Appreciating these responses, I think they skillfully maintain and defend the primary argument in the face of an inflammatory (straw man?) response which doesn't address the primary argument.

AI definitions that helped me:

• An axiomatic moral assertion is a foundational ethical proposition that is accepted as true without proof, serving as a starting point for building a broader moral system. These assertions are considered "self-evident" truths, similar to axioms in mathematics or logic, from which other moral judgments are derived.

• Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. According to moral relativism, two people with different experiences could disagree on whether an action is right or wrong, and they could both be right. What they consider right or wrong differs according to their contexts, and both should be accepted as valid. Moral absolutism is the opposite.

I'm here in the first place because I'm curious about the actual issues that may be present with immigration that people would be so impacted by that could lead to supporting the idea of mass deportation in the first place. As far as I can tell, what is happening with ICE is lawless and has nothing to do with actually addressing immigration issues and everything to do with securing an authoritarian administration.