"You'll believe what I accuse you of believing and defend the straw-men I attribute to you", isn't a strong argument here. It is entirely personal and divorced from the original thread.
>> Certainly, there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch as a whole (and a particular focus on illegally purging federal law enforcement and internal government accountability officials), racial scapegoating, and massive "deportation" efforts that rapidly encompassing setting up massive concentration camps, almost all done by executive fiat, with the tacit support of a Congressional majority that is ideologically aligned with both the policies of the executive and the decision to execute them without regard to existing law rather than through legislation.
Description of facts
> The hyperbole is a bit much for me.
Your assessment.
Then you respond to every calling out as "I'm neutral"
Why is your perception of my views even on the table? Argue the topic, not the person.
>there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch...
As I've attempted to illustrate here repeatedly, authoritarianism is in direct contrast to cuts in state power. Especially as it concerns the specific comparisons to National Socialism made on this site. Totalitarian statists seek to increase the power of the state, not cut it. Your assertion is a non-sequitur.
>...purges of the executive branch as a whole...
The president is the head of the executive branch. With other administrative agencies, there is some dispute over the extent of presidential authority.
Deporting illegal immigrants is not comparable to Dachau or the actions of the National Socialists. Making this comparison trivializes genocide.
>I can only laugh at this point.
I don't find it funny in the least.
You would be right to say that mass deportation will probably involve violations of civil rights and profiling in practice. I hope we can agree in our opposition to this. However, illegal immigration is illegal. Circumventing immigration law by funding NGOs with taxpayer money is a greater expansion of state power. We should be more concerned with the victims who have been trafficked, including women and children. The incentives of the "amnesty" program's abuse led to the exploitation of minors. The abuse has to stop.
If partisans want immigration reform, they should pass the laws. Until then, enforcing the existing laws is not an expansion of state power. Circumventing the laws via NGOs is an expansion of state power. It is an usurpation of the democratic process you claim to value.
