All it took was a white mother (and US citizen) getting shot in broad daylight. As much as I hate to admit it, a large enough segment of the population needed something blatant like this to care.
There's such a long list of things one could say that about.
In this instance the "representation matters" thought process seems to bear out.
Folks talk about aspiring to role models who look like them. People also react strongly when this sort of thing happens to someone who looks like them.
The problem is that you can slice representation every which way. It could be "I only identify with 6'3" males who live in Idaho and like trains", or it could be "I identify with humans".
The fact that US culture chooses to identify with people of the same colour is telling, though I don't know, maybe that's a human thing and my country is too homogeneous for me to think otherwise.
It's not. I was a "90 day fiance" immigrant (the concept, not the show).
We had a sincere relationship, but we both agreed that our marriage, while genuine, was earlier than it would have otherwise been other than logistics of an trans-Pacific romance.
We stayed together 5 years, then separated/divorced, amicably. In the midst of all that I missed a USCIS filing date.
I was out of status briefly, but also in a situation where I was ostensibly entitled to stay (USCIS would have to demonstrate a belief that the marriage was under false pretences), so I hired an immigration attorney to straighten things out (which basically involved filing paperwork that I needed to file, and a letter from her and one from me explaining why I missed it.
She did make the comment to me during all that though that I had no cause for concern above and beyond that, quote:
"I hate that I can say it, but the reality is you're both 'the right color' and a high-earning male. USCIS has you so far down the list of their priorities for reconciliation you could stay here decades before them calling you to account".
Most K1 applications are approved, most are female, most are not white.
I doubt your case would have been any different had you not been a "'the right color' and a high-earning male".
She wasn't referring to K1 visas specifically, she was referring to USCIS and how they'd prioritize dealing with enforcement actions against people in non-compliance with their visa obligations.
And I'd suspect as an immigration attorney, she likely had first-hand experience of same.
Would be unlikely that the USCIS radically changed their approach when dealing with paperwork messups for populations if these different countries while apparently approving applications at basically the same exact rate.
You're not understanding. This has nothing to do with the K1 visa. Or approval rates. I came from a low risk country.
This is about adjustments of status, for any visa, and people who fall out of compliance and are in a period of being "unauthorized" to be/stay/work in the country.
And sorry, given ICE's mandates, ruled temporarily okay by SCOTUS, that color of skin, accent, name are effectively "probable cause" for detention, I'd say her perspective is absolutely aligned with current enforcement priorities.
I think you are not understanding me. My contention is adjustments of status snafus isn't going to be much different than K1 approval rates in terms of how people are treated. It seems by the numbers, people are treated the same as it relates K1 whether they come from a "right skin color" country or not. Why is that going to be wildly different when it comes to minor issues?
I wonder what conclusion the FBI's investigation will come to because it sure doesn't look good for ICE to me. Best case, those two agents get sentenced to life for murder but the damage is done and a life taken. If the officer fired two shots and she died at the scene then it seems reasonable to me the bullets didn't go through the windshield and, instead, went through her rolled down window while she was turning away from the officer. If that's the case then I'm predicting riots everywhere over the next couple weeks.
// i know pretty much zero details of what happened and it will be impossible to get any actual facts that are not politicized for weeks
Given that this administration appointed the head of the FBI due to his loyalty to Trump, the most likely reason they took over the investigation is to shield ICE from any accountability.
The US FBI now seems to act much as the National Enquirer does, as a "catch and kill" tool.
In the case of the Enquirer, this was through buying exclusive rights to inconvenient stories and refusing to publish them. In the case of the FBI, it's by claiming exclusive jurisdiction over incidents and quashing or impeding independent investigation.
Trump watched the video in front of a bunch of reporters and said "meh". Nothing will change for 3.5 years minimum. 40% of the country thinks he's doing great, and a greater percentage of those 40% vote vs the people who vote from the other group.
The only way elections will change anything is if the Senate flips to 2/3 control by the Dems. I doubt enough GOP will vote to convict to reach 2/3. So even if a 51% House impeaches, it will go no further. We've already seen this scenario. Twice.
Are they now? If so, where is the carefully nuance bio of Good? Why do I get choreographed and weirdly aligned responses from various online profiles ( my 'observer' note )? The answer is obvious: there are points to be made by strategically aligning her verious 'more than one thing' portions of persona to match a narrative, which, but I repeat myself, is very, very tiring.
