There is a big difference between professors being "free" to publish and express their views on a subject, and teaching that same subject in such a way that their views are presented as the only acceptable views on that subject.
Honest question.. where? Most bread seems to be high in additives and promoted as a “healthy food”, like additional vitamines etc.
And even when buying natural bread without these added “benefits”, it often has high levels of sodium (up to like 200mg per slice).
Bread is one of the easiest, most plain things to make, yet finding high quality bread isn’t straightforward in the States. But I do really want to know which shops and which brand you get, I’d love to find good bread lol.
Yup, agreed. The first thing my gf complained about when coming to North America for 6 months was the food. And she never stopped complaining.
Then we went to Germany and I finally understood.
Not only can I pop in to the local bakery on the corner (or the next corner, or the next) for the most amazing breads ever, but I could also go to a Rewe or Edeka and get quite good bread that's still head-and-shoulders above anything in America.
My fav right now is a walnut spelt bread roll that I get for 90 cents apiece at Edeka. A bit pricey but it's worth it. Put on some President butter [1] and some cheeses and it's divine!
Yeah, I was like that. It’s been almost 5 years so complaining is to a minimum, I got used to a lot of the food, but bread is one of those “staple foods” to me that still has me complaining every now and then haha
Search Google maps for "bakery" and sort by rating.
It's not hard to find a good bakery in any dense area in the US. I have to imagine people claiming otherwise are indulging in Yankee-bashing, a favorite European pastime.
What one considers a "good bread" or "good bakery" depends on the person. I'm from Switzerland. When I was in the United States (Bay Area, San Francisco), in 2000-2003, I did _not_ find what I consider a "good bread". I did find "bakery".
I mean, in San Francisco, you’ll find plenty of good bread and pastries, it’s the only mid size city in the US that has enough French people to have two competing French language schools for kiddos.
I live in the largest city in the US and saying that the average bread/pastry quality even comes close to Europe is insane.
Sure, you can get good bread here. However it's going to cost you 5x what it costs in Europe and it might take you up to 30 minutes to get too depending on where you live. Most bread in the US is low quality. Most bread in Europe is high quality. There is good bread to be found in the US, and there's bad bread in Europe. But the average bread just isn't even close to being equal.
I can walk five minutes to a local grocery store and get fresh bread from their bakery. Immigrant bakeries are also great, I had some buns from a chinese bakery last weekend that were a "if this is what food is supposed to taste like, what have I been eating until now???" moment
My partner is Chinese and so we get Chinese (and bread-like products from other Asian countries) quite often.
In my opinion, it’s tasty but also not quite what I would expect bread to be like, mainly because it’s so soft. It is a running joke between us that Chinese teeth can’t chew through European bread (like an actual French baguette).
But agreed, Chinese bread > American bread for flavor at least!
> Bread is one of the easiest, most plain things to make, yet finding high quality bread isn’t straightforward in the States
Finding high quality bread isn’t straightforward anywhere in EU. It either has sugar or additives or it is cooked at a too low temperature to be useful.
Wondering why someone did not solve the problem already? Of all the countries in the world US is brimming with entrepreneurs who want to "solve" a consumer problem, and with modern population I assume there is enough demand on fresh/healthier products - why on earth someone wouldn't try to fix it there?
Most Americans are fine eating stale or preserved bread. (Almost all pre-sliced supermarket bread is the latter.) You just don’t have enough people to spread the cost of baking fresh bread throughout the day outside wealthy communities.
That said, a lot of European bread is also trash. There are simply some bread-loving ones where it isn’t. Similarly, there are places in America with great bread (New Orleans, New York and Miami), and places without (Northern California and the Midwest).
> That said, a lot of European bread is also trash.
Yes thank you for pointing this out. I've noticed even the bakeries around me (in Switzerland) aren't that great; for me the best are from the farmers markets and even still you have to be discerning for which are actually good. On the other side I've had some fantastic bread in the US from specialty bakeries.
Solving the problem of european tourists being unable to figure out that they have to walk to the bakery section of the supermarket rather than the shelf-stable bread-like products section if they want something they consider bread does not sound like much of a business opportunity.
>Solving the problem of european tourists being unable to figure out that they have to walk to the bakery section of the supermarket rather than the shelf-stable bread-like products section if they want something they consider bread
Every supermarket I can locally go to has a bread-on- the shelf section, as well as a very fresh bread section. Not to mention 'bread shops' exist.
