Thanks, and apologies as well.

I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.

What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:

Nobody should be deported their "legality" shouldn't matter. Nobody is illegal.

No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don't know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That's just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there's no need for it.

If it's illegal and all that, yes, they should be held to standard.

But given the fact that this administration likes to slap the word "illegal" on anything they don't like, was it really? Or is it a boy crying wolf again?

If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there's an "if" in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it's nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there's no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.

Disagreeing is one thing, and I don't mind it as someone who defends everyone's right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.

Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:

yes no prisons or police should exist. "lawlessness" is a good thing.

So yes, answering your question of "What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?", pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they're entitled to it.