I don't know, I don't think it's normally assumed that when someone dies (or more to the point is murdered) in a very public way we all immediately deserve to know every thing about them.
I don't know what you're talking about really. What I mean to say is the rest of this comment is incoherent to me.
BS. And I do not say this lightly. When it fits a given narrative, media has no issue or qualms in publishing anything and everything related to a given person they find online. It is only when they selectively release it over days that you just know how well the person does not fit the script, as it were.
She can be both, she will become lots of things over time depending on agenda. Her background was decidedly under-reported, for a few justifications, including preventing a preferred audience from sympathizing with the victim.
Not sure what your point is other than volume of information available increases over time.
You do have a point. My point is that we are constantly a part of informational warfare and it is getting old. I would love nothing more than people to look at it all with a cold eye and say something akin to: oh, I recognize this pattern. Instead, I attempts of various power centers to frame it in a way beneficial to them. Some of us are rather tired of this.
its not some pattern of abuse by shady actors manipulating opinions youre noticing, its voting algorithm and attention economy itself.
new ideas are constantly being published, and popular ones gain momentum by being shown to more people. as the idea gets saturated, the popularity gets overshadowed by the time based downranking.
if the idea is still popular though, in this case that ice murdered some woman as part of their shock and awe campaign, variations are going to show up such as "legal observer" and "mother of a three year old"
But why is your own framing exempt from the analysis? The idea that you should see a murder and "look at it all with a cold eye", to try and dispassionately understand whether it might have been justified, is a non-obvious idea that's quite advantageous to power centers that expect to be shooting people frequently.
Again, this concept of "newly assigned martyr" you have is not something that fell from heaven fully formed. It was shaped and given to you by what you call "power centers" - ones which are currently running the United States government! - because they think this framing is beneficial to them. I'm going to stop the conversation here before I start coming up with unwise insults, because it's just infuriating that you can't turn this critical eye on yourself and the informational warfare you're subject to.
What's infuriating is that you are acting as an agent of the government, defending their murder of a random citizen, but perceive yourself and frame yourself as a dispassionate observer who's interested in the media dynamics of how different descriptors get attached to people. I don't know if you started off like this, or if you're so deep in DHS propaganda that you can't find your way out, and right now I don't care to find out.
The difference between us that I know exactly what ( and even why ) I advocate for: keeping the system stable.
<< random citizen
She was a not some random citizen; I would have been addressing it differently if that was the case. Now, if you have a stomach for it, we can go over what kind of citizen she was.
I fundamentally disagree that ICE deserves that presumption. They have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be unreasonable people who want to hurt others. I'm sure there's a story they'll tell about why it was totally legal to shoot her, but they're murderers and you're supporting murderers until they prove that there was she was doing something so terrible they had no choice.
Hm, as with taxes, do we get to choose which federal enforcement agency we are willing to submit to? Not going to lie man, it is a fascinating frame of mind to me and I am absolutely willing to talk to you about it if you wanna go that route.
<< but they're murderers and you're supporting murderers until they prove
This is not exactly how any of it works, at all. I am not being difficult man, but I don't get to, say, block FBI caravan, because I don't think they deserve 'that' presumption ( quotation, because I am not certain what it refers to ).
I similarly don't get to tell DEA, ATF, and multiple other agencies to just fuck off, especially if I encounter them in the wild.. doubly so, if I was attempting to track them that day..
The real question then becomes:
Why do you think you get to pick and choose, who can enforce the laws of the land upon you?
More importantly, whose authority would you accept?
They just shot another couple in Portland. I get to tell them, and you, to fuck off as much as I'd like. I encourage you to get on board with the right side of this issue while you have the chance.
Good luck out there friend. I am not sure what you meant to say, but it may be a good idea to stop here for both of us. I see no reason to continue this further.
I think you know precisely what I meant to say. There will come a time when the stain of having supported these murderers will be inescapable. At best you'll live in fear that your life will be ruined forever if anyone ever makes a viral post with strategic quotes from your 2026 commentary. You still have a chance to escape that fate if you want to.
Best of luck in your endeavors. As noted above, it would be wise for you to stop now before you say something very, very unnecessary. I urge you to reconsider this path.
If you are actually issuing a threat and feel confident nonetheless, feel free to post it in plain English for everyone to see.
