Maybe if they can pinpoint its whereabouts at a specific time when it's not heavily guarded, they can send a team to snatch it with minimal casualties.
Trump talks a lot of shit but generally he chickens out from that kinda thing historically speaking.
Granted considering his statements as things has gone on I'm not at all sure about his grasp on reality. Maybe he sees the wrong tweets and does something stupid(er) than usual?
Good move. Venezuela shipping oil to Cuba violates NO international law and America is committing an act of terrorism with their "blockade" (an act of war according to the UN). America can never win a war with Venezuela, seeing their humiliating defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam against much smaller and less developed nations. Godspeed to all Venezuelans resisting the ongoing American aggression.
For the time being, the US did not declare any blockade. It is simply seizing vessels that are part of the "shadow fleet". The particular oil tanker that was seized recently was flying under a Guyanese flag. Guyana, by the way, is Venezuela's neighbor, and about a year ago Maduro was thinking of invading it. Guess what, Guyana said they have no idea why that tanker is flying their flag, so technically speaking the ship was flying a false flag, therefore under the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) the vessel could be boarded, inspected and seized.
They’re not random, they’re called “flags of convenience” since the ship is subject to the laws of the country where it is registered, including labor laws and safety standards. Panama and Liberia are common flags for merchant ships because they make it cheap to register, exempt the ship from some taxes, and hire foreign labor.
The rules for ships are a bit different for rules for cars.
There's a number of countries (some of them land-locked) that sell flags of convenience, but in that particular case, it's possible that didn't happen.
> technically speaking the ship was flying a false flag
You seem to know very little about oil tankers and flags. What flag do most oil tankers from the Persian Gulf heading to the US fly? Rarely a US flag or flag from a Oersian Gulf state. Often a Liberian flag. So the seas are filled with oil tankers headed to the US under what you call a "false flag".
Bullshit. If a ship is legally registered with any sovereign country, including Liberia, then it is entitled to fly that country's flag. Nothing false about it.
However the M/V Skipper was not registered in Guyana. It was flying a false flag and so any country was free to seize it.
You'll have to ask the M/T Skipper's master about why he was flying a false Guyanese flag. I understand that he has been detained so that may come out during the investigation. The vessel had never been registered in Venezuela so there would have been no reason to fly that flag.
I can speculate as to motives for flying a false flag but so what? Any vessel flying a false flag is subject to seizure and isn't entitled to legal protection.
Hard to comprehend the stunning levels of cope required to still view what happened in Iraq as some kind of decisive victory for anyone except Blackwater and Halliburton.
It's widely accepted that the US lost in Vietnam due not to military defeat, but from the clever Tet Offensive - where they successfully influenced US politics via US journalism, to cause them to simply cease fighting.
Whether they should have bothered in the first place though, given how corrupt and dysfunctional the regime in the south was, is an open moral question.
> It's widely accepted that the US lost in Vietnam due not to military defeat, but from the clever Tet Offensive - where they successfully influenced US politics via US journalism, to cause them to simply cease fighting.
Yes, that's called "losing a war," and no serious strategist pretends that politics is not one of the key theaters (if not the key theater) of conflict.
> It's widely accepted that the US lost in Vietnam due not to military defeat, but from the clever Tet Offensive - where they successfully influenced US politics via US journalism, to cause them to simply cease fighting.
Yes, that's literally how essentially every war ends; some combination of factors causes one side to stop fighting rather than continuing the pay the price in blood and treasure that fighting demands.
There's probably a few somewhere that end because the losing side doesn't give up but fights to the last person, but that's very much not the norm.
What do you mean by poor track record? I can infer you are talking about the Vietnam War, and that is why I am curious. From a military point of view, the US did not lose a single battle of any significance during the entirety of a Vietnam War.
How does a country lose a war without losing any major battles? On the homefront first.
It's because Venezuela has lots of oil and gold, and the money (and blood) won't be "wasted" for the small sliver of people who benefit from stealing it.
> America can never win a war with Venezuela, seeing their humiliating defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam against much smaller and less developed nations.
I don't disagree, but it cost at least 400,000 civilian lives in Vietnam war. It's hard for me to say "good move."
