13 comments

  • csto12 1 hour ago
    Truly the party of small government and personal freedoms :)
    • yibg 1 hour ago
      Was that ever true? At least over the last couple of decades those mostly seem to translate to:

      - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. military)

      - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. guns), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)

      • duped 55 minutes ago
        Republicans are the party of white Christian conversatives, so whatever message is most expedient to appealing to them at the moment is what they stand for.

        "Small government" meant "get the Black President out of my healthcare." "Personal freedoms" meant "let me discriminate against people."

        Never take a Republican at face value, especially if you're not in their in group. Get them alone and they'll tell you what they mean behind what they say.

      • runjake 59 minutes ago
        Not to lessen your point, because I 100% agree, but I'd like to point out that you could swap a couple words in your statements to make the same point about the Democrats:

        - Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. military), and spend more on things we do like (e.g. social programs)

        - Personal freedoms: more freedoms for things we like (e.g. LGBTQ), remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. guns)

        • dehugger 54 minutes ago
          The crucial missing element is Republicans identifying as "a party of small government".
        • rpgwaiter 50 minutes ago
          Since when has either party ever cut military spending? I wish Dems were as cool as you say.
          • Smeevy 27 minutes ago
            Exactly. I was looking this up and only saw a couple of failed attempts at cutting military budgets since the 80s.

            One such "cut" was only increasing defense spending by 4% instead of 10%.

        • DemocracyFTW2 21 minutes ago
          Thank you for demonstrating the hilarious insanity of bothside-ism by jokingly equating people running around carrying guns with people who do not identify as heterosexual, made me spill my Coke. You are joking, right?
      • KennyBlanken 38 minutes ago
        > Small government: cut things we don't like (e.g. social programs)

        Yeah, and guess how? By claiming the program is rife with abuse, demanding all sorts of record-keeping and auditing...and then a few years later shouting blue-bloody-murder about "administrative cost" in the program.

        I wonder what the actual stats are for TANF and SNAP in terms of paper-pushing and auditing vs funds dispersed to recipients.

        > remove freedoms for things we don't (e.g. LGBTQ)

        Or the really big one: abortion. Doing things like passing legislation that forces doctors to say certain things to their patients, for example...and mandate medical procedures like forcing the mother to go through an ultrasound so they have to see the fetus and if it's old enough, listen to its heart.

        Can you imagine how much outrage there would be if democrats passed legislation mandating doctors tell their patients that the vast overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supports efficacy of vaccines, and oh by the way, flu shots are now compulsory? They'd lose their goddamn minds and riot in the streets (er...again?)

    • mizzao 1 hour ago
      Maybe in the past. Now, it's just the party of "whatever DJT says, goes".
      • intermerda 1 hour ago
        Even in the past it was nothing but a coded language. They don't actually believe in it from a principled point of view. Lee Atwater 1981 interview has continued to remain relevant. From direct racial slurs to forced busing, states' rights. Then it morphed into small government, personal freedoms. And now it's DEI and trans.
    • Spooky23 1 hour ago
      Remember in the 90s, Newt Gingrich would speak in hallowed tones about the sanctity of the rule of law on Rush Limbaugh. All bullshit.
    • mindslight 1 hour ago
      I don't think the hypocrisy has bothered them for quite some time. By "personal freedom", they mean the freedom for themselves to personally oppress others - not a society based upon widespread individual liberty. This is very apparent when a blatant violation of constitutional freedoms happens to someone in an "othered" group (eg Kenneth Walker's 2nd amendment rights), and they line right up in support of the oppressors.
      • atkailash 48 minutes ago
        It’s basically the party of narcissism. Which is why Trump has succeeded. Freedoms insofar as their world and life are concerned. Generally not an externally motivated “hey they need to be free too” unless they can somehow appear morally superior in a US Christian way, like abortion or prootecting marriage.
    • kevinpet 52 minutes ago
      They never claimed to be the party of personal freedom. There's a libertarian contingent within the GOP that wishes they could persuade people to go that direction, but unsuccessfully for decades.

      They have claimed to be the party of small government. And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in. It doesn't necessarily (or in practice ever) mean less spending.

      • mcmcmc 22 minutes ago
        > And even someone who disagrees with them can recognize the "small government" within their idealized view means government that is only involved in the things that government should be involved in.

        Sure, maybe if they were ever ideologically consistent. Yet somehow “government should not be involved in healthcare” also means “government can dictate your healthcare decisions” vis a vis gender affirming care and abortions. Or how “government should not be involved in wealth redistribution” means “let’s grow the national debt to give billionaires more tax breaks and subsidies”.