That said, in spirit of kumbaya hand holding, I would like to offer you a chance to look at the reality around you.
If you look at the released cam video, the only thing that is clear that Renee was not an innocent bystander.
I urge you to pull yourself out of the radicalization spiral you're in. This video shows an innocent victim whose murderer will be prosecuted and convicted. He calls the victim a "fucking bitch" at the end, I'm genuinely baffled what twists of logic you're using to not see this.
I would emphasize since you mentioned it that I don’t intend any sort of threat. Despite the murderers’ best efforts, we do still live in a free country with free speech. Supporting murder is a terrible thing to do, and I will never in this lifetime hold the hand of someone who does, but it isn’t a crime and doesn’t deserve anything other than deep and enduring shame.
Immigration can be enforced without murdering, gassing and viciously assaulting bystanders. Never mind the violations of human rights (like sending deportees to hellholes like CECOT), lying about citizen observers and continually having lawsuits tossed by grand juries.
It's a rogue agency with no accountability that will continue to cause untold harm while making everyone less safe.
I don't care what you think is viable anymore, because the current US immigration enforcement authorities are themselves criminals and murderers. Until Kristi Noem and Greg Bovino are in prison jumpsuits, I will never support the enforcement of US immigration laws and wholeheartedly endorse all lawful efforts to obstruct it.
It was not originally my ultimate position! During the Biden administration I was on exactly the opposite side: we have to enforce immigration law, it can't be subject to a heckler's veto, because if the government tells voters they're not allowed to have the immigration laws they want they're just going to elect a different government that allows it. I was heavily considering voting for Nikki Haley if she won the primary, and I think e.g. Canada and the UK are quite wise to see what's happening in the US and be more open to the idea of strict enforcement.
But Trump and his minions have worked hard to radicalize me over the past year, constantly arguing that everyone who personally dislikes Trump should be miserable and fear his wrath. They succeeded, so I no longer respect their authority and support all lawful efforts to obstruct anything they try to do. Perhaps in the future there will be a government I consider legitimate; if they can root out all of the goons Trump planted in DHS, I would endorse their authority to enforce immigration law again.
There's always been immigration and periodically it leads to scare mongering by people who don't like certain kinds of immigrants in their countries. Humans have migrated across the planet for tens of thousands of years.
There's always been immigration and periodically it leads to scare mongering by people who don't like certain kinds of immigrants in their countries. Humans have migrated across the planet for tens of thousands of years. There's nothing new about this.
A decade ago I put this stance into my LinkedIn profile tag line, and was a little surprised how many engineers reached out to praise that decision.
I think it's rapidly, finally, entering the realm of political viability.
All it took was a white mother (and US citizen) getting shot in broad daylight. As much as I hate to admit it, a large enough segment of the population needed something blatant like this to care.
It's not flattering to the US that the mother who was murdered needed specifically to be white for people to care.
> It's not flattering to the US
There's such a long list of things one could say that about.
In this instance the "representation matters" thought process seems to bear out.
Folks talk about aspiring to role models who look like them. People also react strongly when this sort of thing happens to someone who looks like them.
The problem is that you can slice representation every which way. It could be "I only identify with 6'3" males who live in Idaho and like trains", or it could be "I identify with humans".
The fact that US culture chooses to identify with people of the same colour is telling, though I don't know, maybe that's a human thing and my country is too homogeneous for me to think otherwise.
Don't worry, it's worse. Half the country has branded her as a terrorist, and her killer as a hero.
It's not. I was a "90 day fiance" immigrant (the concept, not the show).
We had a sincere relationship, but we both agreed that our marriage, while genuine, was earlier than it would have otherwise been other than logistics of an trans-Pacific romance.
We stayed together 5 years, then separated/divorced, amicably. In the midst of all that I missed a USCIS filing date.
I was out of status briefly, but also in a situation where I was ostensibly entitled to stay (USCIS would have to demonstrate a belief that the marriage was under false pretences), so I hired an immigration attorney to straighten things out (which basically involved filing paperwork that I needed to file, and a letter from her and one from me explaining why I missed it.
She did make the comment to me during all that though that I had no cause for concern above and beyond that, quote:
"I hate that I can say it, but the reality is you're both 'the right color' and a high-earning male. USCIS has you so far down the list of their priorities for reconciliation you could stay here decades before them calling you to account".
