> A country can't decide who comes into their country?
Reading someone else's mind but I think the author could've phrased it better: The ongoing deportation is concerning not because of the legitimacy or not of nation states. It's the abrupt voiding of existing policies (people being deported under conditions that should not have applied to them) & its normalization, and the possible damages to be inflicted upon American citizens in the process, e.g. if you require all aliens to carry their papers all the time and can be searched for any reason, in practice how could this be made distinguishable from racial profiling and prevented from individual abuses?
Anti-American is such a curious word. In authoritarian regimes political dissidents are never prosecuted as such, they are labeled as anti-$homeland. I've never thought the Americans have a taste for using it.
> The second amendment, and guns, means that is easier to defend myself and my family.
I thought the second amendment was meant to let citizens retain means to rebel a tyrannical government when the time comes, not to defend themselves from average armed robbery,
> Or that a smaller, weaker person can defend themselves and their property against a larger stronger person. They are the great equalizer.
What do you think modern policing and the whole institution around it is for?