> That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes.

Weren't the democrats criticised for campaigning on the message that voting for Trump was a significant risk to due process and democracy? I feel like every voter was aware of what happened on Jan 6th and still voted for him with some level of knowledge about that.

  * focus on abortion, which is an important issue ... mostly to evangelicals
  * focus on threats to democracy, which sounded shrill and got blown off
  * no real message on the economy, which was widely perceived as floundering under Biden, and was very important to a lot of swing voters

There's no mechanism for pressing politicians except threatening not to vote for them again, and politicians are exceptionally cowardly and avoid picking up hot potatoes that could incur criticism. I'm in a district with one of the safest seats in the country, and getting my representative to state a position on many issues is like getting blood out of a stone.

There's no formal mechanism of accountability for members of Congress. Representatives hold a few town halls a year where they might be subject to social shaming by their constituents, but there's no legal obligation to do so and even when they're publicly embarrassed they often dismiss public opposition as 'a few paid agitators' or the like.

This is doubly and triply true for complex policy issues which require a lot of explaining, making it virtually impossible to build grassroots support. So you just end up with a nonprofit industrial complex that needs to constantly raise funds for lobbying and publishes slates of endorsements at election time that relatively few people have the time or inclination to read.

No major party. There are smaller parties who oppose mass surveillance.

idk, i live in oakcliff in Dallas. Per google 20% of people in the area are undocumented. Elementary schools are around 50% undocumented and the area high schools around 30% if not higher. My son is in the second most selective magnet HS in DISD and half of his friend group is undocumented.

I haven't seen a single ICE raid in the 10 years i've lived in the area. I did see DHS do a raid on a house once but i've yet to even see ICE. I'm not saying they're not around but they certainly don't make their presence known in an area overflowing with undocumented immigrants. I keep waiting for the jack boots and armored vehicles to roll through and wholesale round everyone up like i read about but it seems business as usual all day every day in Oakcliff.

edit: Honestly, i think no one really cares about oakcliff anymore. Dallas PD does nothing about the constant gunfire at night or street racing. So it makes sense ICE is never alerted, i think the people who would alert ICE just don't bother. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

c) despite appearances and the current state of fear, Trump's second-term ICE has deported merely a fraction (0.6m) achieved under Obama's ICE (3m+), so if it's on a different level, it's clearly a lower one. Movement vs action, perhaps.

https://www.wlrn.org/immigration/2026-01-23/politifact-fl-im...

https://tracreports.org/tracatwork/detail/A6019.html

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20200109/110349/HHRG...

The liberal media did an absolutely bang-up job covering up Obama's tyranny, and the conservative media wasn't about to start punishing Obama for threatening them with a good time. So nobody in the media talked about it, even though left-wing activists were shouting from the rooftops about the Deporter-in-Chief.

Obama might have even campaigned on some of these issues, but DNC insiders are experts at making big promises up front and walking them back[0]. Hell, I'm pretty sure Obama deported more people more often than Trump did, at least in his first term. And when people were suing ICE over COVID-era border closures, Biden staffers were privately wishing the activists on their side would lose.

Keep in mind, open borders is a libertarian policy, not a left-wing one. American lefties tend to also skew libertarian, but the "liberals" running the DNC are basically just Republicans with a liberal accent. The uniparty is real.

[0] I'm already seeing this with Mamdani and Queenslink. He is, at the very least, letting the shitty Queensway "let's cover this old railway up with politically untouchable greenspace to make the car-owning NIMBYs happy by stopping Queenslink" plan continue forward.

The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment

   Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment

    ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not.

Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing.

For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely.

Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

> And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?

I thought it was settled constitutional law that it doesn't? Moreover, during the war on terror, it was established that the president can freely order the murder of non Americans outside the US.