Don't underestimate the ability of tourists from anywhere to not understand how to look around a shop.
Finding bread in America that isn't over-overloaded with sugar is very difficult.
Quite a few of my family take their own bread to the US.
Of late, the problem has been solved as, apart from work, people just aren't travelling there anymore - for non bread-related reasons, of course.
For the US fam that now travel back to the eu (an awful lot) more, they go wild for eu bread: it just doesn't taste like cak, /sp - i mean cake.
Because this isn't the sort of problem some tech bro entrepreneur can solve. Its a systematic problem in the whole supply chain that end with consumer demand. And this is harder to do, once that whole supply chain has been destroyed. You need to shift the whole culture in terms of what they value and how it works.
None of the breads listed there I would consider to be of the category "bread" as a German, and what I would be looking for when I wanted one.
Yes, a French baguette-type soft white bread is formally "bread", but it is treated as a different/single category here, as "white bread". With examples of typical bread being, say: https://www.hofpfisterei.de/download/Hofpfisterei-Sortiment-... And I don't think the images really carry across the difference (and variety) in texture and density, to someone who simply never had this kind of "non-soft" bread. You can spread cold butter from the fridge on it without breaking it, maybe that gives away a hint towards the difference. Also note the variety of grain: rye, spelt, wheat, barley, oats, in different compositions and degrees of fineness. And this is just one brand/bakery.
Some more "typical German bread" images. I picked types that maybe convey the difference to "white bread" the best in viewing:
Five years ago it was a rarity (in fact the first place I can clearly recall being asked was a Five Guys, when I said I didn't want a bun - no gluten problems, thanks, just don't need the extra calories). Nowadays I'd say it's more common than not at full-service restaurants.
Southern US; I live in a modest-size metro of about 400k and spend plenty of time in bigger cities.
Yep. My child was just accepted into a G&T program; it replaces gym period once a week, and I believe the teacher is responsible for all the G&T classes in the entire district (3 elementary schools, 1 middle, 1 high) - so if she stopped teaching G&T and started teaching an additional class, it would help exactly one school's grade level. Maybe better than nothing, but not by much.
You are right but this is a fairly new development, driven by activist lawsuits. It doesn’t have to be this way, these sort of changes are not irreversible.
Not necessarily a good idea. Dealing with disagreements, distractions, conflicts, low and high performers around you, that's all part of social education. It's not explicitly on the curriculum, but if you just give everybody a super sheltered cotton-clad education environment until they are 18 then they will be better at using the pythagorean theorem or discussing Shakespeare, but they will utterly fail on the street and will scream hate crime the first time somebody disagrees with them at the workplace.
I'm obviously exaggerating, but it's not purely good to remove "distracting elements".
I wonder, have you personally been in a university environment recently? Within the past ten or fifteen years? I ask because, as someone who attended a supposedly "good" university in the USA, before going I had an interest in the humanities but was quickly discouraged by the number of individuals who seemed to be possessed by propaganda. I mentioned in another comment, for example, that I saw another student have as their desktop background a photo of Mao and the cultural revolution. So this is the backdrop against which Jordan Peterson is saying, you know, there actually are Western intellectuals worth reading and listening to and thinking about. And yes, on a personal level, I did get to read some of those writers you mentioned. It did not surprise me that they turn out to be much deeper than Jordon Peterson himself, but I don't think he ever claimed to be a revolutionary thinker? I consider him more of an evangelist than anything else. How many intellectuals can we say have truly had an impact with their ideas? The number is small. I think the reason Jordan Peterson suddenly became a phenomenon is because he was at least brave enough to call out ridiculousness when he saw it (at least at the very beginning of his celebrity, I cannot speak for his recent comments because I stopped paying attention once he started going into politics).
The stuff Jordan says about there being some value in the classics is good. Some of his stuff about meaning is good. Little to none of it is original.
He’s also a raving misogynist. I have two daughters. He can fuck right off with that shit. I mean it would bother me if I didn’t have two daughters, but that makes it more personal.
Peterson is one of those people who sounds reasonable and even compelling at first, but as you keep listening eventually you get to the part where he starts clucking like a chicken. Unfortunately that is his original stuff.
People who start reasonable then lead into nonsense always make me think of the Monty Python lumberjack song skit. They had several skits with that premise. The woman who does Philomena Cunk is a modern comedian who riffs on this.
His wife and his daughter are public personas. Both have Youtube channels. I like his wife's channel quite a bit, and I spent a few hours years ago listening to his daughter. Both have talked about him at length while I was listening, and neither has said anything that would suggest they are unhappy with him or his influence on their lives.
