency on "what crimes can we arrest people for today?" If you're referring to anything else, you're either endorsing mob rule (kinda the main reason 'rule of law' was invented back in Holy Grail times) or you're placing a lot of faith in "the current people in political, social and cultural power" always being exactly "the kind of righteous people who agree with me on everything important." Especially in light of recent events, I don't think that's a very solid governance plan either.
As a practical example, I'm kind of a wild-eyed radical on immigration. If I was anointed "King of the Land", I'd almost throw open the borders entirely to any and all comers (not quite, but pretty close). Of course, I'd also need to change some other things to make that work, but that's not important right now. And even though I'm that radical on immigration, back when some cities chose to become "Sanctuary Cities" by announcing the current elected officials had decided to just... stop doing their job of enforcing (some) laws - I wasn't happy like you might think. No, even though I liked the outcome in that one instance, it actually troubled me greatly that a handful of individuals elected in the public trust decided to unilaterally seize power by illegally subverting the constitution and their solemn oaths of office.
And the fact I felt that was very bad back then, even over something I generally agreed with, leaves me feeling like I'm on firm logical, ethical, legal and moral ground when it troubles me equally that Trump and his fellow travelers are abusing the public trust in, conceptually, the very same ways. If your support for "the rule of law" depends on who the current ruler is and whether they agree with your personal opinions. I think you're probably gonna have a bad time under any system of government that's not a monarchy or anarchy - with yourself as dictator for life.
On the other hand, I thought it was an incredibly dangerous and illegal expansion of presidential authority when Obama droned a U.S. citizen overseas without due process (even though that person was indeed an active terrorist). I'm funny that way about seizing power unconstitutionally. I'm always against it. No matter who does it or what they do with the stolen power. I hope those who are complaining today that Trump is using (and building on) the unconstitutional presidential power grab techniques that Obama pioneered, but didn't see a problem with it until someone they don't like started doing things they disagree with, are at least learning from this very hard lesson. Abuse of power is wrong no matter who does it or what they do.
> but didn't see a problem with it until someone they don't like started doing things they disagree with, are at least learning from this very hard lesson. Abuse of power is wrong no matter who does it or what they do.
> If your support for "the rule of law" depends on who the current ruler is and whether they agree with your personal opinions.
This Obama comparison seems like a false equivalence because you are ignoring the _where_, i.e. within the U.S. vs a foreign battlefield.
The issue has been covered pretty extensively and is well worth looking into. It's been discussed and analyzed by several noted constitutional scholars.
It's been a while but IIRC it was unconstitutional because the president cannot unilaterally execute a U.S. citizen anywhere without due process except under certain conditions, none of which were met in this case. It wasn't a declared war ("War on Terror" was a PR slogan, not a congressional declaration of war). I think the fact it was targeted specifically at a named person and there were no exigent circumstances (like trying to free hostages or stopping an eminent attack) were also factors. But, based on the plain wording, this wasn't a close or subjective call. To be clear, while it was illegal and unconstitutional, I don't personally think killing this guy was morally unjustified. He was a shithead who spouted anti-American, pro-terrorist crap online. But he was basically a poseur in a cave in Yemen. He was never a material terror threat to the U.S. other than making online videos. He claimed allegiance with real terrorists but they never took him seriously because he was a fucking American and they'd be stupid not to assume he was a double-agent.
You're not alone in assuming dropping a missile on this guy must have been legally okay because of the surrounding circumstances. I mean, that can't just... happen, right? The U.S. had already droned lots of non-U.S. citizen enemy combatants. The guy was clearly a wannabe terrorist calling for jihad against the great Satan America. He was awful and unsympathetic in every possible way. He was in a country (Yemen I think) that was fighting a declared insurrection-ish war against the local jihad group that sort-of associated with the guy. And that country was a U.S. ally. But... none of those circumstances made killing him legal. Yemen didn't launch the missile. A U.S. soldier under direct presidential order did. Legally and constitutionally, what Obama did was no different than Trump ordering U.S. soldiers to execute a U.S. citizen on the White House lawn with no due process. Except I highly doubt U.S. soldiers would do that without the surrounding circumstances of being a known terrorist, in Yemen, droned like they'd legally done before to similar non-U.S. citizen terrorists. Unfortunately, all of those circumstances were legally and constitutionally irrelevant. And, of course, even Trump would never give such an order because he knows American's sensibilities would be shocked, and both parties in congress would be forced to protest en masse, hold hearings, etc. But Obama and congress knew, in those circumstances, in that era, in that middle eastern country, against that unsympathetic target, it would encounter minimal protest. But it's at times like that and under circumstances like those that Rubicons get crossed and dangerous precedents set.
