kijashdkujdfhas

Lmao I am not frustrated. I enjoy telling unserious people like you to fuck off :D

You might even call it a hobby!

The 8th amendment also applies to what we do to stop what you refer to as an illegal state of affairs.

Using the "someone in your house" example you've used a few times, would you be OK with the Air Force dropping a bunker buster bomb on your house, killing the home invader(s), and you, and your family/pets/etc, and destroying your stuff, and the same for several neighboring homes?

Or do you think that might be an excessive enforcement mechanism?

Breaking and entering is a criminal offense. As you've been repeatedly informed, immigration issues are generally civil offenses.

You: "But isn't the enforcement of every law indifferent to the sufferings of the one who is breaking the law "

The 8th amendment to the US constitution: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

That is, quite explicitly, the constitution saying that there are limits to what we will do to punish someone.

Fuck off with your unserious nonsense.

The 8th amendment would like a word. Not that you're a serious commenter.

Ahahahahahahahaha thank you for proving to everyone reading that you are not a serious participant in the conversation.

99% of covid restriction whining on the internet is exactly that, whining. And tends to be very revisionist about what actually happened, what actually was restricted, and what actually was enforced.

I reject your slightly modified false equivalency.

> They know Leftists are equally as authoritarian because of the social control policies implemented during COVID.

The actual restrictions were quite reasonable in the vast majority of cases, weren't in place very long, and were only spottily enforced.

Sorry you missed a couple nights at Applebees.

It's a pretty important legal difference. The administration is now trying to treat it as a criminal offense, trying to enforce it as a criminal offense, using that to justify calling huge swathes of immigrants 'criminals', etc.

Consider this scenario. A friend of yours walks up to you and says "man, I got a ticket yesterday." You will have a general idea of the level of enforcement involved, how that's looked at by the government and others, etc. You probably do not see your friend as a criminal.

Now, suppose the same friend walked up and says "man, I got arrested yesterday, I just got bailed out." You will have different ideas of the enforcement model and perceptions of that. There is now a greater probability that you see your friend as a criminal.

Not deranged, just someone willing to open their eyes.

Yes, but it is not criminal.

> lack of oversight due to cost pressures

Perhaps the costs of an accident should be increased to the point that it makes sense to have the oversight.

It's true, you can't ever ensure 0 accidents. But you can do things to reduce the rate of accidents and try to limit the peripheral impact of the ones that remain.