@collapsedsquid
Wait, are you saying that the public message to nationalists should be that the policy is wrong because it violates administrative procedures?
I didn’t expect, given the way the conversation was going, that I would be the one saying “I’m not sure you fully understand how bad the situation is”, but the laws being violated here are not merely some administrative procedures. Habeas Corpus is more-or-less the opposite of “laws about something that aren’t inherently wrong”.
As for the public message, I don’t think this should be the public message to all nationalists in all situations. But when the policy in question is in fact breaking the law, and when the person in question is professing to be defending the importance of the law, it certainly seems like a relevant part of the message.
@mitigatedchaos If the cohesion of society depends on the internalization of the law as binding, surely you should be AT LEAST as concerned with ICE and the DoJ ignoring the law as illegal immigrants ignoring the law.
Even if you think that asylum seekers have no moral right to be here, because “It isn’t the responsibility of the United States of America to solve every other country’s problems”, surely treating the law as binding requires accepting that they have the legal right to be here, given that the law says that they do. Even if you think that people make fake asylum claims, surely treating the law as binding requires you to accept as legally binding those asylum claims that are upheld by the process of law.
