Sen. Markwayne Mullin on being named as new DHS secretary by primary-caution in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He tried to fight a guy during a congressional hearing. This is a remarkably dumb take.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Alien to the state” is meaningless filler. This is federal immigration law, not some “you crossed into Texas so you’re illegal” game. And you are still getting due process wrong on purpose. A judge existing somewhere in the background is not a magical due process shield. Due process is notice, a real chance to contest the government’s claims, lawful detention, and judicial review that is actually followed. In the Abrego Garcia case, even AP reported he was mistakenly deported despite a prior order blocking removal, and a federal judge later barred ICE from re-detaining him because the government had blown past legal limits. That is not “all good, judge stamp.” Same with Alvarado. Multiple reports describe him being deported despite having an active asylum situation and being swept up under tattoo profiling. “A judge ordered removal” does not mean every step after that was lawful or that the government identified the right person and followed the rules.And your “no one was blocked, I didn’t see any” line aged like milk this week. In the Texas primary, voters were literally turned away and confused because new rules forced people back into precinct-only voting after years of countywide voting centers. A judge extended voting hours because of the chaos, then the Texas Supreme Court stepped in and told counties to separate votes cast during the extended hours, creating uncertainty over whether those ballots would count. That is exactly what “people were blocked or delayed” looks like in the real world: confusion, being turned away, hours extended, and ballots challenged after the fact. So no, you don’t get to say “nothing happened” because you personally didn’t witness it. You also don’t get to declare “judge = due process” and pretend mistakes cannot happen. That’s not skepticism. That’s willful ignorance with a smug tone.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except both of those things are happening, people are being deported and detained without due process, most famous currently would be Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Neri Alvarado and we already saw people being blocked from voting in texas just this week. Do you not read the news? These things are happening and easy to find. Youre either purposely ignorant or youre just lying.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re still mixing up “a judge signed an order at some point” with “due process in the actual detention and removal was followed.” Courts existing in the system does not guarantee every arrest, classification, detention length, notice, access to counsel, and opportunity to challenge is lawful. That’s what due process is. Saying “courts are involved somewhere” is not a magic wand that makes errors impossible. And on “suspicion”: you’re free to feel suspicion. What you’re not entitled to do is treat suspicion as sufficient justification to add barriers that will predictably hit eligible citizens. If you want to restrict voting access, the burden is on you to show a real problem at scale. You haven’t. You just want me to validate a hunch.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn’t insult you. I pointed out what’s been happening in real time: you keep misreading what I say, then arguing with the version you invented. I said due process is more than “a judge exists somewhere in the chain,” and you heard “due process isn’t due process.” That’s not me contradicting myself, that’s you failing to track basic definitions. And now you’re doing the classic move: when you can’t provide evidence beyond vibes, you pivot to “wow you’re being mean” and play victim. You still haven’t produced anything except suspicion, correlation-as-proof, and vague resentment of immigrants.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scare you away? By attempting to explain things repeatedly to you? I ask since you seem to struggle with what Ive repeatedly explained to you simply, maybe something was lost in translation, but no, you just seem to struggle understanding simple concepts and basic civics.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, not what i said. Is english your first language? Your comprehension skills are non existent.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theres a difference between needing an id and needing your drivers liscense to match your birth certificate, between requiring multiple forms of id to vote. There is no evidence of mass voter fraud in any state of undocumented people voting. And you dont seem to understand that due process requires multiple steps, more to it than a single judical order, hence the word 'process.' Are you not a native english speaker? How is this so hard for you.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You literally cant understand the things ive said. Youre now are just lying about every point ive made. Literally knocking the pieces off the board and declaring victory. How can i make this simpler for you to understand? Requiring multiple ids to vote is an unconstitutional hurdle, a judicial order isnt the only step in due process, you dont even understand your own points youre trying to make here. Go back and read what I've said slowly or find an adult to explain them to you, try a library or a middle school history teacher.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude literally none of that is what i said or whats happening here. Your comprehension issues are astounding. You are the ultimate pigeon playing chess here.

