| |
| ▲ | amazingman 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We should be able to agree that no entity is authorized to violate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments of the constitution. Whatever immigration laws you want to see enforced, they do not supersede the constitution. | |
| ▲ | elnatro 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Please, enlighten me a non-American, what laws allow shooting and killing civilians on broad light on the USA? | | |
| ▲ | Paracompact 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Some people have absolutist takes on these sorts of things. If the stated purpose makes sense ("stop illegal immigration"), they will dismiss tragedies as routine accidents of an imperfect world. If they have no sense of when exceptions become intolerable and course-correction becomes necessary, then by definition, no amount of evidence will change their mind. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What if we believe that those shootings are completely unacceptable (probably criminal), but that “have no immigration enforcement and permanently halt deportations” is also unacceptable? The latter seems to be the solution being pushed by one party. Like always, the left’s problem is that their proposed solutions read like they were written by teenagers, based on emotions and dismissive of the reasons why their supposed “enemies” disagree with them. Most Americans would support having ICE operate perhaps even entirely with nonlethal weapons. That would be a smart thing to push for! And popular too. But the party line is instead “Abolish ICE.” And of course nobody (who isn’t pro-open-borders) trusts that there’s any Democratic plan besides look-the-other-way and maybe amnesty. | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People wanting to abolish ICE are not, generally, calling for doing away with immigration enforcement entirely. The main thing I've seen called for is the abolition of ICE, and the restoration of the pre-DHS Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), not under the DHS, but under the DOJ. I have also seen calls to eliminate the DHS entirely, and separate out the agencies under it to their pre-DHS organization. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pardon my skepticism, but what difference would that make to rename or reorganize DHS into a different shape? If you want immigration enforcement to be nicer (which I think I support you on in broad strokes) the correct steps are: 1. Win elections 2. Pass laws (or win the Presidency, a cheat code that has been the main way most things get done since ... 2008 or so, and is basically effective unless the "thing" is kinda unconstitutional and SCOTUS is against you. Blame RBG btw for screwing Dems on that last part) The reason why we won't get this outcome is that the Democrats stopped being serious about convincing the moderates to get onboard their platform, because they give too much of a platform to the people who just chant slogans like "No person is illegal!" Which, while I get the humanitarian point, reads to me like you'd really prefer that anyone caught here illegally should ethically just be let go, rendering the whole concept of borders, visa applications, green cards, all of that, a big joke on the people who follow the rules. | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Pardon my skepticism, but what difference would that make to rename or reorganize DHS into a different shape? ICE, being under DHS, is part of the US security apparatus. It has a threat-orientation. INS did have an enforcement component, but it was substantially an administrative agency. Immigration enforcement agents should primarily be process servers, notifying people whose papers aren't in order either what they need to do to fix them, or when their court date is. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sham1 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'll be honest, I don't think I've ever actually heard someone give a reason why the US having open borders would be a bad thing. You are a country of immigrants, and your greatness was built upon that foundation. Yet now it's getting undone for seemingly no reason. But I hope that there would actually be one, so please enlighten me and the other commenters. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > You are a country of immigrants, and your greatness was built upon that foundation. This makes a great talking point, but those immigrants eventually assimilated into the culture, and also importantly, they were specifically allowed to come because the US needed more people in order to power its economy. The Chinese came to build the railroad, the Irish and Italians and Germans came over and worked in factories and as police and many other industries. This was badly needed 100 years ago. Today most illegal immigrants are uneducated and are either working in the unofficial economy or in service-sector jobs, which depresses wages for everyone with low education. We don't need every restaurant to have an unending stream of desperately poor would-be busboys and dishwashers, or for Uber to have a stream of poor drivers. Or for rich people to have an ample supply of housekeepers paid in cash. All that does is keep wages in the toilet for working people. But about open borders, why are so many Latin American countries such bad places to live that so many of their people want to come to the US? Open borders just means anyone can walk right in and bring all of their problems with them, not to mention their drug and human trafficking operations and the criminal gangs that operate them. We already have enough of that as it is. No Western country can stay civilized with open borders. Anyone with half a brain can see how it is going in the UK and France, where they are only a bit more "open borders" than the US has been. Thankfully for Americans, Latin-American culture is more compatible with Western culture than Islamic culture is. | |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is no defensible reason. | |
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because there is no ethical or logical argument for borders that isn’t pure bigotry and nationalism |
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then you're engaging in the black and white thinking fallacy. | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > "have no immigration enforcement and permanently halt deportations” is also unacceptable? The latter seems to be the solution being pushed by one party. What party? What makes it "seem" that way? Could you link to anyone calling for this? | | |