        This is totally setting aside the fact that small government has always carried the connotation of fiscal conservatism.

  • sega_sai 57 minutes ago
    What do you expect when ICE have quotas on arrests -- https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-mystery-of-ices-...
  • fsckboy 25 minutes ago
    > FTA: Court documents say a Border Patrol agent arrested Hermosillo “at or near Nogales, Arizona, without proper immigration documents” and that Hermosillo admitted to illegally entering the U.S.

    the article indicates he was visiting the area from where he lived in New Mexico and he was "lost", but it's not clear from the article whether he was seen crossing the border, or other evidence like that.

  • __turbobrew__ 45 minutes ago
    A similar situation was documented here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ponylQTj_gg&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5t...

    On the one hand the guy in OP article didn’t have documentation and he illegally crossed the border, so what do you do as ICE? The guy claims he is a US citizen, but I bet you a lot of illegal immigrants without documentation claim they are a US citizen as well.

    Also there is no federal ID system, so how do you go about confirming if this person is a US citizen or not? It does seem reasonable that people within ICE custody should get the chance to call someone so that person can bring identification for ICE to confirm the identity, and that is maybe the missing part which lead to this situation.

    • presto8 10 minutes ago
      > On the one hand the guy in OP article didn’t have documentation and he illegally crossed the border, so what do you do as ICE? The guy claims he is a US citizen, but I bet you a lot of illegal immigrants without documentation claim they are a US citizen as well.

      For what it's worth, OP article says that the court documents claim he admitted to entering the country illegal. Guy himself denies this.

      > Court documents say a Border Patrol agent arrested Hermosillo “at or near Nogales, Arizona, without proper immigration documents” and that Hermosillo admitted to illegally entering the U.S.

      > Hermosillo and his girlfriend, who have a 9-month-old child together, live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and are visiting family in Tucson. He says he has never been to Nogales.

  • croes 1 hour ago
    I guess he doesn’t look American enough
    • testing22321 53 minutes ago
      I was a tourist in the US and drove towards one of these ICE checkpoints in southern AZ I’ve heard so much about. I was perfectly legal, but I was worried, started to think about where my passport was in the car, etc.

      Before I could even stop the guy waived me through. I’m white.

    • ivape 1 hour ago
      Bingo. Racial profiling.

      Are we done with the great deportation experiment? Giving amnesty like Reagan or Bush Jr's visa proposal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guest_worker_program) would make us safer just due to IDing everyone, and richer due to taxing more people. That's the one great thing about America, we'll try every bad thing at least once (internment camps, segregation, false wars), and then we realize we're actually not down with it.

      We can tighten down the immigration entrance policy after we humanely deal with what has already happened.

      • alephnerd 54 minutes ago
        We had a shot at a general amnesty or reformed guest worker program in the mid 2000s to early 2010s, but unions like the UFCW (the primary decider of elections in NV) and others in the AFL-CIO opposed it.

        That said, the AFL-CIO of today is much more white collar and diverse compared to that of 20 years ago, so it wouldn't be as brutal for their locals.

        I've said this a thousand times: all unions aren't equal, and we as Dems need to drop the Midwest (aside from MN and IL, where unions are AFL-CIO aligned, and demographics are Dem aligned) and the UAW+ILU. The GOP has a platform that is closer aligned to their locals, and national has flipped as a result.

        Give up the rust belt, and concentrate on shoring up UFCW heavy states like NV, AZ, GA, and NC.

        Pandering to the UAW and ILU cause the Biden admin to snub Musk, which enraged an already unstable egotistical person to go into the deep end [0], and the UAW and ILU anyhow decided to endorse the Trump admin's current moves [1]. So much for making an enemy.

        Stop pandering to the Hank Hills - they will vote red.

        Of course, this won't change - such a change would inevitably break a lot of factions internally in the Dems, and would be fought tooth and nail by the Shapiros and Whitmers.

        [0] - https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/how-elon-musk-broke-w...

        [1] - https://www.axios.com/2025/03/04/uaw-trump-tariffs-united-au...

