I've said this before, but the more I see if Dev, the more apparent it becomes that he has a very particular political persuasion: the status quo. Even though he would obviously deny it, its very obvious he believes in the whig view of history, and the end of history (which figures given his nostalgia for the 00s). He seems to believe, as we could expect from an end of history liberal, that while peoples private lives should not be restricted, their political capacities should be such that the cirrent status quo, which while not the liberal utopia, is certainly the inheritor of the liberal project, cannot be changed. This is both because he thinks that we have reached the end of history, but also because he think liberalism has no
real flaws, while all other ideologies have many flaws.
The problem with this worldview, aside from the colossal arrogance that goes into it, is that for any problems that are a result of the status quo, it has no answer, because of course its the end of history and things are as good as they can get. Lets take low wages for example: He cannot say to tax the rich, (thats communist), he cannot say remove women from the workplace (that was a liberal victory), he cannot say deport the immigrants (that was a liberal ideal), he cannot say to raise the minimum wage (that would be government intervention), so all that he is left with is to assert that actually the low wages are great.
Dev is ultimately blinded by all of this, and thus unable to see the flaws in the ideology he subscribes to, and thusly, the flaws himself as its the philosophy he follows.
Lolbert faggots in the replies arguing that the bill of rights somehow applies to literally everyone on Earth.
It applies to anyone within the borders of the USA according to the latest (circuit iirc) court rulings.
The actual critique of the idea however, is that why do we care if illegals have those rights? If we don't know they're here, the issue doesn't come up, and if we do know they're here, they get deported.
