Anonymous #1 1d

What if I believe the distinction is false, and there is no difference between personal or private property, and it is authoritarian to have someone judge whether an item is one or the other arbitrarily?

5

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

thankfully you do not determine what is and is not authoritarianism, especially since you seemingly can’t recognize authoritarianism in the face of an ethnic cleansing. in terms of private vs personal property, personally the important part here is the means of production. call it private property still if you want, who gives a fuck lol, the point is that individual people should not have the right to own and dictate the means of production used and relied by the entirety of society

3

Anonymous #3 1d

I’m not sure I would take the position that enforcing federal immigration law is ethnic cleansing, that seems like a radical claim. Why is it bad if individual people own the means of production? Whenever I see the means of production forcibly taken from the people that own them, a lot of innocent people die and starve

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

except they’re not merely enforcing immigration law, they explicitly rewrote the immigration system in this nation removing the well established precedent of asylum while establishing accelerated pathways for white South Africans and white Europeans specifically; in conjunction with the Supreme Court declaring that discrimination based on one’s ethnicity is a valid qualifying metric for immigration stops.

4

Anonymous #3 1d

it’s so convenient for you to glance over those fundamental facts while attempting to dismiss the growing ethnic cleansing occurring within this nation.

3

Anonymous #3 1d

I’m not sure there is any legal difference between the immigration system today and 2 years ago. Enforcement strategy changed, but I haven’t seen any laws changed. You are using the term precedent incorrectly. The executive branch has the authority to judge how fast and how strict to be when reviewing asylum cases. Asylum is not ended, it is mostly paused since the immigration system is overwhelmed and backlogged. From 2021-2025, this backlog doubled, tripled in various ways.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

I do not support accelerated pathways for South Africans or any other demographic of asylum seekers. Is there a specific Supreme Court case you have a problem with? I would like to review it. To accept that ethnic cleansing is happening or being attempted, I would at least need a definition. I imagine we disagree on whether the definition is being appropriately applied here.

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

again, conveniently glancing over important factors to justify your beliefs; and your doubt does not change the reality of the situation. as i stated, the Supreme Court issued a devastating ruling in this regard (which, once again, you disregard) here’s the definition of ethic cleansing as per the United Nations, maybe the issue here is a fundamental ignorance on your part regarding what constitutes an ethnic cleansing (aside from your outright support for such)

5

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 1d

You may not support it, but it is happening, that is not able to be disregarded solely because you as an individual claim to dislike it (while defending everything else about this aggressive acceleration of forced mass deportations)

3

Anonymous #3 1d

I’ll be back shortly with the exact SCOTUS case, i have to drive home from class briefly.

3

Anonymous #3 1d

2025 Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem the Supreme Court blocked / granted a stay (at the request of the federal government) for a temporary restraining order issued by a lower court that prevented ICE from performing immigration stops based solely on race, language spoken, ethnicity, or location.

3

Anonymous #3 1d

because it was indeed the Supreme Court who issued that order, that established a new precedent nationwide that allows for immigration stops to be based solely on those aforementioned factors (being race, ethnicity, language spoken, location, etc); which were mostly protected characteristics up until that point. the downstream effects, most of which haven’t even been seen yet, will be devastating as the Supreme Court issued a ruling that directly contradicts the Civil Rights Act and other

4

Anonymous #3 1d

legislation aimed at preventing discrimination based on factors as such. it’s a fucking ethnic cleansing, and they’re not even trying to hide it; they don’t even have to because they have: 1. a bunch of genuinely prejudiced supporters cheering them on; and 2. a bunch of overwhelmingly dismissive or ignorant supporters who either do not care about, or do not realize, the severity of these actions and rulings.

2

Anonymous #3 1d

my question for you, enemyofmyenemy, is which one are you?

5

Anonymous #3 14h

I reviewed the case, I read major parts of the ruling. A single ruling in the present is not precedent. That is not an accurate use of the term precedent. I think may have missed the actual guidance given by the ruling. In this case, the court reaffirmed that immigration stops must be initiated based on a minimum standard of “reasonable suspicion”, and that individual characteristics such as race, location, language, cannot be used individually as a standard of reasonable suspicion.