If your assumed goal is regime change from autocratic to democratic, they lost. If it was for stability in the middle east, the lost. If it was for oil and pressure on OPEC, I'd say they lost, but I would hear and understand an opposite argument (and change my mind).
I have to say I appreciate Maduro calling the U.S. empire's bluff at every turn. Whether it's the corrupt Nobel Peace Prize, trying to bribe his pilot to betray him, or now this, it's all just making it clear to anyone with eyes remotely open to see that U.S. foreign policy operates on shameless pretense and dishonesty.
I mean technically US doesn't have to go to war in land, if they sink the navy(which would be accomplished in minutes) then all Venezuelan oil is trapped in country and they go bankrupt.
Could the buyers just send their own ships to retrieve oil from Venezuela? Say, China sends a oil tanker, I imagine it would be trickier for US Navy to just sink or steal it.
Once the US has air superiority, they don’t need their aircraft carriers anywhere close to Venezuela territory. The submarine fleet alone can enforce a blockade.
Playing devil's advocate here, wouldn't Venezuela be massively better off from its "complete collapse of civilization" state and matching ruling class if it simply called up the US and said "hey, want to govern us?"
That the US cannot win a war is silly. The US could erase every population center within a few minutes. The core issue with US military policy is nobody can agree on what the goals are or what the appropriate level of force should be, and this is further confounded by an extremely large industry that benefits from no compete contracts and production practices that are optimized for low intensity conflict that lasts for decades. It’s sort of an elaborate jobs program, a lot like the TSA.
> That the US cannot win a war is silly. The US could erase every population center within a few minutes.
Although the U.S. ruling class often likes to pretend it can operate with no regard for its domestic perceptions of legitimacy, the stunning amounts they expend on relentless psychological operations suggest otherwise. Killing millions in an aggressive nuclear strike would do nothing but reveal to many people (who are desperately trying to pretend otherwise) that they are controlled by a klatch of relentless psychopaths.
Regardless of any legal or moral issues, in practice the Venezuelan Navy has almost no capability to escort merchant vessels. It was never a very strong force and has been badly degraded by years of socialism. I doubt they will try to do anything more than a symbolic show of force near the ports.
The main purpose is probably to get American ships to fire the first shot, and thereby firmly establish that it is the U.S. empire that is the aggressor.
This is barely an inconvenience for the Venezuelan regime. Oil contributes very little to the economy these days. The oil industry was dismantled many years ago and replaced mostly by drug trafficking and illegal mining. With over 9 million expats fleeing the regime, “remesas” also keep whatever is left from the economy moving. Most Venezuelans don’t work, or at least not for money, just to keep their sanity, as salaries cannot buy any basic goods. Exceptions are doctors and some emergency trade occupations like plumbers or mechanics, which are entirely $US based. Most families depend on relatives sending money from abroad. There’s also some tourism, mostly Russians and Chinese. Other than not much going on there, the 0.0001% in power already made their fortunes in illegal markets (and in crypto, as some in the regime used the limited power in the country to mine bitcoin) so they have little to worry about some dirty oil not being “sold” to Cuba or Iran. The rest of the population continues surviving however they can.
Oil contributes very little to the economy these days. The oil industry was dismantled many years ago and replaced mostly by drug trafficking and illegal mining.
Mind sourcing that? It's not what's on the Wikipedia page for Venezuela's economy, nor the CIA world factbook for the country. The largest estimate I could find for drug trafficking was 8 billion USD, which came from transparency international, an org with sketchy history on Latin American numbers. The latest petroleum export numbers I can find are much higher.
It’s a complex issue which deserves a complex explanation. I wouldn’t oversimplify and discount that at least some people with decision making clout in the US want Maduro to be made an example of. Nearly all leaders in the Americas (including in the US) are generally hostile to the US population, but Maduro is probably the most open and aggressive. Sending the worst prisoners to us is laudable as a resourceful and creative form of biological warfare, but I would still want to see him on the business end of US ordinance. Incidentally reducing the supply of narcotics, even if it’s a small percentage, is a win for working class folks on net, and at least some people care about them. Chinese and Russian interests getting cute and forward positioning offensive or dual-use material is likely in play. A smoke screen for the only country the US policy-making establishment actually cares about is also an interest served. A little jingoism probably polls well. Unfortunately, we don’t have a monarchy and policy is basically unexplainable. Sort of like how it is when companies get too big and anybody who can buy shares gets a say.
