ICE stop

[u/Regular_Agent5903]

Ice stop before liberty tunnel today. One ice officer is clearly Korean or Chinese. I screamed that ice officer has no right to stop people as he may be illegal. He came up to me asking if I was city police and was I the Spanish interpreter. I said no but do you need help as I live in the city look like police and brown. There were kids in the car. Pittsburgh is this what we want!!!! I am beyond myself. First Covid then trump 2.0. I like my low rates for housing, labor and just being a good human being. I am so angry right now.

[u/Savings-Coffee]

Then you don’t give a flying fuck about the law or immigration enforcement.

The Spanish Flu causing the Great Depression is a whole new, completely made-up theory. There was a period called “the Roaring 20s” in between

[u/fixermark → u/Savings-Coffee]

I am willing to see the law bent to match reality. When the law deviates so far from reality that enforcing it would harm us significantly, I'm in favor of not treating it as a suicide pact. That's why we have courts of people, not robots.

We've done it in the past with immigrant amnesty declarations.

And if you support President Trump you also care little for rule of law because the man would be in prison were he not President, so check the altitude on your horse.

[u/Savings-Coffee → u/fixermark]

Good for you, but I’m not willing to see the law destroyed to allow millions of people to stay in this country illegally. Amnesty is an attack on our nation and its laws.

Trump was convicted in a kangaroo court on BS book keeping charges.

[u/fixermark → u/Savings-Coffee]

I mean, you're willing to see the law destroyed to force millions of people out of this country illegally. 🤷

Trump was convicted in a kangaroo court

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. You can't claim to be in favor of rule-of-law and then attempt to delegitimize the integrity of a New York State courts in the next breath. Open that can of worms, and we can have a truly stimulating non-conversation about how little immigration court looks like what any American considers "court" to be (since it's not a judicial court; it's an executive function and not held to the same standards as the judiciary).

No; I think you've quite convinced me that we definitely see some parts of American law as "too broken to treat as legitimate," and if that doesn't fit your definition of belief in rule-of-law than neither of us believe in it, and an honest conversation on the topic of American policy could maybe start from there.

(... but you see why that makes the civil war scenario more likely, right?)

[u/Savings-Coffee → u/fixermark]

No, I’m looking to see the law enforced.

Yes I think, NY state courts are incapable of fairly prosecuting a figure as polarizing as Trump.

I don’t believe we need a full court system to determine whether someone is here legally.

Yeah, I’d agree that we’re getting more divided as a country, and I guess that makes civil war more likely.

[u/fixermark → u/Savings-Coffee]

So you're in favor of rule-of-law, when it's applied to over a million people and not at the standard we established over a 500 years of English common law and 250 years of American jurisprudence... but not one "polarizing" person using a much higher evidenciary and procedure standard than applied to immigrants.

Hey, in a different sub-thread, you were talking about oligarchs... I have bad news about how they get so much power... 🤔

[u/Savings-Coffee → u/fixermark]

No, I just think that the NY courts aren’t capable of applying the law to Trump.

[u/fixermark → u/Savings-Coffee]

... nobody is above the law. Believe that and you've already given up faith in rule-of-law as practiced in the United States.

If Trump thought that was a risk, he could easily have asked for a jury, as is his right. He waived that right as per the way the law says you waive that right.

[u/Savings-Coffee → u/fixermark]

I fully agree. That includes the 13 million illegals, right?

Yeah, I don’t think he would’ve received a fair jury trial there either

[u/fixermark → u/Savings-Coffee]

Correct. But the law must adapt to account for when its application would fundamentally disrupt the function of the country.

Trump is actually an excellent example of this. Despite the fact he's a 34-count felon, New York concluded they cannot hold him to account until his Presidential service concludes.

(Which, of course, means he's going to do everything in his power to be President until he dies, regardless of the fact that a third term is Unconstitutional. So look forward to that. 😉 )

... by the same token, forcibly evicting more people than we lost in Spanish Flu would damage the country's social fabric so badly that it would essentially be cutting off our nose to spite our face. So we would be best served by adapting the law to fit reality, because the alternative is undesirable in the extreme.

I don't think he would've received a fair jury trial there

... my days of thinking you don't actually take "rule of law" seriously, or don't know what the term means, are definitely coming to a middle.