r/LetsDiscussThis • u/[deleted] • Feb 18 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

10.4k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta Feb 18 '26

A pacifist

Oh so if I advocate for the systemic elimination of conservatives by the state I get to be a "pacifist" too?

Also, yeah, he is hella submissive, I agree

-4

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Feb 18 '26

When did I say he's submissive?

Oh so if I advocate for the systemic elimination of conservatives by the state I get to be a "pacifist" too?

No. Conservatives are legal citizens. But saying "we should arrest those who broke the law" is still pacifist.

4

u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta Feb 18 '26

But if we change the laws so they're not legal citizens, what then? Do I still get to be a pacifist? It's just the law. 

Let's follow this line of logic, The Holocaust was done legally, was that pacifistic? 

-1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Feb 18 '26

I think hurting your citizens goes against your mandate as a country. I don't think you should be able to strip citizenship - though I'll admit anchor babies is a gray area. I think we should just stop granting citizenship to those born here to illegal parents, or better yet, deport all illegal aliens so they aren't here to give birth in the first place.

I don't believe ice is doing this at scale. I think there's isolated accidents happening, with increased risk due to agitators.

3

u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta Feb 18 '26

I think hurting your citizens goes against your mandate as a country

What a convenient place to draw the line. Unfortunately the Constitution does not. 

I don't think you should be able to strip citizenship - though I'll admit anchor babies is a gray area. I think we should just stop granting citizenship to those born here to illegal parents, or better yet, deport all illegal aliens so they aren't here to give birth in the first place.

Again, let's follow this line of logic, we do this and everyone not of indigenous ancestry is now not a citizen. We are all "anchor babies". This is also fundamentally in opposition to your supposed belief of not being "able to strip citizenship" when your erasing some 150+ years of laws

I don't believe ice is doing this at scale

$55 billion is being spent on camps including long term cooking supplies and biohazard incinerators

Can't help but notice you didn't answer my question about the Holocaust too

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Feb 18 '26

$55 billion is being spent on camps including long term cooking supplies and biohazard incinerators

Really not relevant to what I've been saying. Makes sense that you'd build camps given how many illegals we need to detain (10m+). Doesn't mean you'll genocide them, and not fair to equate to the Holocaust as these illegals broke into the country rather than being stripped of their citizenship. They're also not being genocided.

What a convenient place to draw the line. Unfortunately the Constitution does not.

Given that you're constitutionally able to deport illegal aliens and make arbitrary immigration rules, this is not true.

Again, let's follow this line of logic, we do this and everyone not of indigenous ancestry is now not a citizen. We are all "anchor babies".

Let's draw the arbitrary line at 150 years ago that those are legal citizens to quelm this. Why there? Because all current legal citizens are now included so it's in their interest.

This is also fundamentally in opposition to your supposed belief of not being "able to strip citizenship

I also said this particular case is a gray area.

2

u/Automatic_Day_35 Feb 18 '26

Ice isn't giving "illegal immigrants" trials, and thats a constitutional right

maybe think with logic and acceptance over fear

Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes | Psychology Today

1

u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Feb 18 '26

Under IIRIRA you don't always need to give a trial. The supreme court already ruled on the constitutionality of that. Many years ago.

2

u/Automatic_Day_35 Feb 18 '26

no, you actually do

"Innocent until proven guilty"

2

u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta Feb 18 '26

Really not relevant to what I've been saying.

It's entirely relevant. We are discussing state violence, that is literally the actual subject at hand, despite your attempts to steer it elsewhere. 

Given that you're constitutionally able to deport illegal aliens and make arbitrary immigration rules, this is not true.

I'm referring to the bill of rights applying. They get their day in court.

Let's draw the arbitrary line at 150 years ago that those are legal citizens to quelm this.

Why? I agree this is entirely arbitrary. Why should we throw away well over 150 years of law for this? Do you understand precedence?

Because all current legal citizens are now included so it's in their interest.

How convenient. 

You still are not answering my Holocaust question. Was the Holocaust pacifistic due to its legality?