This Funding Bill is Pointless

[reACTIONary]

34. This sort of organization?

What sort of organization? An organization that enforces our immigration laws? Or an organization that disrespects the constitutional protections of due process and the bill of rights?

Let's not confuse the two. Because that confusion would work against reinforcing and protecting our liberal democracy.

As the ACLU states: "The Bill of Rights does not grant foreigners the right to enter the United States..." Immigration and boarder control are legitimate, if not necessary, state functions. They are also supported by the vast majority of the public - and in a liberal democracy, the legitimate claims of the people are to be respected.

As the ACLU also states: "....immigrants are entitled to certain, broad protections. These include the right to be treated fairly in court, to free speech and religious freedom, and to be protected from discrimination." And this is where our focus should be. Humane enforcement, respectful of both our legitimate, democratic laws and the rights of all persons, immigrants and citizens alike.

When we do not make a clear distinction between the legitimacy of the law itself verses the conduct used in enforcing the law, we put the protection of rights and due process at a disadvantage. Speaking to the original post's exclamation to "ABOLISH ICE", this slogan does not properly respect that distinction. It is going to be taken by the public as a declaration against the legitimate laws that they overwhelmingly support. And they will be encouraged in this interpretation by those who will claim that an "open society" means "open boarders." We are going to be smeared.

More to your point, which I believe is that we are on a slippery slope towards a totalitarian police state: We are always, and ever will be, on that slippery slope. All actions, and all inactions, tend toward or foreshadow some extreme. Hyperbolic, hysterical exclamations of immanent doom are not helpful because they are unrealistic and are recognized as such. And that recognition will be taken as advocacy for the opposite extreme: A slippery slope towards open boarders and lawless anarchy.

This is not mere speculation - many of my relatives characterize "liberals" in just this way, and they tend to dismiss our concerns as unrealistic, while holding onto their own unrealistic views. In discussions with them, I try to point out that their concerns are unrealistic and that liberals are not advocates for anarchy. And likewise on DU.