His daughter has a husband and her own income stream, i.e., is no longer economically dependent on him.
I've also listened to the man himself for at least a hundred hours. I would be interested to read an explanation in support of your statement "he’s also a raving misogynist" because I've heard nothing that would lead me to conclude it or even to suspect it.
He probably believes that marriage and motherhood are best for most women. Is that contributing to your belief that he is a misogynist?
> He probably believes that marriage and motherhood are best for most women.
I don’t want to go on a quote hunt. I’ve seen some. But this is the crux of it.
My wife is a stay at home mom. It’s something she’s wanted to do since we were dating. I’m supportive of it, and she’s become kind of the pillar of the whole extended family.
That was her choice. It’s what she wanted. Get it?
It wasn’t my choice. I’d have supported her if she wanted a career. I supported her giving it a try but it wasn’t for her.
It’s definitely not some windbag public intellectual’s choice, or the government’s. The thing you quoted sounds innocuous until a politician gets ahold of it. Then we find out what it really means.
I guess the most damning thing to me is that so many incel and Tate types like him. By its fruit shall it be known. Marxism sounds liberating but if that’s true then why does every Marxist nation turn into a dictatorship or a mafia state?
A lot of things Marx said sound innocuous until politicians and men with guns get hold of them. Then you find out what they really mean.
Any time someone says they know what other people should do with their lives and they have some grand theory of history full of great meaning and purpose all ready to slot people into their appropriate roles, run away.
I've never heard Peterson (or his wife, who also holds the opinion that most women are better off if they choose motherhood) say that any of the societal changes, e.g., access to contraception and abortion, e.g., broad acceptance of women in the workplace, should be rolled back.
I never heard him or his wife say anything that might suggest that the opinion is anything other advice to women. (And when has Marx or Lenin ever said anything that can be interpreted as nothing more than advice to any individual -- other than the advice to join the collective effort to overthrow the capitalist class?)
Peterson is not shy about criticizing some of the pronouncement of feminists, e.g., "believe all women". He will point out that 1 or 2% of women are sociopaths just like 1 or 2% of men are sociopaths and that if you give sociopaths the opportunity to profit from lying, they will take the opportunity (and a depressingly large fraction of them will take the opportunity even if the only "profit" to be had is the pleasure of ruining someone's life or reputation).
Have you ever heard them criticize authoritarian conservatives who do believe womens' rights should be rolled back?
Or are they just not saying the quiet part out loud?
Intellectuals say should, which politicians and activists turn into must when people don't listen. That's usually the progression. Marx didn't say to put people into gulags. People were put into gulags when Marxism didn't work as expected. The ideology can't be wrong, so if people aren't doing it well enough they need "encouragement." If the square peg doesn't fit in the round hole, you have to use a hammer.
I'm pretty equal opportunity here. I am deeply skeptical and suspicious of anyone, right left or otherwise, who claims to have a proscriptive Grand Theory of how human beings ought to live. Such ideas usually end up having body counts.
BTW the fact that Peterson has women echoing and support his ideas doesn't mean much. There's plenty of men who subscribe to authoritarian ideologies that involve forcing other men to do things. It's no different.
I recall more than one time when he complained about the authoritarian impulse in bureaucrats and officials though none in which he complains about conservative officials specifically. He says that everyone must constantly exercise vigilance against this authoritarian impulse.
He complained that he is required (by his commitment to speak in front of audiences) to regularly go through airports because he gets icked out by the authoritarian vibe. He says he tries to stay at mom-and-pop hotels because hotels run by corporations give an authoritarian or at least bureaucratic vibe strong enough to ick him out sometimes.
> The stuff Jordan says about there being some value in the classics is good. Some of his stuff about meaning is good. Little to none of it is original.
I don't think he ever claimed that these ideas were original?
> He’s also a raving misogynist. I have two daughters. He can fuck right off with that shit.
I feel like this is quite an extraordinary accusation. The tone of your comment reminds me of his interview with Kathy Newman. Everything he said that had even the smallest nuance was twisted into something else. What specifically did he say that makes you thing he is a misogynist?
At a pre-protest meeting of a cause I wanted to support, I noticed that the organizer had on their desktop background a kind of propagandistic poster of Mao leading the cultural revolution. Keep in mind, this is in the USA. I'm no expert in world history by any means, but the level of ignorance is astounding.