  • stagezerowil 1 hour ago
    They need to file a massive lawsuit against the US government, the agents that apprehended an innocent citizen and all parties involved. This is NOT OK.
    • praptak 56 minutes ago
      Yeah, a lawsuit would be a strong chess move. Too bad it doesn't work on the opponent who already flipped the table with the board and is drawing a knife on you.
    • yibg 1 hour ago
      Already plenty of lawsuits in place, with some already won. Question is, will there be any actual consequence. So far, it doesn't seem like it.
      • ben_w 42 minutes ago
        Perhaps. Supreme court preemptively reminding the government it has to stop deportations until court case is resolved has been reported as quite unusual. On the other hand, the only people who are empowered to punish Trump are terrified of him and the people he's pardoned.
    • ViewTrick1002 1 hour ago
      The Trump administration has already started to ignore the courts.

      Just waiting on a true flagship case to hit the Supreme Court and then being ignored for autocracy to start.

    • ck2 36 minutes ago
      Pretty sure ICE has sovereign immunity which is how they get away with this.

      They also have deputized every state and even local law enforcement with their powers.

      This has happened at least a dozen times this year, US Citizen detained for days.

      Last story I read the judge immediately realized the mistake and wanted him released but ICE had put a hold on him so he had to go back to jail FOR NO CRIME, US CITIZEN BORN IN USA

    • Analemma_ 58 minutes ago
      Go ahead, it'll get thrown out due to qualified (read: absolutely unconditional) immunity. And on the microscopic chance it doesn't, Trump will pardon everyone involved and talk about what heroic hardworking Americans they were for standing up to the woke mob.

      You best start believing in Russia-style mafiocracy, you're in one.

  • inverted_flag 58 minutes ago
    Assuming we have fair elections in the future, MAGA is screwed. Every demographic they made gains with last election is being targeted by this administration.
  • mindslight 1 hour ago
    The real answer is that we need to align incentives and encourage the rule of law by getting rid of this blanket sovereign immunity. Held by the government for 10 days while the government slowly figures out that they shouldn't be holding you? Here's a hefty check compensating for your time, emotional distress, and other damages. Obviously, the chance of this happening with Krasnov in office is a pipe dream, but regardless of where we're at we need to remember which direction is forwards.
    • duped 50 minutes ago
      Do you think better incentives would have stopped the Holocaust?

      Like not to go all slippery slope, but that's how ridiculous this sounds. You cannot fight fascism with fines and courts.

    • stefan_ 59 minutes ago
      You just need to get back to the true meaning of bureaucracy: drone gov workers applying the law. Instead border officials were empowered to be mini dictators, a lot of power, no responsibility, and guess what, a bunch of them turn out to be dumb, malicious or raging racists.
      • mindslight 54 minutes ago
        Bureaucracy has different failure modes, but failures still happen. The point is to make the government accountable for its own actions, which increases its legitimacy and sets up an incentive to minimize the amount of harm it causes.
    • mulmen 1 hour ago
      Agree there should be consequences for this kind of mistake. If there’s no evidence of wrongdoing then there’s no reason to hold him.

      It’s worth noting the government didn’t figure it out. His family did. Without that he’d still be detained or already deported.

  • inetknght 1 hour ago
    "Your papers, please."
    • yibg 1 hour ago
      A few steps later: tattoo them on so they're always with you
      • layer8 1 hour ago
        Having a tattoo will get you deported to El Salvador.
        • fnordpiglet 43 minutes ago
          What won’t?
          • layer8 8 minutes ago
            A $5 million dinner in Mar-a-Lago, probably.
  • Slava_Propanei 42 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • ranger_danger 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
    • jillyboel 1 hour ago
      What?

      > “He did say he was a U.S. citizen, but they didn't believe him,” Layva said.

      • fnordpiglet 38 minutes ago
        The article is a bit confusing because the story they tell is ICE said he told them he was illegal but he maintains he never said that as he said he was a citizen. It’s the basic playbook of corrupt cops. ICE has demonstrably become out of control. I worry they are transforming into a lawless police force for the executive.
      • lawn 1 hour ago
        We always return to victim blaming.

        Because it's hard to admit the truth; that there's something very wrong happening here.

  • searealist 50 minutes ago
    [flagged]
    • healsdata 45 minutes ago
      I don't think this is your intent, but your comment reads like it's a mystery which side is lying and that we may never know the truth.

      Except it's obvious. There no reason, barring police coercion, that a citizen would say they're in the country illegally.

      • searealist 38 minutes ago
        I sincerely don’t know which side is lying, and I can certainly imagine situations someone might say that.
  • IceHegel 1 hour ago
    [flagged]
    • inverted_flag 40 minutes ago
      Turns out Reddit circa 2017 was completely right about Trump.