I find the constant equating of illegal immigrants with Jews who lived legally in Germany for many generations and who had done nothing illegal or wrong at all very disturbing. It minimizes what happened there.
If not for Nazi Germany, would the behavior of the current admin, especially with respect to ICE, be labeled “fascist”? My impression is that the optics of vanning people is reminiscent of the optics of what happened in Germany, and so the label comes out. This is bolstered by Nazi Germany being probably the most covered topic in American history class for the past many decades, as well as similar coverage in Hollywood, to the point where “bad guy” and Nazi/fascist are basically synonyms.
I mean, you can be just as callous and say that those who remained in Germany after the country legally revoked their citizenship[1] had, in fact, done something illegal by remaining there. They were just as illegal as a kid who has lived here since she was 3 months old.
Yours is also the same argument that was made for years about not including LGBT people among the victims of the Holocaust, since they had in fact broken the law by existing.
So in your comparison, on the one hand are laws that are shared by literally every nation (having and maintaining a border), and on the other hand is a historical edge case where citizenship was deleted.
I think it’s pretty easy to achieve consistency by just being opposed to deleting citizenship, but being in favor of maintaining and enforcing a border? No contradiction there.
I don’t see what’s calloused about it, either. People voluntarily relocate with their children, who do not have a choice in the matter, all the time. If the parents are sneaking into and hiding in a country, I don’t see what’s so different about the family being removed to their place of origin vs the family voluntarily relocating, from the perspective of the child.
Once the child is 18 they have their own choice to continue hiding in a country they are not in legally or to return to their place of origin. Like, if I was forcibly returned to where my family is from in Europe due to similar circumstances, I would not be that upset about it. These people are only mad because the place they are from sucks. That is not the problem of America or Americans.
What are you talking about? Revocation of citizenship, denaturalization, exile, banishment, etc are some of the oldest functions of law there are. For as long as states and the concept of citizenship have existed, revocation of citizenship has been a thing.
Hell, entire countries were started by populations that were denaturalized.
And countries regularly denaturalize their own citizens, both in the past and present.
During war, it's even more common, especially among naturalized citizens. Germany considered itself in a state of war from an enemy foreign and within, denaturalization and then expelling of non-citizens was in their right, just as it was in the right of literally every Western nation to do the same during times of war, which they did. In fact, just having the wrong ideas or saying the wrong thing were grounds for denaturalization here and elsewhere.
In the period that the Nuremburg Laws were passed, rates of denaturalization world-wide had reached a high point. World War I had increased the rate, and it continued accelerating after, with denaturalization laws passed and used in practice by every country that had fought in it. In the decades before Germany's denaturalization laws, literally tens of millions of people had been denaturalized from their homelands.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were denaturalized and exiled in order to establish the State of Israel. Millions of black South Africans were denaturalized and were made citizens of Bantustans. Today, the Royhingya are stateless because they were denaturalized. In 2013, hundreds of thousands of black Haitians had their citizenship revoked.
The idea that citizenship cannot be revoked is a recent US/UN thing for some reason. And even then it's still wrong, because the US has a long history of denaturalizing its undesirables.
> I don’t see what’s calloused about it, either. People voluntarily relocate with their children, who do not have a choice in the matter, all the time. If the parents are sneaking into and hiding in a country, I don’t see what’s so different about the family being removed to their place of origin vs the family voluntarily relocating, from the perspective of the child.
[0][1]:
> Neighbors like Eboni Watson say they ducked for cover as they heard several flash bangs.
> "They was terrified. The kids was crying. People was screaming. They looked very distraught. I was out there crying when I seen the little girl come around the corner, because they was bringing the kids down, too, had them zip tied to each other," Watson said. "That's all I kept asking. What is the morality? Where's the human? One of them literally laughed. He was standing right here. He said, 'fuck them kids.'"
> “It was heartbreaking to watch,” she said. “Even if you’re not a mother, seeing kids coming out buck naked and taken from their mothers, it was horrible.”
> "They just treated us like we were nothing," Fisher said.
Okay so what percent of historical citizenships have been revoked? What percent would it be for you to not consider it an edge case? My estimate is an upper bound of 1% of citizenships historically were deleted. I would call that an edge case. Not because it doesn’t matter, but because being for enforcement of borders and residency laws does not make you automatically for deleting citizenships, and conflating the two is incorrect. If it is 5% or 10% then I would be wrong to use the language “edge case” but I believe my point stands regardless.
I had not read about the “naked zip tied children” case. If that happened as described, the officers involved should be disciplined. I do wish this could be done in a more orderly fashion as that would reduce the chances of illegal conduct from the officers, though with the American election cycle I can understand why the regime may feel like it needs to act quickly.
You're saying that ICE only targets illegal immigrants? how do they know who's an illegal immigrant? skin colour? Because that's the criteria they're applying right now.
Also what do you say about ICE detaining legal residents? you stated "equating illegal immigrants with Jews [...]" as if ICE is only detaining illegal immigrants. They're not. They're detaining anyone who isn't white enough. Members of the Trump regime have also threatened to deport legal citizens who are just exercicing their free speech. You're anti free speech as well?
When is your moral framework going to kick in and call a spade a spade?
ICE doesn’t do law enforcement against citizens. It does affect citizens tangentially but not directly. ICE will not come after citizens for crimes. That would be regular local police, state police or FBI/ATF, etc. ICE is immigration enforcement. Some people may not like that especially illegal residents but it would be a poor way to affect citizens like fascists or communists did.
What do you mean? If you mean interfering with officers carrying out their duties, then yes, people do get arrested for that. But you would get arrested for interfering with any law enforcement. People do get to protest but they do not get the right to protest violently nor do they get a right to interfere with law enforcement just because they disagree with the law.
Just like if you want to protest eminent domain but officers come in to move out protesters getting in the way of construction. People will get arrested. You can protest peacefully. You cannot interfere with official acts or be violent.
ICE will (and already are to an extent) come after anyone who looks like trouble. If they want to superficially follow the law, they beat people up and release them after 23 hours after "discovering" the person is a citizen. Then, repeat as many times as necessary.
Since nobody actually knows who ICE is, it can devolve pretty easily from there. The most pedestrian would be protection money to avoid detention, from citizens and non-citizens, it doesn't matter.
Kind of the same role they played during the civil rights struggle. They are there to bolster law enforcement when local law enforcement may be overwhelmed enforcing federal law.
Trump has actively talked about denaturalizing his enemies [1]. You would be technically correct that he's not going after citizens, but that's only because he'll declare everyone he doesn't like antifa and thus not worthy of citizenship.
A move, I should point out, that the Nazis did to the Jews and Communists.