| ▲ | nosianu 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those using memes along the lines of "nobody is illegal" (sometimes "on stolen land" is added)? This is a movement not limited to the US. Here in Europe there is a similar movement, using that same slogan. They don't want any borders or border enforcement at all. Merely for illustration, a single example: https://abc7.com/post/protests-expected-socal-part-nationwid... > Protesters were seen carrying flags, signs and spraying graffiti on nearby property, including on the U.S. Courthouse sign where it read "No one is illegal on stolen land". | | |
| ▲ | kace91 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >"nobody is illegal" This is completely orthogonal to the conversation, but I think you misunderstood that slogan. It does not mean “immigration rules must not be enforced”. It means differentiating between a potentially illegal action (illegal entry/overstaying) and the person itself. You never talk about an illegal driver, or an illegal drinker, but people talk about illegal immigrants, with the implication that the person itself is illegal. It’s subtle but it’s a step towards dehumanizing a person, or making infractions to their rights “count less” in the public eye. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > but people talk about illegal immigrants Worse than that, we more and more often just see the term "illegals" being used, which completely removes the person from the description. |
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The protest you linked wasn't calling for completely open borders. That's also not policy of either of the main parties in the US, as was implied above. I understand "no one is illegal" to be a counter to the use of language like "illegals" to describe the humans involved. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I get that you can make the argument that they're merely making a semantic point. However, if that side of the debate actually agreed with us that these people shouldn't even be here at all, what difference does it make what we call them? If the side who wants them gone had their way, they'd be gone back home and they'd no longer be in any illegal status in any sense of the word. It only matters what we call them, if you want to keep them here forever. I think the present-day recommended term is probably just "immigrant" right? So basically we should call them the same thing we call the people who waited years for their turn and proved that they had a positive contribution to make to our society. | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The term for immigrants without papers is "undocumented immigrant". The largest group of undocumented immigrants are people who entered the country legally, and then overstayed their visas or otherwise violated their terms (usually by working on a tourist or student visa). This is a civil offense. |
| |
| ▲ | nosianu 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do you choose that single example, which I said was just that, and pretend my whole statement hinges on it? You are either misinformed, willfully ignorant or lying, and I've had it with this discussion style. Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders". Not every single one, clearly humans are diverse, but your statement is just false. Here a UK example even combining the statements (as I said, the movement is not limited to the US).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.11073215 Another example, also showing this is an older movement (2005): https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/news/2005/apr/int... ("No Borders/No One Is Illegal campaigns") | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why do you choose that single example, which I said was just that Because we're looking for people saying borders should be completely opened. An example of people saying something else is irrelevant. > Yes, people who use "no one is illegal" do also say "no more borders". Ok but the conversation is about people saying the latter. It was you who brought the former into the conversation. > Here a UK example Which British parties are active in the United States? > Another example, also showing this is an older movement The claim was that "the left" has no response to emigration issues beyond "open all borders" and that this was the policy of "one party." The existence of an anti-borders movement is again irrelevant to the questions I raised in response to this assertion. | |
| ▲ | giaour 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just because some people who say "no one is illegal" also say "no more borders," that does not automatically mean that the former implies the latter. If that were the case, we could paint everyone who agrees with Nick Fuentes on any point (including, in the extreme, "nice weather we're having today") as a antisemite. The old joke linking dietary choices to Nazism ("You know who else was a vegetarian? Hitler!") is meant to make light of this logical fallacy. The grandparent post accurately captured what I have understood people to mean by "no one is illegal" -- it is meant to protest a dehumanizing way to describe a class of people. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cassepipe 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes some leftists and anarchiste do. Do you really believe the Democrats support that motto ? Don't you guys remind us about Obama being "the deporter in chief" every time you are given the occasion ? |
|
| |
| ▲ | Paracompact 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Years ago, I would have agreed with most of what you wrote. The left, like the right, reacts with emotion and absolutism. No one is above this, so I think it is very important that we frequently assess what would actually change our minds. Given the present tide of things, however, I think there's no amount of course-correction back toward the left that would prove excessive. My opinion on this will change as soon as the tide does, and e.g. a leftist president endorses indiscriminate murder of ICE agents, or something equally egregious to what we're seeing in the opposite direction. In a more ideological sense, though, I tend to despise the left/right continuum and think it is unhelpful for analysis. | | |
