I am deeply tired of this ridiculous narrative. Who decided that only “the worst of the worst” should be deported? Citizenship doesn’t mean that non-citizens are evil. It means they are non-citizens.
Even in an issue as minor as the running of the classroom, I’m not allowed to have anybody in the classroom who hasn’t officially signed up for the course. Not because we suspect such students of being “the worst of the worst” but simply because they didn’t sign up. This is how it works for pretty much everything. Why shouldn’t it work the same for citizenship?
Why are we spending so much time discussing whether the deportees have criminal records or whether crossing the border illegally means breaking the law? None of this matters. The goal should be to preserve citizenship as a meaningful concept because it’s an important civilizational achievement. Many of the things that we value about our civilized existence become impossible without citizenship.
Let’s discuss concepts and not personalities. Let’s not drown in the individual and instead talk about the collective.
Clarissa's Blog 
Also disingenuous to insist on “due process” for everybody and their dog, in an environment where we do not remotely have the judicial staff to do that, and then claim that “14% with criminal records” actually means something.
Criminal record would mean they were either convicted, or plead guilty. Not having a criminal record is not remotely the same thing as not committing crime. Is welfare fraud a crime? Is tax fraud a crime? Is employment fraud a crime? Is mortgage fraud a crime? Driving without insurance? Illegal border crossing? Driving without a license? Do you have to be convicted of it in a court of law before it counts? If you got arrested for any of those things under another name, how about then?
-ethyl
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s why I keep saying that you can’t simultaneously be for due process and letting everybody that Biden let into the country stay. You can’t be for both things at once. It’s either one or the other.
As somebody else said, discourse becomes impossible when PE pretend not to understand the basic components of discourse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So…if we accept reality that citizenship will soon be meaningless, and get over our sad feelings about it, how can we best take care of ourselves and our loved ones?
LikeLike
Find a country with a reasonably safe and intact culture, where you can get a visa and your job skills are in demand, and move your family there?
-ethyl
LikeLike
Excellent question.
Become a hardcore neoliberal. Neoliberalize your subjectivity. Maximize for performance. Choose 3-4 people and don’t get attached to anything or anybody else.
LikeLike
Excellent question.
Become a hardcore neoliberal. Neoliberalize your subjectivity. Maximize for performance. Choose 3-4 people and don’t get attached to anything or anybody else.
LikeLike
Do you not all sense that those working to prevent the return of the illegal aliens are largely comprised of Democrat AWFULs and assorted weak males(sneakyfuckers and perverts) political groups and the media legacy, but I repeat myself ;-D
Working class men and women fully understand that tens (as in plural) of millions of invaders have to be deported. That is why the reason that Trump and the Republicans were elected, keep reminding them.
LikeLike
I will be hugely overjoyed to be proven wrong on this and seeing all these masses of people actively and openly support deportations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I remain optimistic because of my wife’s outlook on difficulties was, “This too shall pass.” She believed that it was somewhere in the Bible, perhaps she figured it out from Ecclesiastes. Personally, me… ;-D
LikeLike
Complain to the founders and the amendment writers. They chose to use “person” in some parts of the Constitution and “citizen” in others.
LikeLike
Yes, the nation-state is historically new. I have only written about it five trillion times.
LikeLike
I think you misunderstand what I mean. For over a hundred years, the United States has drawn lines that some rights are for everyone, not just citizenss. Now, without the intervention of Congress, the lines are being redrawn.
LikeLike
Do you seriously mean that the US government should provide every inhabitant of the planet with rights? Do you understand that this leads invariably to no rights for anybody? Is that truly what you want and if so, then why? What will you personally gain from the destruction of the concept of rights?
LikeLike
I seriously mean that the idea of some rights for everyone in the country, not just citizens, is written into law, and written in the Constitution at that. If that isea is to be changed, then it requires a change in law. What purpose does writing law and creating enforcement systems have, if the President can ignore the law and put the weight of the government behind ignoring it?
LikeLike
Why can’t you answer a simple question? Do you or do you not believe that the US must somehow provide every inhabitant of the planet with rights? Do you believe that this is possible? A simple yes or no will suffice.
LikeLike
No. Note the words “in the country” in my response.
LikeLike
So… as long as they can squinny across the border somehow, whether it’s crossing the desert at night, overstaying a tourist/student visa, hopping a train in Tijuana, or taking a sailing canoe to Key West, suddenly they have the same rights as citizens?
What is it about people that changes, when they cross the magic line? And why should existing immigration law not apply?
-ethyl
LikeLike
If physical presence grants the rights of citizenship, then why have citizenship? What’s the use of the concept?
LikeLike
“in the country”
And not being deported is one of those ‘rights’?
If they cannot prove they belong in the country through birth, legal immigration or visa…. what ‘rights’ do people have to stay in the country?
LikeLike
Have you not noticed how easy it is to make millions of new people suddenly “in the country”, thereby destroying the very definition of a country?
LikeLike
The classic case of universal rights was the abolition of slavery in the British empire. This was particularly important in SA, which led to SA making fundamental contributions to establishing rights in the UN charter and then the apartheid government being targeted for attempting to reinstitute their peculiar institution.
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2023-12-12-after-the-bell-a-paean-to-smutss-contradictory-contribution-to-human-rights/
LikeLike
IKR? We had all that immigration law, and then Biden just let 30 million people in, totally ignoring it! WTF?
-ethyl
LikeLike
I really love it when people who support SCOTUS finding the rights to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution suddenly become die-hard originalists when it’s convenient. I could respect the position that the Constitution should be interpreted imaginatively to suit any political need of the moment. I disagree but I respect people’s right to believe it. What I don’t respect is the complete absence of any principles. It’s fine to shit on the Constitution and bring in millions of people at will but removing them must be completely unconstitutional because, of course, the Founding Fathers envisioned just that. Absolutely.
LikeLike
“Everything I like is constitutional. Everything I dislike is unconstitutional.”
LikeLike
Also, “I want rights and I also want to destroy the only form of statehood that can guarantee rights.”
LikeLike