This is what I voted for.
--Boaz

"If you entered the country illegally"

So you are in favor of sending children to camps.

"One side believes the country should be preserved, protected, and handed down stronger to the next generation.
The other believes it should be dismantled."

You're on the dismantle side, Boaz.

What do you think DOGE did?

They dismantled entire sections of the Federal Government.

Trump remoning us from WHO, shuttering USAID, threatening to invade Greenland.

It's a dismantling of the Post-War Hegemony that has served American interests for eighty years

And you were happy to vote for dismantling it.

Do you deny this?

Building mass detentions camps is another dismantling of American values.

ICE raiding homes without a warrant signed by a judge is a dismantling of American values.

And you're happy about that one too.

"Are you aware that many, if not most, of the people being rounded up by ICE are actually here legally going through the process to gain legal status?"

^
I doubt you will get an answer.

They know we are mostly detaining people who are not violent criminals but simply came here to work -- or were bought here by their parents who came here to work.

They want all brown people gone, but they also know not to say that out loud.

They look at immigrants the same way Nazis looked at Jews and Epileptics and Gays and Gypsies. Garbage human beings who do not belong here and must be rounded up and sent to camps, to protect the purity of the nation's bloodline.

That's simply what they believe.

"They are all illegal first."

See, that's you, destroying American values.

America used to welcome refugees.

I personally know a refugee from Vietnam who was saved by Marines in Vietnam when be was a child, who later went on to become a United States Marine.

You would rather that kid and his family simply die at the hands of the enemy.

"Anyone going through the legal status, are they still citizens of their prior countries? Why is it a requirement that they stay here in the U.S. when asking to become a citizen?"

So you have no idea how the naturalization process works.

My mother lived in this country for decades before becoming a United States citizen.

Was that wrong? Was it bad that she was working and raising her American children in America?

"Why did she wait decades?"

You are kinda asking the question backwards.

Why should she want to be a United States citizen at all?

I'll tell you why she became a citizen. It wasn't an ideology. It was practical. It helped advance her career because there are certain jobs for which being an citizen is a de facto requirement. She worked in banks, and later for the Federal government.

So, again: Was it wrong for her to work in America and raise a family of American children, for over a decade, without being or even applying for American citizenship?

"We can still welcome immigrants, just not as many as before."

Why can't we?
What changed?
You can't say.
You don't even know.

Immigrants just cannot do it the way your mother did. Those times are over.
#37 | Posted by boaz

Why? What harm is it when say a person from Switzerland simply lives in America, has a job in America, pays American taxes?

What's the downside for America?

"A lot of people died for the establishment of the US.
And Dems just spit in their face treating this great nation as if the world would be better off without it."

Give me some examples of what you're talking about here.
Who are these people who died for the establishment of our nation. Nathan Hale?

"These children are not living on the streets or digging through garbage."

They're imprisoned.
That's supposed to be better?

We used to get immigrants from first world nations, now the majority are coming from 3rd world nations.
#44 | Posted by boaz

That's just a roundabout way of saying: They're not white enough for you.

Boaz says the "quality" of first world people is higher than third world people.

Boaz, do you not think that's just openly racist?
Especially the way Trump said it eight years ago. Racist, or not.

I understand she wanted to work for those jobs that were not available in her home country. It must not have been too much pressure to become an American, because she did wait that long.
But then again, that time is passed.
#42 | Posted by boaz

She lived in America to be the wife to her American husband working in America while she raised the kids.
Later, when the kids were in school, she returned to working.
The only "pressure" to become an American was to advance her career working for banks.

"Ellis Island was a holding pen for people who may not make the cut to be US citizens."

So, not a concentration camp for migrants, many if not most of whom are here legally.

You're the one talking about race.
#63 | Posted by BillJohnson

Boaz is the one who brought race into it when he said people from First World countries get to come into America and people from Third World countries are not high enough quality to come to America.

What color are people from First World countries?
What color are people from Third World countries?

You guys saw Coming to America with Eddie Murphy and it made you sick to your stomach.
You hate America.

"I don't think it represents a dismantling of American values now any more than when it was happening at Ellis Island. "

The difference is we weren't having the Gestapo round people up who are here legally and send them to camps in Ellis Island.

I'm sure that's what the found fathers had in mind when they created the electoral college. How to keep ------ down.
#115 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Thomas Jefferson enslaved his own dark children that were birthed by his sex slave Sally Hemings.
So, there's more to it than the Electoral College.

People like MadBomber are modern-day Know-Nothings.
Not that they have enough education to know who the Know-Nothings were, or to see the similarities.