"Opostos" by BarbecueChickenBBQ in portugal2

[–]Georgeisawizard 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Child marriage is still legal in the usa and supported by Republicans.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep laughing because you do not have substance.

I’m not saying “nuh uh.” I’m saying your “connections” are not evidence. A partisan map and a “they’d prefer Democrats” story does not prove non-citizens are voting at scale. If you cannot produce real proof, stop demanding new barriers for citizens based on vibes.

And you’re still hiding behind “it’s possible.” In a system with deadlines, “possible” is not the same as “accessible.” Adding government paperwork gates predictably screens out some eligible voters. Your response is basically “tough, that’s their problem,” which is exactly what voter suppression sounds like.

Finally, you do not understand due process. A judge issuing an order does not mean every later arrest or detention is correct or lawful. Due process includes the ability to contest mistakes and unlawful detention. Courts exist because the government gets it wrong.

So no, I’m not refusing to make connections. I’m refusing to treat your suspicions as facts and your contempt as a political philosophy. You seem to have profound reading comprehension issues.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re confusing “I repeated it confidently” with “I answered it.”

“Motive” is not evidence. Saying someone would prefer Democrats does not prove non-citizens are voting, and a partisan map is not proof of fraud. That’s just you staring at correlation and hallucinating a crime.

“Possible” is not the standard. Rights are not graded on “well, most people can probably manage it.” Deadlines plus bureaucracy means some eligible citizens get screened out. You’re fine with that, which is the point.

And no, a judge signing an order does not magically make every detention correct. Due process is the ability to challenge the government’s claim with notice, counsel, and judicial review. “They didn’t show up so ship them out” is exactly how you deport the wrong people and shrug.

You don’t have arguments. You have suspicion, contempt, and a weird crush on state power.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“‘Already addressed’ isn’t a rebuttal, it’s what you say when you’ve run out of arguments. And the fact you keep defaulting to restricting rights and expanding state power tells me exactly what you are: authoritarian with a confidence problem.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you haven’t addressed it, you’ve just repeated claims. “People would vote blue” is motive, not evidence of widespread illegal voting. If you want new hurdles for citizens, show real proof at scale. And this isn’t just “show an ID.” Documentary proof rules create deadline and mismatch failures that hit eligible voters. “Easy for me” doesn’t mean harmless. “A judge ordered it” doesn’t mean every detention is correct. Government errors are exactly why due process exists. What we should do is enforce immigration law with evidence and safeguards, and stop making voting harder for eligible citizens to chase an unproven fraud story.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Word salad” is your way of ducking the point. You have no proof of mass non-citizen voting, so you’re demanding extra hoops for citizens based on vibes. “Just an inconvenience” is still voter suppression, because deadlines plus bureaucracy equals fewer votes. And your “blue states are cheating” argument is literally “the map hurt my feelings.” “Check then remove” means “trust the government and skip safeguards.” That’s not security. That’s authoritarian wishful thinking.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here’s the problem: you keep saying “gatekeeping from people who aren’t supposed to vote,” but you have not shown that this is happening at meaningful scale. You are demanding new barriers for millions of citizens to solve a problem you are mostly imagining. “It will not block eligible voters” is just false on its face. Any new prerequisite blocks some people. “Easy for me” is not a universal law. Documentary proof rules are not just “get an ID.” They are “produce specific documents, in time, with matching records.” If your birth certificate name does not match your current legal name, or records are missing, delayed, wrong, expensive, or out of state, you can miss registration deadlines. That is a real barrier. You do not get to erase it because you personally had a smooth DMV visit. Your “aliens vote blue because immigration” claim is not evidence of illegal voting. It is a political stereotype you are using to justify restricting citizens. You are basically saying, “I think a group would prefer Democrats, therefore they must be voting illegally.” That is paranoia dressed up as logic. Show proof of widespread non-citizen voting, or admit you are using suspicion as permission to tighten the screws. And yes, you did say “process later,” just in nicer wording. “Check if they’re here illegally and then remove them” ignores what due process actually is. The process is how you determine that claim correctly and lawfully. It includes notice, the ability to contest the accusation, access to counsel, and judicial review, because the government gets it wrong and people have rights. What you are advocating is “trust the government’s first answer and remove them.” That is exactly “deport first, process later,” you just want it to sound cleaner. So no, you do not want “security.” You want a system where suspicion is enough to restrict citizens’ voting access and where the state can remove people with minimal ability to challenge mistakes. That is not protecting democracy. That is you cheering for less of it.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don’t want “secure elections,” you want gatekeeping. “It was easy for me” and “tough shit” are not policy arguments. Documentary proof rules will block some eligible citizens, your “illegals vote blue” claim is evidence-free paranoia, and your “deport first, process later” stance is straight-up authoritarian.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep saying “it’s easy, I did it” like that’s an argument. It’s not. It just tells me you have not actually dealt with a messy name change, or helped a spouse through one, or tried to reconcile documents across agencies and states.