The dumbest timeline is the one with nuclear war. This might not be it.
If we're optimistic and assume that Trump, Xi and Putin have some kind of deal for a new world order where the US is no longer a world police, and the US gets to have its oligarchs just like Russia has.
Maybe that part of the deal is that Trump gets the Americas. It sure sucks for the new vassal states, but it beats having a nuclear war.
Putin seems intent on keeping up his threats, he might just use a "low yield" nuke to shake out the weak hands in Europe - - which it appears there are plenty of - - the question is how EU NATO would respond. I doubt they would then match him, nuke for nuke.
Could it be Trump is leaning towards just letting Putin and the EU settle their own differences by themselves - - while Trump concentrates on his side of the world, which Venezuela is a too easy prize to win. The old playbook: Find a US leaning Venezuelan leader who can be bought off with CIA money, get rid of Maduro, by force if needed, then the huge discoveries in the oilfields of Guyana next door that Exxon, Hess Corporation, CNOOC and others have their hands deep in are secured.
One thing I cannot make out is of these tankers are legitimately sanctioned or not.
They are sometimes described as "sanctioned", but what does it mean here? Does it mean Trump tweeted so? Is that by UN? US Congress?
Trump is clearly acting with bad will in Venezuela regardless, but I think the criticism should focus on the many parts where he is doing something wrong. If there were internationally-recognised sanctions that simply weren't enforced, I'd criticise Trump for all the other parts.
It was legitimate as far as we know. A seizure warrant was issued under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, 2332b(g)(5), and 2339B(a)(1). So far no court has ruled against that.
Thanks for this. The warrant claims this ship was involved, basically, in financing Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. So kind of bad things.
I think we need to be wary of the pattern where:
- some bad things happen but are ignored / uncontested by the "good" side
- the "bad" side comes in and does a lot of genuinely bad things of their own
- but also, perhaps selectively, contests other "bad" things that were left hanging by the "good" side, where it fits their narrative
- the "good" side is up in arms against the "bad" side following the law
Clearly this argument hinges on recognising Trump as a baddie and the Democrats, somewhat, as baddies. As a non-American, this is roughly how I see it, but I can't stir up outrage against Trump for enforcing sanctions according to his country's own laws. Bullying Venezuela, sure, but not this particular fragment.
I remember how defensive Democrats were of illegal immigration during the last election. I'll agree with anyone who wants to treat people fairly and humanely, but the Democrats were almost making out that illegal immigrants are some kind of modern day martyrs. If you think the immigration laws are not right, change them, but don't sit on and praise a system perpetuated by illegality.
It's just a hypocritical, massive own goal, and I detracts from all the genuinely bad things done by the "bad" side.
US really is intent on starting a shooting war by the looks of it. Perhaps even some light special military operation'ing...
If its not in the middle east it's just a sparkling police action.
Quick in'n'out we are home before Christmas
2031: After 4 year struggle Maracay has finally fallen, An F35 has been shot down by unknown energy weapon, probably provided by China.
How does this affect Trump's chances of ... ahem, getting the peace prize?
I though he and his followers said he was anti-war? Oh yup, this is probably just a "special military operation"
> getting the peace prize
Maybe if they can pinpoint its whereabouts at a specific time when it's not heavily guarded, they can send a team to snatch it with minimal casualties.
You do realize the US is supported in the current actions by the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner? (María Corina Machado)
How financing ruSSia with oil money promotes peace?
It's almost like there's something happening on Friday that is so scary that there's a need for a full-on "Wag the Dog" shooting war.
Trump talks a lot of shit but generally he chickens out from that kinda thing historically speaking.
Granted considering his statements as things has gone on I'm not at all sure about his grasp on reality. Maybe he sees the wrong tweets and does something stupid(er) than usual?
To quote Hunt for Red October: “This business will get out of control.”
And we'll be lucky to live through it!
Good move. Venezuela shipping oil to Cuba violates NO international law and America is committing an act of terrorism with their "blockade" (an act of war according to the UN). America can never win a war with Venezuela, seeing their humiliating defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam against much smaller and less developed nations. Godspeed to all Venezuelans resisting the ongoing American aggression.