As many others have pointed out there remain EB-1 visas and O category visas. In particular the O visas (for "extraordinary ability") are not subject to any nationality quotas. If these companies are serious about hiring the "smartest people", why would they not fall into these categories? Just for fun, here is an example of a teenager who recently got an O-1 visa as a software engineer [0]. Surely the folks applying to OpenAI, Nvidia, etc. would have similar qualifications?
You’re absolutely right! It only depends how disingenuous industry is when they say they need the smartest people. For the smartest people, a mere $100,000 is barely signing bonus territory. Meanwhile, despite O-visas being uncapped there’s only 35-40k per year being used… and on the greencard EB side those are maxed out, 140,000 authorized per year (260,000 were issued in 2021?).
Where are you getting this information from? EB-1/2/3 are clearly visas issued to people [0]. It is true that many people may adjust status to EB-1/2/3 while already in the US in another status, but they are certainly visas still available to people. As I understand, due to the quota system it can be very difficult for folks born in certain countries to receive them (due to quotas) and they end up waiting for many years.
I know this sounds crazy, but Wikipedia is completely wrong calling it a visa. It's a "visa classification", you still need an underlying visa to enter into the country.
Most O-1 Visa holders and some H1Bs get classified under EB-1, individuals with advanced degrees, experience get classified under EB-2 but hold H1-B / L1 visas, etc.
You can be under H1-B and not have a classification (no PERM).
If you don't believe me try to find an image of an actual EB-1/2/3 visa, I'll wait.
Source : Former F-1/H1B visa holder classified under EB-2, with over a decade of experience dealing with USCIS paperwork.
I am looking here [0] and I see that almost 20,000 O visas were issued at foreign posts in 2024, and it looks like several thousand E visas in the first priority category were issued. I agree with you that for most people, currently, the way it works is that they get an H1-B and then wait for their turn to apply for EB-1 (if they are from a country subject to quotas), but it is incorrect to say that consulates do not issues O or EB-1 visas. Why this is the case I have no idea, perhaps it is easier for companies to file for H1-B?
On the link above, there is a link to "Table VI (Part II) Preference Visas Issued Fiscal Year 2024". It is broken down by the consulate/embassy issuing the visa. The grand totals have about 5000, 10000, 16000 EB-1/2/3 visas issued globally, respectively. What am I misunderstanding?
EB-1/2/3 are employment based green card categories. And being employment based means that the applicants need to be employed in the US before being able to even apply. In most cases, the applicants are holding the H1-B visa while their EB-1/2/3 green card applications are ongoing.
From the EB-1 page on USCIS [0], under "Extraordinary Ability" category:
> You must be able to demonstrate extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics through sustained national or international acclaim.
> You must meet at least 3 of the 10 criteria* below, or provide evidence of a one-time achievement (i.e., Pulitzer, Oscar, Olympic Medal) as well as evidence showing that you will be continuing to work in the area of your expertise. No offer of employment or labor certification is required.
There is also a category for professors and researchers. In this category one must have an offer of employment. No labor certification is required.
We should be clear that many (most?) of the immigration raids you are describing are taking place in cities that have explicitly stated that they will not cooperate with the federal government regarding immigration, meaning that anyone in these cities who interacts with the police or justice system (generally speaking, in most cases) will not be reported for being in the country without documentation. This means that the federal government has fewer means of detaining individuals without documentation in a safe manner, even those convicted of serious crimes. We see the result of these policies now.
The results of the opposite of these policies (as practiced by many other countries) are, generally speaking, worse. Undocumented immigrants are necessarily an economic underclass, but whether they will be a lawless underclass is a deliberate choice that pretty much entirely boils down to whether you make it unsafe for them to turn to the police. (I mean, the first part, creating an underclass at all, is also a deliberate choice—that of having immigration laws of the post-WW2 kind—but any alternatives seem to have been thoroughly pushed out of the Overton window.)
Can you name another country in which I can enter without inspection, commit a crime, and then be released, all without having anyone ask, "what is your basis for being in this country"?
Argentina. Possibly Brazil. (Kurdish / KRG) Iraq released me as an illegal after the cops decided they liked me, they even gave me a police card in case I ran into further trouble. Kurdish part of Syria will not check either, they're 'stateless' people so see such enforcement as tyrannical. Most ethnic enclaves of Lebanon would similarly work, particularly if you are Druze or something.