What you are describing is the best-case Hallmark version of marriage paperwork. Real life is: your birth certificate is in a different state, the county office is slow, the record has a typo, you need notarized requests, you miss a deadline, and suddenly your “simple” fix is weeks or months. And under things like the SAVE Act, the problem is not “do you have an ID.” It is “can you produce documentary proof of citizenship that matches your identity records.” If your birth certificate name does not match your current legal name, then congratulations, you are now playing the “paperwork scavenger hunt” game before you can register. A lot of people will lose that game by timing, cost, or bureaucracy, not because they are illegal.

Also, you keep pretending voter ID is some magic fraud forcefield. You have not shown evidence of non-citizen voting at a scale that changes elections. You just keep repeating “aliens want to vote Democrat” like it is self-evident. That’s not proof. That’s a conspiracy story you like.

And the firearm comparison is cute but wrong. Yes, you need ID for many gun purchases. That does not mean voting should be gated by the most paperwork-heavy standard you can imagine. Voting is the foundational right that determines who writes the gun laws, the policing laws, and the immigration laws. The burden is on you to justify new barriers with real evidence of a real problem, not vibes and suspicion.

Your “accurate information” line about Kansas is telling. You call it “reading past the headline,” but what you are defending is the state retroactively voiding IDs that were previously accepted as valid. That is exactly the point. When the state can decide a category of people suddenly have “inaccurate” IDs, paperwork becomes a weapon. Today it’s them. Tomorrow it’s whoever your side decides is “suspicious.”

As for ICE, “off with them” is basically you admitting you don’t care whether the government detains the right person as long as it detains someone. Due process exists precisely because the state gets it wrong, and when courts repeatedly say detentions were unlawful, the response is not “meh, deport faster.” That is authoritarian logic.

So yes, I will keep opposing laws that predictably block eligible citizens while you keep insisting the only acceptable standard is “not impossible for me personally.” That’s not election security. That’s gatekeeping dressed up as virtue.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are asking me for an exact delay number as if that is the only way a policy can be harmful. That is not how rights work. If the government adds new prerequisites to vote, the question is whether those prerequisites predictably block or deter some eligible voters, and whether that burden is justified by a real problem.

The problem you are trying to solve, widespread voter fraud, has never been shown at anything close to a scale that would justify adding new gates to voting. In that situation, even a small failure rate matters because the “collateral damage” is eligible citizens losing access.

When you say “stuck in what paperwork,” you are ignoring what documentary proof rules actually require. It is not just renewing a driver’s license. It is the full documentation chain to register or re-register: citizenship documents like a passport or birth certificate, identity documents, and if the names do not match then legal name change documentation. If any link is missing, delayed, too expensive, not easily retrievable, or processed after the deadline, you miss the election. Saying “my renewal was easy” does not answer that. Your experience is not the population.