For the time being, the US did not declare any blockade. It is simply seizing vessels that are part of the "shadow fleet". The particular oil tanker that was seized recently was flying under a Guyanese flag. Guyana, by the way, is Venezuela's neighbor, and about a year ago Maduro was thinking of invading it. Guess what, Guyana said they have no idea why that tanker is flying their flag, so technically speaking the ship was flying a false flag, therefore under the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) the vessel could be boarded, inspected and seized.
Isn't it completely standard for international shipping to fly random flags? Ive never understood exactly why but I think its common?
They’re not random, they’re called “flags of convenience” since the ship is subject to the laws of the country where it is registered, including labor laws and safety standards. Panama and Liberia are common flags for merchant ships because they make it cheap to register, exempt the ship from some taxes, and hire foreign labor.
Thanks!
This is a bit like saying "isn't it completely standard for cars to have random meaningless characters on their number plates"?
The rules for ships are a bit different for rules for cars.
There's a number of countries (some of them land-locked) that sell flags of convenience, but in that particular case, it's possible that didn't happen.
As completely standard as it is for companies choose to register in Delaware.
What's a problem is companies that claim to be registered in Delaware when Delaware records show no such registration.
Hint: they’re not random
Random to third parties, yet not random to the nation in question nor the crew of the ship....
> technically speaking the ship was flying a false flag
You seem to know very little about oil tankers and flags. What flag do most oil tankers from the Persian Gulf heading to the US fly? Rarely a US flag or flag from a Oersian Gulf state. Often a Liberian flag. So the seas are filled with oil tankers headed to the US under what you call a "false flag".
The vessel was flying under a Guyanese flag but was not registered there.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/oil-tanker-seized-by-...
Bullshit. If a ship is legally registered with any sovereign country, including Liberia, then it is entitled to fly that country's flag. Nothing false about it.
However the M/V Skipper was not registered in Guyana. It was flying a false flag and so any country was free to seize it.
Why was the ship flying a Guyanese flag rather than a Venezuelan one in the first place?
You'll have to ask the M/T Skipper's master about why he was flying a false Guyanese flag. I understand that he has been detained so that may come out during the investigation. The vessel had never been registered in Venezuela so there would have been no reason to fly that flag.
Are we really going to obtusely pretend we can't think of a single reason on our own for them to have done that?
I can speculate as to motives for flying a false flag but so what? Any vessel flying a false flag is subject to seizure and isn't entitled to legal protection.
And what should the U.S. vessels imposing an illegal and unprovoked blockade be subject to?
If you believe in "might makes right" why not just be honest and come out and say that?
The POTUS declared a blockade yesterday on social media.
https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/34245
> America can never win a war with Venezuela, seeing their humiliating defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam
Iraq’s Republican Guards rejoice!
Hard to comprehend the stunning levels of cope required to still view what happened in Iraq as some kind of decisive victory for anyone except Blackwater and Halliburton.
Well in some ways Iran was also a winner.
"America can never win a war with Venezuela"
No, but they'll win all the battles.
There is a poor track record on war against jungle covered countries whose names start with V.
It's widely accepted that the US lost in Vietnam due not to military defeat, but from the clever Tet Offensive - where they successfully influenced US politics via US journalism, to cause them to simply cease fighting.
Whether they should have bothered in the first place though, given how corrupt and dysfunctional the regime in the south was, is an open moral question.
> It's widely accepted that the US lost in Vietnam due not to military defeat, but from the clever Tet Offensive - where they successfully influenced US politics via US journalism, to cause them to simply cease fighting.
Yes, that's called "losing a war," and no serious strategist pretends that politics is not one of the key theaters (if not the key theater) of conflict.
> It's widely accepted that the US lost in Vietnam due not to military defeat, but from the clever Tet Offensive - where they successfully influenced US politics via US journalism, to cause them to simply cease fighting.
Yes, that's literally how essentially every war ends; some combination of factors causes one side to stop fighting rather than continuing the pay the price in blood and treasure that fighting demands.
There's probably a few somewhere that end because the losing side doesn't give up but fights to the last person, but that's very much not the norm.
That is really, really distilling the entire decades-long indochina conflict into one weekend, wow lol.
