Yes, I have. So you're conceding my point then? Because why else would you drag the conversation towards "you're making your point with poor manners"?

In the guidelines there is an emphasis on curious debate. Also about political things, but those tend to be more controversial, so are avoided by default.

Do you understand that point? Political debate is discouraged here by design.

So the reason you won't find so much about this concrete ICE issue is simply that this type of debate is not welcome in general and does not say anything about "HN" communities position.

Second thing is, there is no such thing as "HN mind".

You can extrapolate some averages, but .. I for example ain't even from the US.

"opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation"

And from radical anarcho anarchists to radical communists, I have read all sorts of opinions here.

Lastly, the guidelines strongly advice against debating in a "engaged mind". Meaning, you sound a bit emotional and aggressive. I perceive that as attacking .. and my default mode would answer in a different way and we would be in a flamewar situation. (Despite we likely agree on the political side of things here)