Most K1 applications are approved, most are female, most are not white. I doubt your case would have been any different had you not been a "'the right color' and a high-earning male".
She wasn't referring to K1 visas specifically, she was referring to USCIS and how they'd prioritize dealing with enforcement actions against people in non-compliance with their visa obligations.
And I'd suspect as an immigration attorney, she likely had first-hand experience of same.
The K1 approvel rate seems a decent proxy instead of 1 lawyer's opinion. Acceptance went up during V1 of the current administation. https://visagrader.com/visa-approvals-and-refusals/K1
Jamaica, not known for having lots of people with pale skin, has basicaly same approval rate as Germany. https://visagrader.com/visa-approvals-and-refusals/K1/jamaic...
https://visagrader.com/visa-approvals-and-refusals/K1/german...
Would be unlikely that the USCIS radically changed their approach when dealing with paperwork messups for populations if these different countries while apparently approving applications at basically the same exact rate.
You're not understanding. This has nothing to do with the K1 visa. Or approval rates. I came from a low risk country.
This is about adjustments of status, for any visa, and people who fall out of compliance and are in a period of being "unauthorized" to be/stay/work in the country.
And sorry, given ICE's mandates, ruled temporarily okay by SCOTUS, that color of skin, accent, name are effectively "probable cause" for detention, I'd say her perspective is absolutely aligned with current enforcement priorities.
I think you are not understanding me. My contention is adjustments of status snafus isn't going to be much different than K1 approval rates in terms of how people are treated. It seems by the numbers, people are treated the same as it relates K1 whether they come from a "right skin color" country or not. Why is that going to be wildly different when it comes to minor issues?
Video analysis is depressing: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis...
I wonder what conclusion the FBI's investigation will come to because it sure doesn't look good for ICE to me. Best case, those two agents get sentenced to life for murder but the damage is done and a life taken. If the officer fired two shots and she died at the scene then it seems reasonable to me the bullets didn't go through the windshield and, instead, went through her rolled down window while she was turning away from the officer. If that's the case then I'm predicting riots everywhere over the next couple weeks.
// i know pretty much zero details of what happened and it will be impossible to get any actual facts that are not politicized for weeks
Zero chance they will get life. Maybe they will get promoted. https://rollcall.com/2023/08/24/capitol-police-promotes-offi...
I don't want to be a doomer, but I think the FBI is highly unlikely to do an honest good-faith investigation here.
Given that this administration appointed the head of the FBI due to his loyalty to Trump, the most likely reason they took over the investigation is to shield ICE from any accountability.
The US FBI now seems to act much as the National Enquirer does, as a "catch and kill" tool.
In the case of the Enquirer, this was through buying exclusive rights to inconvenient stories and refusing to publish them. In the case of the FBI, it's by claiming exclusive jurisdiction over incidents and quashing or impeding independent investigation.
See "Former National Enquirer boss breaks his silence on 'catch and kill' as lead witness in Trump trial" (2024) <https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/media/national-enquirer-catch...> and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_kill> (concept) and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_and_Kill> (Ronan Farrow book).
Looking at the video in the link GP provided, it is obvious first shot went through the windshield. The others went through the side window.
This administration’s FBI is run by podcasters and completely incompetent.
Not incompetent, but operating as intended: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46554438>
The windshield shows a single bullet entry.
[flagged]
Trump watched the video in front of a bunch of reporters and said "meh". Nothing will change for 3.5 years minimum. 40% of the country thinks he's doing great, and a greater percentage of those 40% vote vs the people who vote from the other group.
If midterms go well, and the special elections last November suggest they may, then at least we may be able to blunt some of the harm.
But the underlying point that about 35% of Americans just fundamentally do not seem to value civilization is a problem that has to be worked around.
The only way elections will change anything is if the Senate flips to 2/3 control by the Dems. I doubt enough GOP will vote to convict to reach 2/3. So even if a 51% House impeaches, it will go no further. We've already seen this scenario. Twice.
[flagged]
You have it backwards. Police shooting a white person will get less attention than if they were not white.
Odd. I thought she was a legal observer. It is funny how quickly the narratives changed given how little traction was gained on 'observer' status.
most people are more than one thing.