Also in Argentina you can arrive, on day 1 file court case for citizenship, which bars deportation. Then stall case for 2 years until you meet criteria. I personally have seen court case documents that did this successfully for criminal who arrived with fake passport.
So should we model our immigration system on that of those countries? My point is that we are a country of laws, based on rule of law, and therefore must start by impartially enforcing the laws we have. Syria and Iraq (to name two of your examples) are certainly not what I would describe as countries based on rule of law. As you yourself point out, in Iraq the police liked you, so they let you go. I do not want to see such a system in the USA.
> My point is that we are a country of laws, based on rule of law, and therefore must start by impartially enforcing the laws we have.
Would be nice if that were the reality. But we have a POTUS with 34 counts giving out a presidential medal of freedom to a crooked guy with melting hair goo and releasing all J6ers with a pardon.
Honestly, I would hate to live under the rule of law in the USA. Everyone that waited 31 days to register for the draft would be a felon, the guy who gets wasted and takes a nap instead answering the census worker would be in jail, and about 10% of the USA would be in the federal pen for 10 years because they own a squirrel hunting gun while also at sometime in the past year smoking a marijuana cigarette.
Meanwhile the so called people enforcing the "rule of law" are bagging people up all masked up, no visible credentials, shifting them around in jurisdictions faster than their lawyer can keep up, then sending them in 3rd world shithole prisons even if there is an active order barring that from happening.
If you want to show me rule of law, first of all show me a government that even vaguely follows the very constitution that authorized its existence in the first place. I would rather have anarchy than rule of law enforced by bandits.
I've lived in a failed state. The US government brutalized me far worse.
In the failed state I joined a militia, and we actually were able to fight off the people trying to brutalize us. In the USA if you tried this they would just insta Waco you.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Not cool.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
I could run away and abandon any hope of fixing my country and also abandon my children. It wouldn't put me in any morally superior position.
Just telling people "You should run away" because the country is run by people grossly violating the constitution isn't the flex you think it is, and in fact I think it is attitudes like the one you've just presented that help get us into these kinds of situations.
I said anarchy was better than "rule of law" by bandits. Somehow you read that as I need to move away because those are the only two options.
Even if we do suppose for the sake of argument, that anarchy is better than rule of law by bandits, and those are literally the only two options -- even then I don't see merely moving away and letting my children deal with it as a clear superior option. It's merely possibly more convenient for me.
That’s a nonsequitur. My neighborhood in DC, with high immigrant population, has a lower crime than Capitol Hill, with a far lower immigrant population. DC has a lower crime rate than the places that are sending federal agents here.
Punching them actually is "punching them." And these "agents" are basically roving patrols which target and violently detain people based on skin color. These aren't normal enforcement operations, they're intended to be cruel and violent and deprive everyone of their rights.
"Why are you making me punch you" is a stand-in for the kind of broken logic a child uses on a playground. It isn't about actually punching people (although many have been assualted by ICE). Instead, it is about deploying maliciously faulty logic in defense of bad action.
Think of it as a cousin to the "he's no angel" style defense of bad acts.
Governments have a right to detain and deport individuals in the country without documentation. The fact that ICE resorts to the tactics we are describing is unfortunate but necessary because many cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration. These operations of ICE, generally speaking, are legal. (I say "generally speaking" because I cannot speak for every action of every ICE agent in the USA). You may find it distasteful or disagreeable, but it is within the purview of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws.
Governments don't have rights. They didn't spring fully formed from the wombs of other governments without a say in the matter.
They have privileges. Provisional privileges derived from the people (or at least that is what some very drunk men in wigs seemed to imply). I don't like it when my government uses dressed-up faux authority (DHS just issues itself administrative "warrants") as the basis for assaulting people. Seems pretty cut-and-dry wrong. And as responses go, really lopsided.
> Governments have a right to detain and deport individuals in the country without documentation. The fact that ICE resorts to the tactics we are describing is unfortunate but necessary because many cities and states refuse to cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration. These operations of ICE, generally speaking, are legal. (I say "generally speaking" because I cannot speak for every action of every ICE agent in the USA). You may find it distasteful or disagreeable, but it is within the purview of the federal government to enforce federal immigration laws.
Legal is a moving target. Legal was used to justify interment camps.
Be careful justifying what should and could be done based on "it's technically legal"
I mean detaining jews were also "legal" at one point in time. So, let's just base our morals on what's legal and defend people who abuse the laws to do more heinous stuff, so we can hide behind "Generally I'm against it, but it's legal, so nothing wrong is going on here".
