"Thought crimes": Rubio lays out government's justification for deportations based on "beliefs"
"Thought crimes": Rubio lays out government's justification for deportations based on "beliefs" | Salon.com
You're viewing a single thread.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the government can expel legal residents from the country based on “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful.”
Yeah let's just add a little emphasis on a bit here...
"Marco Rubio said that the government can expel legal residents from the country based on “past, current, or EXPECTED BELIEFS, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful.”
What the actual fuck? I mean aside from the holy first amendment batman shit, EXPECTED beliefs??
"He seems like the type to hate Israel so deport him"
....jfc
Welcome to the age of thought crimes and witch hunts... If you haven't, learn your doublespeak now.
If the beliefs, statements, or associations are lawful, then why and how does the government have the right to expel the person against their wishes? What does "lawful" even mean if the actions described as being "lawful" result in consequences by the state that serve as a punishment? Furthermore, are there beliefs, statements, or associations that would be regarded as "unlawful"? What are some examples of that? What would the punishment be for that?
What the fuck is the actual goal of this? Why facilitate such cruelty? What are these fucks getting out of this?
What the fuck is the actual goal of this?
Getting rid of whoever they want. The only law left in the usa is whatever they decide it is at the time.
Sure, but why? To what explicit end? What is there to gain from getting rid of whoever their targets are? Idk if I'm overthinking it or underthinking this, but it kinda seems to me like this ends up making things worse for them too in the long run. So I just don't get it.
Revoking the right to abortion makes sense to me. They need more consumers and laborers to feed to the capitalism machine to perpetuate the infinite growth that it demands. I don't subscribe to it, but it does make sense to me that they would be on board with that. Culling the "undesirables" however doesn't really make sense to me. I don't know of a single thing that improves because of that. Fewer laborers, especially fewer desperate ones. Paired with tariffs, fewer consumers both foreign and domestic. Fewer tax payers. Most of who they would target are probably renters and not land owners, so more vacancies but not new unowned land, so rent prices and property value would drop. So who the fuck wins? Racists who care less about their account balance than the skin color of people in their town? Couldn't they just stay home and have that and their money too?
You might want to read up on the history of authoritarian regimes. I'd start with the rise of the Nazis.
It's not about benefiting the country or any specific individual, aside from the ruler(s). It's about control. A lot has been written about this and many documentaries made.
Oh I'm aware of that, but every time this playbook has been attempted, the perpetrators have been thoroughly smacked down. What makes them think that they'll have a different outcome? And even if they do, don't they see that absolutely controlling a pile of shit is worse than half controlling something that works? Musk already has hundreds of billions of dollars, and he's threatening that by doing this. Trump already has billions and is president, and these actions are probably gonna get him some more attempts. The lackeys might be at risk of losing things if they don't obey, but that doesn't explain why they're receiving the marching orders in the first place.
I'm sorry, but I really have to repeat my previous advice. It's not about dollars as much as it is about power. And anyway, they all stand to make more money by being in control of everything.
You're very much incorrect in thinking that upstart authoritarians are always smacked down. Again, start with the Nazis, but there are other examples.
they think they're smarter than the failed ones.
I suggest reading The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, along with the addendums he later wrote about the "tea party" and donvict, too. You can get the PDF for The Authoritarians for free from here. Your library probably has it, too. Or you can just buy a copy, as well. I cannot recommend it enough...
https://theauthoritarians.org/
Here is the later comment on the "tea party"
https://theauthoritarians.org/comment-on-the-tea-party-movement/
I don't know of a single thing that improves because of that.
Their bottom line for one. These people are viewed as liabilities. curtis yarvin, one of the complete freaks responsible for this has published his reasons for this.
One theory that I’m starting to understand through reading social science books on American history is this:
“White” Americans (I use quotes because the definition of whiteness has changed throughout the years) need someone to define themselves against in order to feel “more civilized” and worthy. First it was Natives, then the Irish and German, then the Eastern Europeans and Italians, and throughout all of this it has been Black folk. Then modern times have brought the Hispanic to this purpose. Now I think the latest permutation of this need to feel pure and civilized has included just….all “non Americans,” including any foreigners they don’t consider “proper and civilized.”
It’s like an insecurity of identity so deep that it requires an “othering” in order to feel safe. “I am better than you, you are less than me, therefore I am worthy.” Conservative “white/proper” Christians have always had an identity crisis, so they’ve always felt the need to invade other cultures and lands while subjugating the locals in order to feel superior. I’m starting to think that this is another permutation of that.
Maybe this theory ties into or explains the social media phenomenon of Christians constantly putting down both different Christians and non-Christians. They have to feel superior because…they don’t know how else to define themselves.
Edit: I’m completely going out on a limb, here, but I wonder if that has to do with the fact that Christianity teaches its followers to live for their own death. Like, it provides very little meaning to life because everything you’re living for happens after you die: love God so you can go to heaven, do this so you can go to heaven, follow these arbitrary rules so you can go to heaven. It doesn’t answer the questions “Why am I here? What is my purpose?” beyond like…their death, which is forever away. So if you don’t know why you are alive, if you can’t rely on a meaning or purpose to the 80 years while you’re on earth, then what else do you have to define your culture on? Like the insecure playground bully. “I don’t know who I am or why I’m here, so in order to feel secure, I have to feel stronger and smarter and more superior than everyone around me, even if (or maybe especially) that hurts the other kids.” The violence could be an expression of that frustration and insecurity.
Or maybe not. I don’t know. Of course, I do know “white” people and Christians who don’t behave this way, who are kind and generous and not-xenophobic. It seems to be more of a wider-culture thing. It’s definitely mixed up with settler-colonialism, though.
Now I think the latest permutation of this need to feel pure and civilized has included just….all “non Americans,” including any foreigners they don’t consider “proper and civilized.”
If this is true, then I wonder how much the war on terror has contributed to this.
It doesn’t answer the questions “Why am I here? What is my purpose?” beyond like…their death, which is forever away.
I don't think that's true, because non-Western Christians don't have this problem while atheist white Americans do.
I don't think that's true, because non-Western Christians don't have this problem while atheist white Americans do.
Fair point. I don’t know much about non-Western Christians. But the ones that made it to American shores have definitely seemed to fit.
And the War on Terror definitely contributed to the culture of “foreigners are evil animals.”
He is now a clear and present threat to the fundamental tenet of American democracy and should be promptly tried for egregious treason.
there's a ton of people hoping he'd try