I think RFK and a bunch of other people are anti-science because they’re hyper-Christian, and science is inconvenient for their stupid beliefs.

Religion is almost always the problem.

Depends: do you want rules that apply equally to everyone or rules that apply selectively based on your demographic status?

Personally, I choose the former.

What you're citing in Australia isn't comparable to what you're suggesting happen in America. Employing a few foreign cops who happen to be living in your country is completely different than replacing entire police departments with foreign police that you bring over from another country.

And please, don't lecture me about taking the long view of history. I'm opposed to your idea because I don't think it will work for a variety of reasons. The fact that there's no historical precedent for it is just one argument.

It's a good idea, but I'm skeptical of its efficiency in the sense that the people who approve of these cuts aren't likely to read those op-eds. I kinda suspect a lot of those people don't read at all.

LOL, you want to hire foreign police to replace entire PDs in America? And how do you think Americans would feel about being policed by foreigners? Hell, what makes you think foreigners would want to police Americans? Please, name me one historical instance of this working, let alone having happened.

It would be one thing to take cues from European police forces to change the culture and tactics of American police forces, which I would totally support, but actually bringing foreign cops here to replace American cops? No way. Not a chance in hell that would work.

While I would agree ICE and most police agencies need a thorough cleansing to purge them of racists, we can’t just get rid of 90% of them and start from scratch. That’s too big a transition. It needs to be done gradually to ensure se always have a police force and some form of illegal immigration deterrence.

I obviously do think we should be taxing the crap out of corporations. The top 1% isn’t really individual rich people, but the corporations they own. I would also advocate ending “corporate personhood.” That would be a big step in the right direction, as would reversing the Citizens United ruling or better yet, passing a law that makes it moot.

I would argue that instead of ICE

Why instead of ICE? These are not mutually exclusive things and they don’t even address the same problems.

The large amount of foreign nationals being exploited due to their illegal status and working in unsafe underpaid jobs is something I'm against from a pro labor position.

Fine, but how does rounding them up and deporting them solve this problem?

The employees who hire and exploit them need to be punished.

Again, how do ICE strategies solve this problem?

Maybe I am naive in thinking ICE is going after the criminal element that exists in the illegal immigrant community.

You are. The criminal element in migrant communities is tiny, and the notion that ICE is prioritizing them is bupkis. ICE is sadly comprised mainly of American racists, who use their job titles as a shield for implementing their White nationalist agendas. These aren’t people who are doing what they claim to be doing—protecting our borders against illegal invaders—they’re just trying to keep America’s birth rate mostly White, because they’re scared, xenophobic assholes.

As an American, I fully oppose these douchebags. America is not a White nation. We’re a non-racial nation, made up of everyone, home to everyone, and better for it. Our best quality is the fact that we welcome everyone, and those amongst us who oppose that are the true anti-Americans. Our history is a shit-show, true; but our ideals are worth fighting for. And the people that are anti-immigration are pro-racism, pure and simple.

Alright, I’ll bite.

Because I would much rather ICE spend its resources preventing IMs from entering the country, rather than rounding up IMs who have been living here peacefully for 20+ years.

Because—and I’m willing to debate the utility of this—a significant portion of our agricultural economy depends on IMs who will work below the standard of living legally required for our citizens.

Because the vast majority of IMs are just people seeking asylum from cartels and/or horrible dictatorial governments and are not a threat to the American way of life.

Because IMs by and large do not “steal” jobs from American workers but rather do jobs most Americans would never consider doing. See said issue with our agricultural sector.

Now, let’s hear your reasons for wanting to spend the immense amount of money necessary to find and deport these people. Because I’m sure your arguments are incredibly well thought out.

I’ve always found it absurd that presidents possess the authority to grant pardons. It trivializes our judicial system and undermines its integrity. This power should not be vested in the presidency.

We have actual victims speaking up to let us know that the Catholic Church and other Christian communities are abusing children. If LGBT groups are allegedly doing the same, where are the victims' testimonies? Where are the hundreds, if not thousands of victims coming forward with their own stories that can be investigated so we can bring these alleged gay pedophiles to justice?