One weekend, 7 years and Nixon's entire presidency before we actually withdrew.
What do you mean by poor track record? I can infer you are talking about the Vietnam War, and that is why I am curious. From a military point of view, the US did not lose a single battle of any significance during the entirety of a Vietnam War.
How does a country lose a war without losing any major battles? On the homefront first.
This is what astounds me. Why waste all the money and blood on a frankly failed state like Venezuela that was always a basket case. What's next Haiti?
Oil! It's always oil
It's because Venezuela has lots of oil and gold, and the money (and blood) won't be "wasted" for the small sliver of people who benefit from stealing it.
> America can never win a war with Venezuela, seeing their humiliating defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam against much smaller and less developed nations.
I don't disagree, but it cost at least 400,000 civilian lives in Vietnam war. It's hard for me to say "good move."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
America may not have won but they sure as hell didn't lose.
If your assumed goal is regime change from autocratic to democratic, they lost. If it was for stability in the middle east, the lost. If it was for oil and pressure on OPEC, I'd say they lost, but I would hear and understand an opposite argument (and change my mind).
I have to say I appreciate Maduro calling the U.S. empire's bluff at every turn. Whether it's the corrupt Nobel Peace Prize, trying to bribe his pilot to betray him, or now this, it's all just making it clear to anyone with eyes remotely open to see that U.S. foreign policy operates on shameless pretense and dishonesty.
I mean technically US doesn't have to go to war in land, if they sink the navy(which would be accomplished in minutes) then all Venezuelan oil is trapped in country and they go bankrupt.
Could the buyers just send their own ships to retrieve oil from Venezuela? Say, China sends a oil tanker, I imagine it would be trickier for US Navy to just sink or steal it.
If they go bankrupt, then they start using russian missiles to blow up US aircraft carriers. This is a war that neither side wants to win.
Once the US has air superiority, they don’t need their aircraft carriers anywhere close to Venezuela territory. The submarine fleet alone can enforce a blockade.
Lol, ya, that's not how air / naval superiority works. Any missile launch platforms get cooked quickly by US planes.
Playing devil's advocate here, wouldn't Venezuela be massively better off from its "complete collapse of civilization" state and matching ruling class if it simply called up the US and said "hey, want to govern us?"
The US would bomb a bunch of brown people, declare victory, get the hell out and leave it to a decades long civil war. Like they did with Mexico.
Like seriously not even Trump can be stupid enough to actually want to GOVERN it. Can he?
Well not out of the goodness of his heart, for "big beautiful oil fields" or whatever
That the US cannot win a war is silly. The US could erase every population center within a few minutes. The core issue with US military policy is nobody can agree on what the goals are or what the appropriate level of force should be, and this is further confounded by an extremely large industry that benefits from no compete contracts and production practices that are optimized for low intensity conflict that lasts for decades. It’s sort of an elaborate jobs program, a lot like the TSA.
> That the US cannot win a war is silly. The US could erase every population center within a few minutes.
Although the U.S. ruling class often likes to pretend it can operate with no regard for its domestic perceptions of legitimacy, the stunning amounts they expend on relentless psychological operations suggest otherwise. Killing millions in an aggressive nuclear strike would do nothing but reveal to many people (who are desperately trying to pretend otherwise) that they are controlled by a klatch of relentless psychopaths.
Regardless of any legal or moral issues, in practice the Venezuelan Navy has almost no capability to escort merchant vessels. It was never a very strong force and has been badly degraded by years of socialism. I doubt they will try to do anything more than a symbolic show of force near the ports.
The main purpose is probably to get American ships to fire the first shot, and thereby firmly establish that it is the U.S. empire that is the aggressor.
This is barely an inconvenience for the Venezuelan regime. Oil contributes very little to the economy these days. The oil industry was dismantled many years ago and replaced mostly by drug trafficking and illegal mining. With over 9 million expats fleeing the regime, “remesas” also keep whatever is left from the economy moving. Most Venezuelans don’t work, or at least not for money, just to keep their sanity, as salaries cannot buy any basic goods. Exceptions are doctors and some emergency trade occupations like plumbers or mechanics, which are entirely $US based. Most families depend on relatives sending money from abroad. There’s also some tourism, mostly Russians and Chinese. Other than not much going on there, the 0.0001% in power already made their fortunes in illegal markets (and in crypto, as some in the regime used the limited power in the country to mine bitcoin) so they have little to worry about some dirty oil not being “sold” to Cuba or Iran. The rest of the population continues surviving however they can.