The immigration thing is the only thing I actually like, although it appears to me to be clumsy and inefficient.
#109 | Posted by madbomber

In what world is there any improvement when we increase ICE spending from $11B to to $75B, and we aren't even exceeding the numbers of deportations as Biden, Obama, or Trump's first term?

It stands to reason the only thing you like is the violence towards immigrants, and Untied States citizens suspected of being immigrants.

But if there's other things you like, feel free to tell us what they are.

"Who determines if a law was broken?"
The written law.
#101 | Posted by boaz

So why is ICE detaining people who are here legally and haven't broken any law?

The five year old they flew to to Texas detention. Why even detain him? He and his father were both released, so why wee they ever detained in the first place?

These are the questions you don't even think about. You don't even care.

"Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias is a legal asylum-seeker from Ecuador who entered the United States in 2024 through a formal port of entry at Brownsville, Texas, using the CBP One app to schedule an appointment for asylum. His legal status is that of a pending asylum applicant, with no criminal record and no prior deportation orders. He and his 5-year-old son, Liam Conejo Ramos, were detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on January 20, 2026, during a targeted operation"

Why do you support that?

"Hire more judges. We can hire more ICE but not the judges?"
Technically, right now ICE managers are the judges. Wouldn't it make sense to hire "judges" that only focused on immigration?
#104 | Posted by madbomber

Wow.
You have zero ability to recognize a grift when you see one.
If we hire more immigration judges, how are we going to keep immigrants locked up indefinitely?

Flying all those immigrants around, that's corporate welfare.
Building camps for all the people we aren't simply deporting, that's corporate welfare.
Buying all the things ICE is using, car rentals, hotel rooms, that's corporate welfare.

"But there certainly wasn't a constitutional limitation on black people voting."

Sure there is.
Slaves aren't citizens under the Constitution.

Oh, did you mean other black people?
There certainly wasn't a constitutional limitation on the States preventing black people from voting.

There isn't a Constitutional limitation on women voting.
So how did it come to pass that women couldn't vote until the Nineteenth Amendment?

Do you even know?
Do you even care?

If they are here legally, let them get back to life.
#158 | Posted by madbomber

Why even disrupt their life, if they are here legally.

Sounds like you support locking up all immigrants, until it's determined they are here legally.
Is that correct?

That's the fascism and the racism we're talking about.
Using the law to detain people who are here legally, just because they're immigrants.

" I'll go out on a limb and say that my familiarity with the constitution exceeds yours."

Let's put that to the test with two easy questions!

1. Is ICE Constitutionally permitted to raid a home without a warrant signed by a judge?
2. Is ICE raiding homes without a warrant signed by a judge?

"Does madbomber think black people, or women for that matter, were allowed to vote when the founding fathers created the constitution?"
Women? No. Black People? Yes.
#121 | Posted by madbomber

There's never been anything in the Constitution, past or present, that says women can't vote.
The words "man" and "woman" do not appear in the Constitution at all.
The word "sex" only appears one time in the Constitution, in the 19th Amendment.

"Nothing in the constitution prevented them from voting."

That's by design.
The Constitution doesn't place limits on people.
The Constitution places limits on government.

It doesn't need to be prevented in the Constitution, when the Constitution grants the States rights to run their elections as they see fit.

How'd you swear an Oath to all this, without even knowing what you were swearing to uphold and protect? Does your word mean nothing to you?

If a German on a tourist visa gets a DUI in the US and is deported, do you view that as a deprivation of life, liberty, or property?
#146 | Posted by madbomber

Obviously. Getting arrested and departed a deprivation of liberty.

Present a Green Card or a US Passport...No different than you or I.
"Sounds like you support locking up all immigrants, until it's determined they are here legally. Is that correct?"
Um, it should take less than a day to prove that you are in the country legally. Am I wrong?
#169 | Posted by madbomber

So do you just not realize, or do you deny, that people are presenting these things to ICE and are still getting taken?
Is there an endless firehose of willful ignorance on your part?

"Um, it should take less than a day to prove that you are in the country legally. Am I wrong?"
Read the article at the top of the page. Children get detained for twenty or thirty days at a time.
Now, someone's immigration status can be determined almost immediately,
But we detain them for longer because of the racism and the fascism.
To send a message that the people who are here legally are not welcome.
Do you disagree?

Us liberals are not opposed to deporting violent, dangerous criminals.
We are opposed to treating all immigrants like they are violent, dangerous criminals.
Fact is, the overwhelming majority of people in ICE detention have no criminal record.
Those people shouldn't be detained at all.

There's no sensible reason to send asylum seekers and non-violent civil offenders to camps en masse.
Doing so is racism and fascism.