>That'll surely make things work out great. right?
Yep. I'm not sure why we're even bothering with deportations. Just shoot 'em in the head and grind them up for fertilizer and pig/chicken feed.
And if a few hundred thousand citizens get caught up in that, it's no big deal. They wouldn't have been involved if they didn't look like illegals, right?
Besides, folks like me (with the map of Ireland all over my face) won't get caught up in that. So why should I care?
Yeah, why bother deporting them. Shooting them is quicker and cheaper. We could save even more money by converting warehouses to gas folks and then we can cremate them and/or use them as agricultural inputs.
Easy peasy. I mean, it's not like they're human or anything. My god! They're criminals, every last one of them! Rapists, killers, gang bangers. If they weren't subhuman, we wouldn't need to treat them like this.
But they're not like us decent, hard working people. They're evil, twisted murderers, just like the pedophile demonrats who murdered all the ICE folks during the Obama and Biden administrations.
Both Biden and Obama just sent the Marines in to ICE offices and killed them all dead!
So it's perfectly fine to do that to all the brown^W illegal people too, right? I certainly won't have to worry about it, nor will the other white^W real Americans.
This situation in and of itself is very unique and American. No one seems to be happy about it, but this is separation of powers playing out - in how many countries out there will you find states that actively obstruct federal law enforcement because that's what the people in that state voted for, versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for? Well when they're worked up enough Americans will do just that.
Personally I'm not sure I have a huge problem with this, yes it's a mess, but I'm not at all convinced we need more consolidation of power just because of that. I'm DEFINITELY not convinced that one side or the other has what it takes to permanently govern everything and always get their way.
The same general principles are at work when it comes to the legalization of weed, with lots of little details being different of course.
> ... versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for
Are we talking about a different country than the USA?
There's ~174 million potential voters in the US, 77 million voted republican vs 75 million voted democrat at the last presidential election (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cas...)
So there's an about even population split that is in theory in support of those policies, versus the same amount of people against. Surely it's not "one state against what the rest of the country voted for" like you're suggesting...
This just feels like nitpicking over the exact numbers? At the end of the day, it's still cities/states representing some fraction of the country unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government.
>This just feels like nitpicking over the exact numbers? At the end of the day, it's still cities/states representing some fraction of the country unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government.
No. That's not it at all. While Federal law is the supreme law of the land, it is enforced by the Federal government.
The several states and any municipalities within them are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws, just as the Federal government is under no obligation to enforce state and local laws.
Which is why the Federal government often ties funding to legislation, using the carrot of funding (and the stick of pulling such funding if states do not) to compel states to cooperate with the Federal government.
What's more, the Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have repeatedly ruled that the states are not required to enforce Federal law for the Federal government.
And no one is "unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government." In fact, state and local law enforcement have repeatedly been used to back up Federal agents executing those immigration policies.
No Federal law requires a state to enforce Federal immigration policies. And not enforcing a law outside of a law enforcement agency's jurisdiction (again Federal law is the jurisdiction of Federal government not state/local governments) isn't "overriding" anything.
You appear to be confused about the law and how it works in the US and the several states. Here are a few links to help straighten you out:
>The several states and any municipalities within them are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws, just as the Federal government is under no obligation to enforce state and local laws.
Be careful with this argument. Cops also don't have any "obligation" to stop crime, so if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then it's fine (or at least, it's "not unilaterally overriding laws") for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched.
>Be careful with this argument. Cops also don't have any "obligation" to stop crime, so if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then it's fine (or at least, it's "not unilaterally overriding laws") for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched.
You're just figuring that out now? You're 50 years late[0] for Warren v. District of Columbia (rape, assault and burglary) and 20 years late[1] for Castle Rock v. Gonzales (triple murder).
Yes it is 'fine' for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched. The supreme court ruled as such. They generally only have a duty to act if they've formed a special relationship, like having someone in their custody.
I think it is a stretch to conclude that because someone voted for Trump, they support all of his immigration policies. Some of the policies perhaps, but I think it is a matter of degree. Many viewed Biden (rightly or wrongly) as not enforcing the law at all.
I agree, I think this situation is uniquely American, and yes, this is exactly separation of powers (federal vs. state) playing out. I also agree with you that neither side, given more authority, would produce a better outcome. It is my personal observation that many on the left seem to believe that there should not be a border, and that many on the right are clearly xenophobic. The answer is somewhere in the middle but unfortunately that is not what wins votes.