Honestly it looks like someone is just Wagging The Dog[1] in anticipation of the DOJ deadline to release more Epstein information.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
It’s a complex issue which deserves a complex explanation. I wouldn’t oversimplify and discount that at least some people with decision making clout in the US want Maduro to be made an example of. Nearly all leaders in the Americas (including in the US) are generally hostile to the US population, but Maduro is probably the most open and aggressive. Sending the worst prisoners to us is laudable as a resourceful and creative form of biological warfare, but I would still want to see him on the business end of US ordinance. Incidentally reducing the supply of narcotics, even if it’s a small percentage, is a win for working class folks on net, and at least some people care about them. Chinese and Russian interests getting cute and forward positioning offensive or dual-use material is likely in play. A smoke screen for the only country the US policy-making establishment actually cares about is also an interest served. A little jingoism probably polls well. Unfortunately, we don’t have a monarchy and policy is basically unexplainable. Sort of like how it is when companies get too big and anybody who can buy shares gets a say.
This seems like the most logical explanation.
Notice also the tell-all in Vanity Fair by the loyalist? To me this is suspicious timing.
It would serve to darken Trump's image a bit while affirming he's a Strong Man (a quote from the article).
This is the dumbest timeline.
The dumbest timeline is the one with nuclear war. This might not be it.
If we're optimistic and assume that Trump, Xi and Putin have some kind of deal for a new world order where the US is no longer a world police, and the US gets to have its oligarchs just like Russia has.
Maybe that part of the deal is that Trump gets the Americas. It sure sucks for the new vassal states, but it beats having a nuclear war.
Putin seems intent on keeping up his threats, he might just use a "low yield" nuke to shake out the weak hands in Europe - - which it appears there are plenty of - - the question is how EU NATO would respond. I doubt they would then match him, nuke for nuke.
Could it be Trump is leaning towards just letting Putin and the EU settle their own differences by themselves - - while Trump concentrates on his side of the world, which Venezuela is a too easy prize to win. The old playbook: Find a US leaning Venezuelan leader who can be bought off with CIA money, get rid of Maduro, by force if needed, then the huge discoveries in the oilfields of Guyana next door that Exxon, Hess Corporation, CNOOC and others have their hands deep in are secured.
[dead]
One thing I cannot make out is of these tankers are legitimately sanctioned or not.
They are sometimes described as "sanctioned", but what does it mean here? Does it mean Trump tweeted so? Is that by UN? US Congress?
Trump is clearly acting with bad will in Venezuela regardless, but I think the criticism should focus on the many parts where he is doing something wrong. If there were internationally-recognised sanctions that simply weren't enforced, I'd criticise Trump for all the other parts.
It was legitimate as far as we know. A seizure warrant was issued under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981, 982, 2332b(g)(5), and 2339B(a)(1). So far no court has ruled against that.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-unseals-warrant-tanker...
Thanks for this. The warrant claims this ship was involved, basically, in financing Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. So kind of bad things.
I think we need to be wary of the pattern where:
- some bad things happen but are ignored / uncontested by the "good" side
- the "bad" side comes in and does a lot of genuinely bad things of their own
- but also, perhaps selectively, contests other "bad" things that were left hanging by the "good" side, where it fits their narrative
- the "good" side is up in arms against the "bad" side following the law
Clearly this argument hinges on recognising Trump as a baddie and the Democrats, somewhat, as baddies. As a non-American, this is roughly how I see it, but I can't stir up outrage against Trump for enforcing sanctions according to his country's own laws. Bullying Venezuela, sure, but not this particular fragment.
I remember how defensive Democrats were of illegal immigration during the last election. I'll agree with anyone who wants to treat people fairly and humanely, but the Democrats were almost making out that illegal immigrants are some kind of modern day martyrs. If you think the immigration laws are not right, change them, but don't sit on and praise a system perpetuated by illegality.
It's just a hypocritical, massive own goal, and I detracts from all the genuinely bad things done by the "bad" side.