Readit News logoReadit News
csto12 · 8 months ago
Truly the party of small government and personal freedoms :)
yibg · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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.

KennyBlanken · 8 months 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?)

runjake · 8 months 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)

mizzao · 8 months ago
Maybe in the past. Now, it's just the party of "whatever DJT says, goes".
intermerda · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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.
zombiwoof · 8 months ago
No illegal Russians are being sent to Mexico
kevinpet · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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.

mindslight · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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.
sega_sai · 8 months ago
What do you expect when ICE have quotas on arrests -- https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-mystery-of-ices-...
__turbobrew__ · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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.

OutOfHere · 8 months ago
The person would have a social security number, and face photographs in various government databases. Verification ought to be easy peasy. They do it all the time for people abroad who lose their passports while traveling.

Also, as you suggested yourself, even if he didn't have an ID on him, he would have had one at home.

gortok · 8 months ago
I would like to know how far from the “norm” ICE has deviated since January 19, 2025.

It’s possible this is something that happens, and just wasn’t widely reported before now, but is because of the ethnophobic nature of our current administration.

It’s also possible this is far outside of the norm and deserves more attention than it’s getting just on the face of its irregularity.

I cannot find a non-AI generated (in my admittedly quick search) list of statistics of how many US citizens have been detained by ICE (and I do not trust that AI generated answers are accurate), so I am left with feelings, and my feelings indicate this would have been a news story no matter how rarely or often it happens, and therefore is worthy of discussion and reflection as to whether our border policies accurately reflect what we say our values are.

stagezerowil · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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 · 8 months 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.
ck2 · 8 months 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

ViewTrick1002 · 8 months 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.

Analemma_ · 8 months 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.

ty6853 · 8 months ago
I was abused at this same port of entry, including being jailed as a USC.

Prior at this same port, a woman was warrantlessly vaginally "searched" via manual manipulation at the direction of CBP. She lost. And I contacted her attorneys with my own case, they said I would lose too.

But this was under Biden, so no one gave a shit. They don't give a shit unless it suits their political agenda.

croes · 8 months ago
I guess he doesn’t look American enough
ivape · 8 months 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.

s1artibartfast · 8 months ago
The problem with these programs is that the government granted the amnesty, but then failed to follow through on the enforcement in the aftermath.

This is seared into the conservative memory, so they are extremely resistant to the idea, IMO rightly so.

alephnerd · 8 months 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...

testing22321 · 8 months 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.

fsckboy · 8 months 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.

jaybrendansmith · 8 months ago
We are taking back the 'Don't Tread On Me' flag and slogan. It now belongs to us.