Sadly, that political calculation was correct. Despite being forcefully protested by a few members of congress, our system failed to work because the "War on Terror" was started by the opposition party and Obama's own party chose not to hold their President accountable for partisan political reasons. The media similarly followed party lines with the democratic majority choosing not to make an issue of it and the opposition media not wanting to go against the "War on Terror" they still actively endorsed. Only a few media people went against their traditional alignment and called it the unconstitutional execution that it clearly was. The handful of politicians, media and pundits who stood up on this issue despite doing so alone, are worth noting for their integrity. Even though they knew it might be politically costly and wouldn't change anything, they chose to stand on the right side of history in one of those rare moments when all others failed.
> I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.
Calling people who are against illegal immigration "racist" just makes it worse.
A majority of people are fine with legal migration, a supermajority of people think illegal immigrants should get deported. So no, the issue most see isn't that they don't like Spanish, the issue is that they are here illegally.
Or we could just let more people be here legally. All we'd have to do is raise the quota.
Do that, and I'd have zero problems rounding up all of the remaining illegal immigrants and driving 'em into the ocean, if that's what you want. Instead, I'm suspicious that "the only issue is that they're here illegally" is just deflection.
I'm pro-legal immigration but this isn't as simple as "make number go up." Resources like houses and jobs are in finite supply and allowing more legal immigration without ensuring the needs of your citizens is a good way to increase anti-immigrant sentiment. The facts don't matter that immigrants do the jobs that Americans don't want.
Reducing illegal and legal immigration actually hurts "your citizens" in many ways as it stands today in America. The immigrants pay taxes into things like social security without getting the benefits. They also work on farms and if they go away prices will go up.
The only solution to housing is building more housing.
> This is a far shot from being against legal migration entirely.
Sure, its simply about preferring strong ethnic controls on immigration: while only 50% of Republicans think legal immigration should be decreased, 61% think that immigration "from other cultures" has mainly negative consequences. It's not that Republicans are against legal immigration entirely, its just that they are (in the majority) against any immigration from the places most immigrants come from; they are fine with legal immigration of white Christian conservatives, especially from the rest of the anglosphere.
I think that is closer, but still a strawman. I think the ethnic boundaries are more flexible than you portray. Immigration of diverse cultures are acceptable as long as they are not a cultural threat, and the target isn't zero.
> As far as the Republican Party, statistics don’t back up the idea they are okay with legal immigration.
I said majority of people, not majority of republicans. That means there are still many republicans that like legal immigration, wealthy people like when labor is allowed to immigrate, Elon Musk is one such person among many others.
If Trump said he would deport all the legal immigrants he would likely not have won the election, that they are illegal is core to his support.
> A majority of people are fine with legal migration
an alarming number of legal aliens are being detained, deported or disappeared: students who wrote op-eds, Afghan asylees who helped us during the war, college professors and Canadian tourists, even (prospectively) "home-growns."
if most Trump supporters support legal migration, why aren't they pushing back on this?
This is a complicated issue because Republicans spent decades sabotaging the immigration system. If you're an immigrant trying to cross the border legally, you could spend years waiting for your hearing. Part of the reason illegal immigration is so high is because they make legal immigration near impossible.
Trump is aggressively deporting foreign students that were here legally. If you are only against illegal immigration you should speak out against things like this.
Which sounds awfully novel to me. You really want to tear down the structure of democracy over this kind of nitpicking on "procedure"?
I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.