site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 7, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sovereigns owe foreigners no rights. A foreigner has no claim to habeas corpus, let alone any appeal for their deportation, as sovereigns may unconditionally expel foreigners.

If a foreigner has no claim to habeas corpus, how should claims of citizenship by individuals/non-citizenship by the state be adjudicated?

Ideally:

  1. SCOTUS rules states have no authority to issue identifying documents to illegal aliens except those that expressly mark them as here illegally
  2. Pursuant to this ruling, IDs from the following would be considered null and void and ordered reissued in adherence to the ruling: Washington DC, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington
  3. After period of reissuance (perhaps 3 years, certainly no longer than 5), suspects confronted by ICE must produce documents proving legal residence
  4. Failure to provide at stop results in temporary detention
  5. Failure to provide after a period of time not to exceed 1 week results in summary deportation

Alternatively:

  1. Suspects stopped by ICE are given opportunity to produce valid ID
  2. Those who produce valid IDs from states that do not issue ID to illegals are free to go
  3. Those who produce no IDs, or valid IDs from states that issue identification to illegals, are detained
  4. Those who produce no IDs are given a period not to exceed 1 week to produce documentation; those who produce IDs from compromised states are given a period not to exceed 1 month to produce further documentation (birth certificate, US passport)
  5. Upon failure, summary deportation

In practice, any individual who fails to produce such documentation is a foreigner and present illegally (note: foreigners are legally required to carry ID). As foreigners may be expelled unconditionally, the court has no jurisdiction over the sovereign exercise of the right of deportation, and so foreigners have no legitimate claim to habeas corpus specifically in the matter of their deportation. That "precedent" says they do, and that we do in practice afford them habeas corpus, does not make it legitimate. The sovereign right of deportation is a first principle authority, it cannot be legitimately reduced or abrogated. That is, a state may, without qualification, always and in all cases legitimately remove foreigners from its borders.

As foreigners may be expelled unconditionally, the court has no jurisdiction over the sovereign exercise of the right of deportation, and so foreigners have no legitimate claim to habeas corpus specifically in the matter of their deportation.

Do you have a citation for this? I want to be make sure I understand which of your statements are factual and which are policy preferences.

Can this crime be punished without trial?

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

In your "ideal" adjudication, what prevents ICE from deporting citizens in bad faith and/or due to its demonstrated incompetence? (Even if you think the risk is low, the hazard must be addressed.)

That "precedent" says they do [have habeas corpus], and that we do in practice afford them habeas corpus, does not make it legitimate.

Which precedent and why should we question its legitimacy?

The citation is pure reason.

Definitions:

  1. (A) Supreme control of territory
  2. (B) Sovereign/sovereignty
  3. (C) Ability to enforce borders
  4. (D) Define/maintain geographic boundaries
  5. (E) Determine who may pass boundaries
  6. (F) Establishes/enforces laws
  7. (G) Border control authority as a priori
  8. (H) Unconditional expulsion authority
  9. (I) Conditions exist on deportations
  10. (J) Control limited
  11. (K) Limited body

Premises:

  1. A body that possesses supreme control of territory is sovereign: (A) → (B)
  2. Supreme control of territory requires the ability to enforce borders: (A) → (C)
  3. The enforcement of borders includes the definition and maintenance of geographic boundaries and determining who is allowed to pass those geographic boundaries: (C) → (D) ∧ (E)
  4. The establishing and enforcement of law requires sovereignty: (F) → (B)
  5. Supreme control of territory and the authority to enforce borders grants a priori authority to border control over all other laws: (A) ∧ (C) → (G)
  6. A priori border control includes unconditional expulsion of foreigners: (G) → (H)
  7. Conditions on deportations are limits on control of territory: (I) → (J)
  8. Limited bodies are not sovereign: (K) → ¬(B)

Conclusion:

A sovereign's supreme control of territory grants a priori authority for the unconditional expulsion of foreigners:

(A) ∧ (B) ∧ (C) ∧ (D) ∧ (E) ∧ (G) ∧ (H)

In your "ideal" adjudication, what prevents ICE from deporting citizens in bad faith and/or due to its demonstrated incompetence? (Even if you think the risk is low, the hazard must be addressed.)

I disagree. The leftist establishment uses such fringe cases to demand individual full trials for every deportation while they work ardently to increase the number of illegal aliens in this country. As with those states' issuance of IDs to illegals, the point is not the sanctity of the law or interest in a better-functioning state. The interest is in making it impossible to remove the tens of millions of illegal aliens in this country.

In practice those who cannot provide documentation are here illegally. The remaining edge cases of even several hundred homeless or otherwise profoundly socially detached citizens accidentally deported by ICE do not justify the requirement of millions of trials. But that's another excellent example, as if the homeless were institutionalized as they ought to be, there would be no concern, and then it would be well and truly an extreme minority of citizens who could not prove their citizenship. Regardless, it is not in the interest of a functional state to delay (and, given the above, ultimately fail) at the needed millions of deportations because once in a blue moon a homeless person or Kaczynski-ite is accidentally included. And of course, this would never have been a problem if politicians and billionaires didn't open the doors to millions of illegals in service of gaining future voters and cheap labor. They're causing the problem, they don't get a say in its solution.

Which precedent and why should we question its legitimacy?

See top. Border control is a priori to courts, habeas corpus requires court jurisdiction, courts have no jurisdiction in matters of border control. Again, they literally do, but from fundamental theory of sovereignty, they do not, and thus all actions taken by courts to limit the sovereign exercise of border control are inherently illegitimate.