Some of the people being detained and deported are asylum seekers who came to this country fleeing persecution in their home nation.
They arrived at this country following all the rules provided to them by prior administrations (including the last Trump administration). They have shown up for their court dates. Those that were permitted to work have found ways to contribute to their local economies. They've created homes, found love, and become part of their local communities. Their stories are abundant and well-documented, you can find them trivially.
I think it is wrong to remove peaceful, hard-working people from their present communities, doubly-so if they are asylum-seekers who have already demonstrated an extreme ability to suffer through the hardship of coming here.
The current administration is making a deliberate choice to interpret immigration law in a way that enables them to arbitrarily detain and deport these people, while rhetorically defining them as a violent, criminal invasion by foreign powers. Just because the executive branch has the legal right to treat non-citizens within our borders with impunity, does not make it right to do so.
What part of this picture do you think is right, and why?
Regarding slippery slope fallacy: if a policy choice enables or disables centralized detention and deportation infrastructure, wouldn't you prefer to follow the precautionary principle and avoid inadvertently building the tools of fascism? Even if you think Trump is acting in good faith and with restraint, his successors need not, and will inherit an infrastructure that amplifies their ability to inflict damage up the ladder of minorities.
Also, it's not true that "nobody wants to detain people who are legally not entitled to be in this country". There's a whole cottage industry of facilities popping up around the country that are paid by the inmate-detention-day, who do everything they can to avoid giving people due process so they can maximize their revenue. This industry will be happy to lobby for detention to apply to an ever-increasing circle of people.
They arrived at this country following all the rules provided to them by prior administrations (including the last Trump administration). They have shown up for their court dates. Those that were permitted to work have found ways to contribute to their local economies. They've created homes, found love, and become part of their local communities. Their stories are abundant and well-documented, you can find them trivially.
I think it is wrong to remove peaceful, hard-working people from their present communities, doubly-so if they are asylum-seekers who have already demonstrated an extreme ability to suffer through the hardship of coming here.
The current administration is making a deliberate choice to interpret immigration law in a way that enables them to arbitrarily detain and deport these people, while rhetorically defining them as a violent, criminal invasion by foreign powers. Just because the executive branch has the legal right to treat non-citizens within our borders with impunity, does not make it right to do so.
What part of this picture do you think is right, and why?
Regarding slippery slope fallacy: if a policy choice enables or disables centralized detention and deportation infrastructure, wouldn't you prefer to follow the precautionary principle and avoid inadvertently building the tools of fascism? Even if you think Trump is acting in good faith and with restraint, his successors need not, and will inherit an infrastructure that amplifies their ability to inflict damage up the ladder of minorities.
Also, it's not true that "nobody wants to detain people who are legally not entitled to be in this country". There's a whole cottage industry of facilities popping up around the country that are paid by the inmate-detention-day, who do everything they can to avoid giving people due process so they can maximize their revenue. This industry will be happy to lobby for detention to apply to an ever-increasing circle of people.