zlacker

>>WaitWa+(OP)
I'm against this type of surveillance everywhere, but seeing the holier than thou attitude of some of the comments rubs me the wrong way.

Doing basically the same for people who are on the Epstein list was OK, but now it's wrong?

>>throwf+qp
Uh yeah, it's ok to track and arrest confirmed pedophiles, but not normal people at random

>>direwo+cL
The last time I looked illegal immigration is still illegal.

I don't see people protesting en masse to take Clinton, Trump, Gates etc. accountable. Maxwell Ghislaine is alive and well, and they can't get a incrementing confession.

But somehow people loose their shit when some MS-13 gang members get arrested.

>>throwf+rv1
Illegal immigration enforcement/code is civil, not criminal. If it was criminal, enforcement would require giving suspected offenders actual Article III judge hearings pre-every deporations, not use immigration court, etc. You know, rights. If you lot want to change it to criminal, go for it. But don't lie.

People lose their shit when the Constitution is violated. When civil norms are violated in evil ways. When people following the legal process with pending applications before the Government get punished/unfair enforcement against them because grannies in the government system are easier targets than tracking down actual MS-13 gang members. When law enforcement hides their identity and act like a secret police force ABOVE civilian oversite (again against the Supreme Court saying civilians have a right to monitor police actions and against American norms of... not having secret police).

>>_DeadF+jO1
My argument is not about the legality, but selectivity of the outrage. Somehow if it's politically beneficial there are a ton of people outraged, and in other times like the pedophile scandal of the century, with a lot of powerful people in it, no one seams to really care.

>>throwf+hV1
Funny because the first line of your point is "The last time I looked illegal immigration is still illegal." so specifically about the legality, and I explained what you said is not true, and that if it was these people would have legal protections that match what the Constitution requires and the public would be way less upset.

It sounds like you don't really care about the law, or people that want the constitution enforced, you care about the politics and if it the Constitution is politically inconvenient. Following the Constitution is ALWAYS the politically correct choice in the USA. Choosing the law over 'civil immigration enforcement' used as a loophole to bypass the law/Constitution is always the correct choice.