Are they now? If so, where is the carefully nuance bio of Good? Why do I get choreographed and weirdly aligned responses from various online profiles ( my 'observer' note )? The answer is obvious: there are points to be made by strategically aligning her verious 'more than one thing' portions of persona to match a narrative, which, but I repeat myself, is very, very tiring.
> where is the carefully nuance bio of Good?
I don't know, I don't think it's normally assumed that when someone dies (or more to the point is murdered) in a very public way we all immediately deserve to know every thing about them.
I don't know what you're talking about really. What I mean to say is the rest of this comment is incoherent to me.
BS. And I do not say this lightly. When it fits a given narrative, media has no issue or qualms in publishing anything and everything related to a given person they find online. It is only when they selectively release it over days that you just know how well the person does not fit the script, as it were.
She can be both, she will become lots of things over time depending on agenda. Her background was decidedly under-reported, for a few justifications, including preventing a preferred audience from sympathizing with the victim.
Not sure what your point is other than volume of information available increases over time.
You do have a point. My point is that we are constantly a part of informational warfare and it is getting old. I would love nothing more than people to look at it all with a cold eye and say something akin to: oh, I recognize this pattern. Instead, I attempts of various power centers to frame it in a way beneficial to them. Some of us are rather tired of this.
its not some pattern of abuse by shady actors manipulating opinions youre noticing, its voting algorithm and attention economy itself.
new ideas are constantly being published, and popular ones gain momentum by being shown to more people. as the idea gets saturated, the popularity gets overshadowed by the time based downranking.
if the idea is still popular though, in this case that ice murdered some woman as part of their shock and awe campaign, variations are going to show up such as "legal observer" and "mother of a three year old"
basic correction below:
<< murdered
shot/killed
<< as part of their shock and awe campaign
law enforcement operation
<< its voting algorithm and attention economy itself
Sure, and yet we have people skilled in manipulating both for their own ends.
But why is your own framing exempt from the analysis? The idea that you should see a murder and "look at it all with a cold eye", to try and dispassionately understand whether it might have been justified, is a non-obvious idea that's quite advantageous to power centers that expect to be shooting people frequently.
Am I suggesting that you do not do it? Hardly. That said, I am simply not buying my newly assigned martyr.
Again, this concept of "newly assigned martyr" you have is not something that fell from heaven fully formed. It was shaped and given to you by what you call "power centers" - ones which are currently running the United States government! - because they think this framing is beneficial to them. I'm going to stop the conversation here before I start coming up with unwise insults, because it's just infuriating that you can't turn this critical eye on yourself and the informational warfare you're subject to.
Who says I can't? In any event, before you go, why, exactly, is it infuriating?
What's infuriating is that you are acting as an agent of the government, defending their murder of a random citizen, but perceive yourself and frame yourself as a dispassionate observer who's interested in the media dynamics of how different descriptors get attached to people. I don't know if you started off like this, or if you're so deep in DHS propaganda that you can't find your way out, and right now I don't care to find out.
The difference between us that I know exactly what ( and even why ) I advocate for: keeping the system stable.
<< random citizen
She was a not some random citizen; I would have been addressing it differently if that was the case. Now, if you have a stomach for it, we can go over what kind of citizen she was.
Sounds like, "What kind of American are you?" from the Jesse Plemmons character in the Alex Garland Civil War movie.
Shouldn't the fact that ICE shot a woman trying to leave the scene be enough?
<< Sounds like, "What kind of American are you?" from the Jesse Plemmons character in the Alex Garland Civil War movie.
You see what you want to see, which is kinda revealing if you ask me.
<< Shouldn't the fact that ICE shot a woman trying to leave the scene be enough?
No. It is not enough. Reasonable person would be unlikely to find themselves in that position, which begs a simple question:
What was her reason for being there?
If you can answer that, we can start having a conversation. Until then, she is not some rando at the wrong place at the wrong time.
I fundamentally disagree that ICE deserves that presumption. They have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be unreasonable people who want to hurt others. I'm sure there's a story they'll tell about why it was totally legal to shoot her, but they're murderers and you're supporting murderers until they prove that there was she was doing something so terrible they had no choice.
Hm, as with taxes, do we get to choose which federal enforcement agency we are willing to submit to? Not going to lie man, it is a fascinating frame of mind to me and I am absolutely willing to talk to you about it if you wanna go that route.
