Top Trump official Stephen Miller’s recent declaration that anyone who “preaches hate for America” will face deportation has ignited alarm online, with critics warning the statement disregards First Amendment protections.

Social media users and legal analysts raised immediate concerns, pointing out that expressing dissent or criticism of the government is protected under the First Amendment. Some worried the administration was veering into authoritarian territory.

The backlash has reignited broader debates over the limits of free speech, especially as civil liberties fall under scrutiny. While immigration enforcement remains a core theme of President Donald Trump’s platform, critics are increasingly questioning whether rhetoric like Miller’s is a precursor to more aggressive suppression of dissent.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Yes, propaganda can infect people with hate, fear, and delusion. But if we begin to see our neighbors only as rabid dogs, we risk becoming cynical and cruel ourselves.

    If we see them as misguided innocents, we’re going to be in for a rude awakening when they rat us out to the El Salvadorian kidnap vans. At some point, liberals need to recognize this isn’t a coffee-shop debate. It’s a matter of self-defense. Organizing means building networks of trust and support. That means taking people into confidence when they tell you their views on Palestine. That means locking arms with people who may not express the gender printed on their birth certificates. That may eventually extend to having a neighbor hide in your attic while you stare down the police. And if you’ve opened your front door to “I’m just following the law” / “They shouldn’t be here anyway” fash-curious centrists and conservatives, what kind of organization do you think you’re building?

    The real task isn’t just to oppose the empire—it’s to build a counter-power that can replace it.

    A counter-power that rises to the point of defiance of authority. That level of opposition requires real material support and genuine sincere trust. You don’t get that without some degree of ideological orthodoxy.

    There’s a test I’ve discovered as a standard issue when a retail establishment is hiring. One of the questions you get asked is some variation of “Would it be wrong to take a single penny from the cash register if <insert compelling reason here>?” And if you answer “Yes”, you’re immediately disqualified for the job. This kind of ideological rigidity is common in the commercial sector because acknowledging certain fundamental standards is central to trusting the people you put in charge of your business resources. Expecting any less from an activist political organization is foolhardy.