0

Anonymous #3 14h

The key difference from the district court, is the Supreme Court finds that characteristics such as ethnicity, location, language, employment type, etc. are still “relevant factors” that when given in combination with other relevant factors, can build a joint standard that rises to the bar required to achieve reasonable suspicion, therefore justifying the immigration stop. I’m not sure where you’re getting this term “protected characteristics” with regards to immigration law. Can’t validate rn

0

Anonymous #3 14h

Your statement that the Supreme Court declared that discrimination based on ethnicity is a qualifying metric for immigration stops is incorrect, and seems to imply you think one’s ethnicity should not be considered at all when evaluating reasonable suspicion for illegal status, which does not seem to make sense in reference to either the majority or minority opinion in the ruling. Your description completely misses the point of the ruling and the appeal

0

Anonymous #3 14h

One of your replies also references the civil rights act, which I’m assuming you are actually trying to refer to the 1965 voting rights act in Louisiana v Callais (2026). Not sure what district court immigration stop litigation has to do with national electoral jurisdictions. Your argument that the government and Supreme Court are trying to legalize discrimination based on race or skin color or soemthing would need to be explained, maybe you could try to argue there is a unified strategy ? Idk

0

Anonymous #3 13h

So then back to ethnic cleansing, I’m not sure how the federal government and ICE, staffed increasingly by people of Latin or Hispanic descent, could be commiting ethnic cleansing against Latin and Hispanic people. The people pursuing mass deportation are of various ethnic, economic, and religious backgrounds, and they are deporting people of various ethnic and religious backgrounds.

0

Anonymous #3 13h

The only through line between the people doing deportation and the people being deported is that the people doing deportation are federal agents, using federal immigration law that has existed for decades, and the people being deported are in violation of those federal immigration laws. Immigration enforcement based only on legal status is not a key quality of ethnic cleansing, and there is no specific targeting of one demographic group by another demographic group based solely on ethnicity.

0

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 4h

you’re being *immensely* disingenuous, but I’d assume that stems from your support of what we’re discussing. the case did not merely rule that those are relevant factors, it ruled that stops may be performed *solely* on those factors; upending a lower court’s temporary restraining order that prevented ICE agents from explicitly performing stops solely based on one’s race, ethnicity, spoken language, location, etc.

1

Anonymous #3 4h

either you read the case and decided to misrepresent it, or you did not read it whatsoever.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 4h

tokenization does not change the slightest thing about my stance, and it’s quite interesting that you decided to utilize that as your chosen defense. need I remind you off that definition again? additionally, need I remind you that only specific people are being targeted for mass deportation? we don’t see white undocumented immigrants being targeted for deportation, and in fact we see the exact opposite (accelerating immigration of white immigrants while limiting the ability for everyone else)

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 3h

you’re outright lying, especially based on your misrepresentation of Vasquez Perdomo v Noem. I also suspect that you know you’re blatantly lying, and do not give a fuck. hiding your violence behind malicious intellectualism might work against some laymen, but it ultimately will not save you.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 3h

and what did the supreme court overrule in the process? a decision that prevented immigration stops SOLELY based on race, ethnicity, language spoken, etc. also what the fuck are you talking about? race and ethnicity are both protected characteristics under the civil rights act and federal law. this ruling fundamentally weakens that protection, as now stops are allowed to be performed on anyone based on their race and ethnicity, if the agent so chooses.

1

Anonymous enemyofmyenemy 3h

Dipshit, the civil rights act of 1964. if I meant the voting rights act of 65, I would’ve fucking said the voting rights act. what the fuck? you genuinely are disingenuous as fuck. it’s so funny how you claim to dislike certain aspects of this ethnic cleansing while functionally defending every single part of it.

1

Anonymous #3 3h

this was not a rhetorical question btw, which one? are you outright hatefully in support of this cleansing, or are you too dismissive to recognize it as such, and ultimately just do not give a fuck because it doesn’t directly impact you?

1