<< but they're murderers and you're supporting murderers until they prove
This is not exactly how any of it works, at all. I am not being difficult man, but I don't get to, say, block FBI caravan, because I don't think they deserve 'that' presumption ( quotation, because I am not certain what it refers to ).
I similarly don't get to tell DEA, ATF, and multiple other agencies to just fuck off, especially if I encounter them in the wild.. doubly so, if I was attempting to track them that day..
The real question then becomes:
Why do you think you get to pick and choose, who can enforce the laws of the land upon you?
More importantly, whose authority would you accept?
They just shot another couple in Portland. I get to tell them, and you, to fuck off as much as I'd like. I encourage you to get on board with the right side of this issue while you have the chance.
<< while you have the chance.
Good luck out there friend. I am not sure what you meant to say, but it may be a good idea to stop here for both of us. I see no reason to continue this further.
I think you know precisely what I meant to say. There will come a time when the stain of having supported these murderers will be inescapable. At best you'll live in fear that your life will be ruined forever if anyone ever makes a viral post with strategic quotes from your 2026 commentary. You still have a chance to escape that fate if you want to.
Best of luck in your endeavors. As noted above, it would be wise for you to stop now before you say something very, very unnecessary. I urge you to reconsider this path.
If you are actually issuing a threat and feel confident nonetheless, feel free to post it in plain English for everyone to see.
That said, in spirit of kumbaya hand holding, I would like to offer you a chance to look at the reality around you.
If you look at the released cam video, the only thing that is clear that Renee was not an innocent bystander.
Good luck out there man.
https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2009679932289626385
I urge you to pull yourself out of the radicalization spiral you're in. This video shows an innocent victim whose murderer will be prosecuted and convicted. He calls the victim a "fucking bitch" at the end, I'm genuinely baffled what twists of logic you're using to not see this.
I would emphasize since you mentioned it that I don’t intend any sort of threat. Despite the murderers’ best efforts, we do still live in a free country with free speech. Supporting murder is a terrible thing to do, and I will never in this lifetime hold the hand of someone who does, but it isn’t a crime and doesn’t deserve anything other than deep and enduring shame.
edit: I decided to remove the whole thing. It does not advance anything and it is largely pointless. Good luck out there.
What kind of citizen was she, comrade?
Friend, we are not comrades. Still, good luck out there. I am no longer engaging in this topic.
[flagged]
So you did it when Obama ( and the current ICE management ) were handling deportations?
He did say 10 years ago so...
[flagged]
Immigration can be enforced without murdering, gassing and viciously assaulting bystanders. Never mind the violations of human rights (like sending deportees to hellholes like CECOT), lying about citizen observers and continually having lawsuits tossed by grand juries.
It's a rogue agency with no accountability that will continue to cause untold harm while making everyone less safe.
[flagged]
What criminals are being allowed to persist and flourish? You're repeating propaganda from people who don't like immigrants of the wrong skin color.
Illegal aliens.
I don't care what you think is viable anymore, because the current US immigration enforcement authorities are themselves criminals and murderers. Until Kristi Noem and Greg Bovino are in prison jumpsuits, I will never support the enforcement of US immigration laws and wholeheartedly endorse all lawful efforts to obstruct it.
[flagged]
That's a very misleading selective quotation.
It was not originally my ultimate position! During the Biden administration I was on exactly the opposite side: we have to enforce immigration law, it can't be subject to a heckler's veto, because if the government tells voters they're not allowed to have the immigration laws they want they're just going to elect a different government that allows it. I was heavily considering voting for Nikki Haley if she won the primary, and I think e.g. Canada and the UK are quite wise to see what's happening in the US and be more open to the idea of strict enforcement.
But Trump and his minions have worked hard to radicalize me over the past year, constantly arguing that everyone who personally dislikes Trump should be miserable and fear his wrath. They succeeded, so I no longer respect their authority and support all lawful efforts to obstruct anything they try to do. Perhaps in the future there will be a government I consider legitimate; if they can root out all of the goons Trump planted in DHS, I would endorse their authority to enforce immigration law again.
[flagged]
There's always been immigration and periodically it leads to scare mongering by people who don't like certain kinds of immigrants in their countries. Humans have migrated across the planet for tens of thousands of years.
There's always been immigration and periodically it leads to scare mongering by people who don't like certain kinds of immigrants in their countries. Humans have migrated across the planet for tens of thousands of years. There's nothing new about this.