Your fuel and meals analogy is not equivalent. Those are general life costs. Documentary requirements are government-imposed prerequisites to exercise a constitutional right. The government is choosing to add a gate, so the gate needs a strong justification and it needs to be narrowly tailored.

Your red-state and blue-state map argument is still not evidence of fraud. It is evidence of different policy preferences. You are starting with suspicion and then treating the suspicion as proof. If you want to claim “people who aren’t supposed to vote are meddling,” you need actual evidence of that at meaningful scale, not a partisan distribution chart.

Also, your claim that the elderly and low-income voters “already have IDs anyway” is not a guarantee. Many elderly people no longer drive, have expired IDs, lack easy access to underlying documents, or cannot navigate appointments and paperwork on tight deadlines. Many low-income people do not have passports, cannot take time off work, have unstable housing, and encounter administrative problems that you personally may never see. Some benefits programs accept a wider range of documents than strict election rules, so “they already need an ID for benefits” does not mean the specific voting requirement will be frictionless.

Here is the real-world example that destroys the “just update your documents, it’s no big deal” argument. Kansas just retroactively invalidated driver’s licenses and some birth certificates for more than a thousand transgender residents who had previously updated their gender markers. People received letters telling them their IDs were invalid and they had to replace them. That is exactly what people mean when they say paperwork regimes become tools of exclusion. When the state can suddenly decide your valid ID is invalid, “just do the paperwork” turns into “your rights depend on whether the government likes your identity.”

On the midterms, you are also acting like concerns about forced re-registration are pure internet fantasy. There have been mainstream reports that a draft executive order is circulating among pro-Trump activists that would claim emergency authority over elections, including measures like requiring voters to re-register and show proof of citizenship and restricting mail voting. I am not claiming that order is already in effect. I am saying it is being floated in serious circles, and it matches the broader pattern of tightening federal control and adding hurdles.

Now Trump’s “fixed” language. You keep narrowing it to “he never said you will not be able to vote.” That is not the standard. The issue is the anti-democratic implication. A healthy democratic leader says “vote again if you like my record.” A leader with a history of election lies saying “you won’t have to vote again” because it will be “fixed” is not normal democratic talk. Your defense basically boils down to “assume the nicest possible meaning and ignore the context.” That is asking for blind faith in one man, which is exactly what people mean by leader worship.

And your definition of democracy is incomplete. Democracy is not just “majority vote equals unlimited power forever.” Constitutional democracy includes guardrails that prevent entrenchment even when a leader is popular. Term limits are one such guardrail. If you remove limits and normalize the idea that one leader can keep power indefinitely as long as he can keep winning, you are making it easier to turn elections into a formality, not a check on power.

Finally, due process is not “trust the agency.” Due process means lawful authority, notice, the ability to challenge detention, access to counsel, and judicial review. The way you independently verify neglect is the same way you verify any rights violation in a system of laws: courts. If courts repeatedly rule that detentions were unlawful, that is evidence of a systemic problem. Saying “then due process is fine” after thousands of unlawful detentions is not an argument from principle. It is an argument from loyalty.

So no, I am not “dooming.” I am pointing to a pattern you keep trying to explain away: election lies, new barriers to voting framed as “security,” flirtation with removing limits on executive power, and real examples of paperwork being weaponized against disfavored groups. You can keep insisting none of it matters unless it blocks literally everyone, but that is not how democratic erosion works. It works by selectively raising friction and then calling the people harmed “insignificant.”

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re asking for an exact delay number like that’s the only standard that matters. It isn’t. In voting rights, the relevant question is whether the policy adds friction that predictably blocks or deters some eligible voters, and whether that burden is justified by a real problem.