| ▲ | throwawayqqq11 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > a leftist president endorses indiscriminate murder of ICE agents Comparing the rhetoric today, this might never happen. There are qualitative differences between both political geoups, so grouping them together as a single horseshoe is 'unhelpful for analysis'. That said, you cant fully rule out leftist led atrocities aswell and maybe thats the reason why the right is escalating in violent rhetoric, they want this as a self fullfilling prophecy to justify more violence. When Kirk was shot, all the "this needs to stop" commentary, as if it was an organized mass phenomenon, was sending shivers down my spine. We all know how the far right envisions stopping this 'mass' violence. |
| |
| ▲ | triceratops 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > “have no immigration enforcement and permanently halt deportations” is also unacceptable? The latter seems to be the solution being pushed by one party. Obama and Biden, famously, deported more people than Trump. And with a substantially smaller budget too. Is this "no immigration enforcement" party in the room with us right now? | |
| ▲ | schiem 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The irony of this comment is that deportations were higher under Biden than during Trump's first term, which makes it seem exactly like it was "written by teenagers, based on emotions." The administration with the highest deportation rate in the past 60 years was the 2nd Clinton administration. | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The latter seems to be the solution being pushed by one party. Is it? I'm not aware of legislation introduced by the democrats, either when they were in power or today, that proposed anything resembling this. There are individual congresspeople calling for ICE to be abolished (which is not the same as having no immigration enforcement) but leadership within the democrats is very clear that they support extremely minor reforms like making ICE agents wear masks less frequently. This is considerably more minor than disarming ICE agents, which you claim would have nationwide support. | |
| ▲ | duk3luk3 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are completely out of touch with what the immigration policy of the last democratic government (Biden 2020) was. It was aggressive, it was inhumane, and immigrants were killed despite a massive effort by people from "the left" to feed and clothe people who were detained in open fields or between two border fences without any care being provided by the US agencies detaining them. Maybe you are right that nobody who is right-leaning trusts that the US democratic party isn't pro border enforcement and anti immigration, but that's based purely on lies and propaganda. | |
| ▲ | cassepipe 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Then shouldn't you blame the party making a absolute shitshow of enforcing immigration out of incompetence and cruelty instead ? (and pressuring a state for its voters roll in the foolish attempt at meddlmeddling with the next election) If I want what I believe is a reasonable policy and the enforcers of that policy start doing the worst job ever, it is my duty to call them out, not to call out the opposing side for mostly imaginary reasons. Abolish ICE is not a unreasonable take. If the agents working in this agency have become some ultra politicized paramilitary, it makes sense to abolish it and create a new agency altogether. | |
| ▲ | saubeidl 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ICE as an institution is fundamentally evil. It's using immigration as a pretext to build an unaccountable group of thugs that disappear people into camps, murder political opponents and surveil the populace (as seen in OP). It's recruiting primarily from far-right militias, regularizing them into a paramilitary force of the regime. There is no justifiable reason to have them terrorize an entire city like they have been doing in Minneapolis. The brownshirts needed to be abolished in the 1920s, a pinky-swear they wouldn't do the thing they were designed to do wouldn't have been enough. The same applies to their modern equivalent. | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | ICE is being converted into a militia controlled by Trump. So keeping it around may be dangerous. | |
| ▲ | decremental 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | account42 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And some people will use tragedies as am argument to just stop enforcing laws at all even when those tragedies are a direct result of people trying to interfere with that enforcement and would have never have happened when people opposing the laws acted in reasonable ways. |
| |
| ▲ | runsWphotons 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When an officer has reasonable suspicion that a civilian poses a threat to his life, he can shoot them. Once police start shooting they are trained to continue shooting until the target is incapacitated. That's the law. Whether the recent shootings you saw meet that standard is up for debate. | | |
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, there's procedures to arresting someone and when they are allowed to shoot, that's all fine. But the danger is that these procedures are not being followed, and that there are no consequences to it. That people get killed is a tragedy, but that the people that killed them do not get the proper training, guidance or consequences for their action is a problem. | |
| ▲ | giaour 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Beyond the reasonable suspicion of a threat to their life, the officer must believe that: a) the threat is imminent, and b) the threat will reasonably be mitigated by the application of force. An officer cannot, for example, immediately shoot someone who plausibly promises to murder them in 36 hours. | |
| ▲ | runsWphotons 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also the officer should believe this threat is imminent. | |
| ▲ | donkeybeer 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Absolutely, likewise we should shoot ICE officers who come near us because we have strong precedent they are mentally unstable and prone to psychotic bouts of insensate violence. Since we have more than reasonable suspicion of threat to our life. | |
