I don't think you're being disingenuous here, but I think you're missing the point
However, lets not pretend that everyone trump is deporting are criminals. [...] We ok with deporting immigrant protestors simply for advocating for Palestinian rights?
I don't care. If you're not a citizen, you should be trying to assimilate into American culture, or at least keeping your head down. "When in Rome" and all that.
Due to his criminal convictions and absence of legal status [...]
This is the most important part of the above paragraph. I'm going to assume you missed it. The article doesn't specify his crimes, but those are irrelevant. What is a government supposed to do with a criminal who is unable to establish a legal right to be present in their or any other country? Let him roam free because he happened to make it inside their borders?
You don't have a right to residence in a foreign country. In modern times we've invented a 'right' for 'refugees' to seek asylum within a nearby country, but this has been so thoroughly abused that, frankly, I don't think it's worth considering whether a migrant is a 'refugee' or not. If they aren't integrating and they aren't contributing to the wellbeing of society, they can leave or they can rot.
You're replying to an argument I didn't make, but it's worth addressing.
The right loses because they refuse to use their political power to defeat their enemies out of some combination of a sense of 'fairness' and fear of reprisal (and because an overwhelming majority of those in positions of power/influence are controlled opposition/uniparty establishment.) I don't give a damn about what the left might hypothetically do with this precedent, because the left does what they fucking want, regardless of precedent.
Additionally, Trump's EO on this specifies foreign terrorists/organizations. You can migrate to the US and join the KKK and you'll probably run into feds from every three-letter agency except ICE.
I'm not trying to say what you think I am: that the right shouldn't use the tools at the disposal because the left will use them in evil ways later. They'll do that regardless.
It just left a bad taste in my mouth to tell legal non-citizens who hold the same values as us that they should keep it to themselves. It's definitely the right answer from a pragmatic standpoint, but still...
I kept thinking about what I'd say to a legal resident of Canada who drove a truck. "Shut up and take the experimental jab. You're lucky to be in the country, so you can't complain?" Because terrorism certainly got used as a pretense to shut down legitimate protest there (and for the government to steal their money).
It just left a bad taste in my mouth to tell legal non-citizens who hold the same values as us that they should keep it to themselves. [...]
I kept thinking about what I'd say to a legal resident of Canada who drove a truck. [...]
When the government is tyrannical you only have three options: comply, resist, or leave. If you're going to choose resistance as a non-citizen, you'd better be assimilated well enough that people are willing to back you up when the government inevitably comes for you.
I don't think you're being disingenuous here, but I think you're missing the point
I don't care. If you're not a citizen, you should be trying to assimilate into American culture, or at least keeping your head down. "When in Rome" and all that.
This is the most important part of the above paragraph. I'm going to assume you missed it. The article doesn't specify his crimes, but those are irrelevant. What is a government supposed to do with a criminal who is unable to establish a legal right to be present in their or any other country? Let him roam free because he happened to make it inside their borders?
You don't have a right to residence in a foreign country. In modern times we've invented a 'right' for 'refugees' to seek asylum within a nearby country, but this has been so thoroughly abused that, frankly, I don't think it's worth considering whether a migrant is a 'refugee' or not. If they aren't integrating and they aren't contributing to the wellbeing of society, they can leave or they can rot.
If the left is in charge, sticking up for American culture is how you get designated a terrorist supporter.
You're replying to an argument I didn't make, but it's worth addressing.
The right loses because they refuse to use their political power to defeat their enemies out of some combination of a sense of 'fairness' and fear of reprisal (and because an overwhelming majority of those in positions of power/influence are controlled opposition/uniparty establishment.) I don't give a damn about what the left might hypothetically do with this precedent, because the left does what they fucking want, regardless of precedent.
Additionally, Trump's EO on this specifies foreign terrorists/organizations. You can migrate to the US and join the KKK and you'll probably run into feds from every three-letter agency except ICE.
I'm not trying to say what you think I am: that the right shouldn't use the tools at the disposal because the left will use them in evil ways later. They'll do that regardless.
It just left a bad taste in my mouth to tell legal non-citizens who hold the same values as us that they should keep it to themselves. It's definitely the right answer from a pragmatic standpoint, but still...
I kept thinking about what I'd say to a legal resident of Canada who drove a truck. "Shut up and take the experimental jab. You're lucky to be in the country, so you can't complain?" Because terrorism certainly got used as a pretense to shut down legitimate protest there (and for the government to steal their money).
When the government is tyrannical you only have three options: comply, resist, or leave. If you're going to choose resistance as a non-citizen, you'd better be assimilated well enough that people are willing to back you up when the government inevitably comes for you.