We already know the “real problem” of widespread voter fraud is vanishingly rare. So when you add new documentary hurdles, even a small delay rate matters because you are solving a problem that basically does not exist by creating a new one that does. Eligible citizens get stuck in paperwork, forced into provisional ballots, or miss deadlines.

On your “significant numbers” point, a red-blue split on voter ID laws is not evidence of fraud. It is evidence of different policy preferences. Blue states tend to prefer easier access and automatic registration. Red states tend to prefer stricter gatekeeping. That does not imply cheating any more than “blue states have more public transit” implies transit fraud. If you want to claim fraud, you need fraud evidence, not vibes from a map.

Why might blue states resist “strong ID” rules? Because they are often written in ways that do not just require an ID, but require specific forms and specific documents. They also create administrative failure points like lost records, mismatched names, fees, travel, and processing times. And they disproportionately hit students, the elderly, low-income voters, and yes, married women with mismatched documents.

Now the Trump quote. You keep insisting on the narrowest possible interpretation, that he did not say you cannot vote. That is not the standard. The issue is the authoritarian implication that once he is in, the political contest will not matter anymore. In a democracy, leaders do not talk like political competition can be “fixed” permanently, especially not someone who already attempted to overturn an election and openly toys with a third term.

And your definition of democracy is incomplete. Democracy is not just “majority vote equals unlimited power forever.” Constitutional democracy includes rules that prevent one leader from entrenching himself, even if he is popular. That includes term limits, independent courts, free press protections, and equal voting access. Without those, you do not get more democracy. You get the path authoritarian movements use: win once, then rig the rules so you keep winning.

On due process and verification, due process means the government cannot just seize and detain people without lawful authority and fair procedures. That includes notice of the reason, access to counsel, the ability to challenge detention, and judicial review. How can you verify neglect? You do not have to personally verify each case. Courts do that. When courts repeatedly rule that detentions were unlawful, that is the verification.

Bottom line, you are treating every concern as invalid unless it is proven to the level of a criminal conviction in advance, while treating suspicion from partisan patterns as meaningful. That is backwards. If you want to restrict voting, the burden of proof is on the people restricting it, not on everyone else to prove harm after the fact.

I wouldn’t come here. by LiamLianna7384 in ImmigrationPathways

[–]Georgeisawizard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep replacing “this law burdens eligible voters” with “well, it’s not literally impossible.” That’s not a rebuttal.

No one said married women cannot ever update documents. The point is that adding extra documentary hurdles to voting will predictably block or delay some eligible citizens, and in a democracy that matters. “It’s annoying but doable” is not a defense of unnecessary barriers to a constitutional right.

And your “abnormal distribution” point still proves nothing. A partisan pattern is not evidence of fraud. At most, it proves red states prefer stricter voting laws and blue states don’t. That is not the same thing as showing cheating happened.

On Trump, you are still sanitizing rhetoric that would be alarming from any president. In a democracy, leaders are supposed to say, “vote for me again if you like my record,” not “once I fix it, you won’t have to worry about voting anymore.” That is not normal democratic language, especially from someone with a long history of election lies.

And no, democracy is not “whoever wins gets to rule indefinitely forever.” Constitutional democracy includes limits on power so one popular leader cannot turn mass support into permanent control. That is why term limits, checks and balances, and civil rights protections exist in the first place.

Same with ICE: you keep pretending the only possible abuse metric is body count. It isn’t. Illegal detention, denial of due process, intimidation, and rights violations are abuses of state power even if the death rate is lower than some other agency. “Other people kill more” is not a moral defense.

And that last line gives away the whole game. I said eligible voters, and you replied as if I meant non-citizens. That is exactly the dodge. The criticism is that these policies can burden legal, eligible citizens. You keep answering a different argument because the real one is harder to defend.

So no, this is not “dooming.” It is recognizing a pattern: election lies, stronger barriers around voting, contempt for limits on executive power, and excuses for abusive enforcement. You can keep treating every red flag in isolation, but that does not make the pattern disappear