| ▲ | cassepipe 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure but the first was arguably unreasonable and the second one was omg are you f@##%&@ kidding me, didn't you see the video about a peppered sprayed guy on his belly on the ground then not possibly brandishing with no gun since it had just been removed from him ? It's fine to make reasonable sounding comments but for the love of God, a bit honesty wouldn't kill you. "The party told you to ignore the evidence you see with your own ears and eyes* | |
| ▲ | rcakebread 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| |
| ▲ | frumplestlatz 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | frumplestlatz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | duk3luk3 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Here's a complete refutation of your argument: Pretti did not attempt to "de-arrest" anyone at any point. Nobody, not even ICE, DHS, the White House, or the FBI has argued this. Whoever told you this made it up. You should stop listening to whoever told you that. They are lying to you about this, and everything else they have told you is a lie too. | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | superb_dev 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s so hard to believe people posting in support of ICE aren’t trolls or bots. Are you watching them commit obscene crimes in broad daylight? | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is that the 'police don't need to identify themselves and should wear face masks' or the 'you aren't allowed to film the police because it interferes with our trying to be a secret police force' laws? Or the 'you aren't doing anything illegal but the masked government agents don't like it so they are going to use your biometrics to harass you in whatever ways the feds can make your life more difficult' laws? | | |
| ▲ | frumplestlatz 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Assaulting/Impeding Officers): Prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers performing official duties. | | |
| ▲ | elnatro 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Does that law allow killing them by shooting? I suppose that officers need to detain them, read their rights, and put them in court. That’s what I thought was the core of the American Law. | | |
| ▲ | account42 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the officers involved had could reasonably believe that they posed an immediate lethal threat at the time, yes it does. Whether or not that was the case is for courts to figure out after things calm down and all facts have been gathered and not a valid reason to call for the shut down of entire agencies with the intent of stopping enforcement of laws you don't like. | | |
| ▲ | nullocator 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is the immediate lethal threat in the room with us right now? I hope no one ever accidentally believes you're an immediate lethal threat simply for existing, or at least if they do, maybe you'll be lucky enough to not have yuppies on the internet trying to defend your murder. Can the officers in any of these incidents even articulate a threat, and how the only remedy was to shoot through the driver side window, or in the back of the head? | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The presence of actual patriotic Americans who believe in individual liberty and limited government is an "imminent threat" to the agents' fantasy narrative where they're heroes doing good. Everything downstream of that is rationalization. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | donkeybeer 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Minnesota is a castle doctrine state. Minnesotans have the right to shoot at violent home invaders on their property. | |
| ▲ | cassepipe 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | under penalty of death ? | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How many convictions has ICE got under that? Seems like if it's really happening, they would have a ton. But wait, they keep losing their cases. Doesn't address ICE saying on the street they are adding people using biometrics to a database for targeted federal harassment (without any conviction violating the Constitution, if you are, you know, concerned about our nation's HIGHEST laws). Does address ICE using and normalizing secret police tactics of hiding their identities for routine, daily enforcement operations. Doesn't address claiming administrative warrants (able to be issued on the spot by ICE agents Judge Dred style) have the same power as actual Article III judge issued criminal warrants. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jamboca 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | i want to comment something violently hateful towards you. but at this point I feel bad for people like you. indeed you are already living out some twisted arc of the karmic cycle which results in your life and making this comment. i hope you find help eventually and i wish peace for you. | | |
| ▲ | frumplestlatz 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you believe I’m wrong, articulate why. Moral posturing doesn’t resolve disagreements; it escalates them. [edit] Only one of us seems to be emotionally dysregulated to the point of "living in hell". You're awfully full of invective for someone that doesn't care. As for escalation, perhaps look to officer-involved shootings that were totally unnecessary and whose entire proximate cause was the same kind of hysteria-driven emotional dysregulation you're exhibiting here. I'm getting what I voted for, and to be honest, it's a breath of fresh air. There are adults running the country again, not emotional children, and I genuinely couldn't be happier. | | |
| ▲ | jamboca 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | firstly i dont dont care about you or what you have to think. second escalation is meaningless Lol what is this a boxing gym? we’re on an internet forum put simply ice is a violent private militia. and people like you won’t see it until they are knocking at your door. or never. goes back to my first point. you are already living in hell nvm this has to be bait Bye |
|
| |
| ▲ | BoredPositron 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you think enforcing the laws is the problem you are ignorant. | |
| ▲ | mindslight 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And yet many more of us care about the centuries-old laws that ICE is violating. | |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hurrah for the Blackshirts |
|