It's not obvious. How is deportation from a country you're not a citizen of a deprivation of liberty?
#176 | Posted by madbomber

How was slavery a deprivation of liberty? Slaves weren't citizens either.
Maybe you don't think slavery was a deprivation of liberty, is that where this is going?

Um, it should take less than a day to prove that you are in the country legally. Am I wrong?
#169 | Posted by madbomber

That's not the question.
The question is not about how long it takes to prove they're legal.
The question is, do you support locking up all suspected immigrants until we can ensure their legal status.

The question is, should we lock them all up, until ICE is satisfies they are legal?

Should people including Untied States citizens who are suspected of being here unlawfully enjoy a presumption of innocence?
Or should people including Untied States citizens be taken to camps until they are vetted and verified?

Are you opposed to people who are in the US illegally?
#186 | Posted by madbomber

I'm not opposed to it enough to hunt them down like they're Anne Frank.
I'm not opposed to it enough to increase the ICE budget from $11B to $75B and at the same time ICE isn't actually showing a marked increase in the amount of people being deported.

How about you, are you so opposed to people who are in the US without authorization that it's become a $75B problem and we're right to hunt them down, like the Gestapo came for all those people memorialized on the little brass cobblestones you see as you walk around Germany?

Do you see those, and think we should have those in the United States, as a celebration of what we are doing?

So let's just be clear. Should someone who entered the US illegally be allowed to stay, even though they have not met the requirements to be a legal resident?
Ja oder nein?
#195 | Posted by madbomber

"Be allowed" is the default state of existence in a free society.
There's no need to pursue illegal entrants with the fervor of the Gestapo hunting down Jews.
As has been documented countless times, undocumented people have a lower rate of criminal behavior than native born citizens.
Should native born citizens who commit minor crimes be sent to camps?

To answer your question, it depends.
If the only option is Gestapo, then my answer is they should "be allowed" to stay.
If the option is doing it the way Obama did it, then sure, they can be deported.

It's not worth spending $75B on.
Things seemed to be going along fine when we were only spending $10B on this.

"My family were the ones in the camp."

Were they in the camp because their presence was illegal?

"My family were the ones in the camp."
Were they in the camp because their presence was illegal?
#208 | Posted by snoofy

^
I think this is the most important question here, so I'll ask it again.

Why was your family in camps?
Was it legal to send your family to camps?

Was it bad?
Was it... wrong?

""Be allowed" is the default state of existence in a free society."
Can I enter your house without your permission?
#215 | Posted by BillJohnson

Who said my house is a free society?

You consider the Untied States to be your exclusive "home" with "Castle Doctrine" in force.
You, and you alone, get to decide who's a guest here, and anyone who isn't wanted can be what, wished into the cornfield?
Yep... You're a fascist.

It means nothing to you that in a different time, you would be sent to camps just for being gay.
Even as you entered the Navy through lies, and broke Federal law.
Should you have been sent to the camps for that?
"Liar" seems to be your defining personality trait.

But I don't think that ICE is on a mission to kill non-citizens.
#198 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You're not really much of a thinker.
You don't even know what mission ICE is on, or how they're tasked with carrying out that mission.
And the reason you don't know is you're not really much of a thinker.

Yeah champ. My family were the ones in the camp.
Feel stupid yet? Feel like an ------- yet?
#194 | Posted by madbomber

We're not the ones saying your family deserved to be sent to camps.

You're the one saying your family deserved to be sent to camps.

He never claimed to be Jewish. I think he's Serbian or something. Certainly raised with fascist values, that much is clear.

But yeah he seems like the kind of guy who would have no problem telling a lie, to score political points.
Like JD Vance's lie about Haitians eating people's pets.
That kind of pure fabrication from our political leaders is okay with him.
Support probably depends on his belief in the cause the lie is furthering and nothing else.
Blatant, manipulative, intentional lies are certainly not a deal-breaker for him.
He lies constantly that the Nazis are Socialists, when even the Nazis admitted they lied about being Socialists to fool people.

We humans have much to learn.
#229 | Posted by BillJohnson

You haven't even learned it's wrong to send people to camps.

Are you opposed to people who are in the US illegally?
#186 | Posted by madbomber

You're laser beam focused on missing the point of all this.
There are better solutions to this so-called problem than having the Gestapo rounding people up and sending people to camps:

UAPs aren't defying the laws of physics.
They're doing physical activities our aircraft can't do.
Two very different things.

maybe we're just sending the wrong people to camps.
#237 | Posted by BillJohnson

I'm sure you believe that.
That's how fascists believe the world should operate.
Fascists think their political opponents should be rounded up and sent to camps.

"there are people who shouldn't be free."

I don't believe there's a group of twenty million people who need to be rounded up en masse and sent to camps.

Do you?