If you go back and read the comment you are responding to, you will see this text:
> I assure you, it is perfectly possible to enforce border and immigration policies without engaging in wanton cruelty or violations of civil rights.
The false equivalence, then, is right here:
> If there’s no immigration enforcement, that’s functionally equivalent to having open borders.
Where you again just skip over the enumerated criticisms and pretend that all border enforcement must be done in such an aggressive and violent manner without regard for constitutionally guaranteed rights.
If you don't want to acknowledge the difference between "enforce immigration law in a civil and reasonable manner" and "terrorize neighborhoods and execute citizens to make a point", then I can't help you.
> I assure you, it is perfectly possible to enforce border and immigration policies without engaging in wanton cruelty or violations of civil rights.
The false equivalence, then, is right here:
> If there’s no immigration enforcement, that’s functionally equivalent to having open borders.
Where you again just skip over the enumerated criticisms and pretend that all border enforcement must be done in such an aggressive and violent manner without regard for constitutionally guaranteed rights.
If you don't want to acknowledge the difference between "enforce immigration law in a civil and reasonable manner" and "terrorize neighborhoods and execute citizens to make a point", then I can't help you.